Since its adoption in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, hereinafter Declaration) has acquired the status of “customary international law”. Despite its favorable reception, however, critics argue that the Declaration is ultimately incapable of addressing complex and modern human rights issues. Indeed, (1) the document does not equally take into account the human rights concerns of all people; and (2) it lacks a comprehensive system suggesting how its provisions should be adapted by Member States. As a result, critics say a re-examination of the Declaration is necessary. In relation to this claim, this document will recognize that some complex and modern human rights issues may be beyond the scope of this Declaration. In its preamble, the Declaration claims to be a “common standard to be achieved by all people and all nations”. However, given the origins of the human rights movement and the events that contributed significantly to the drafting of this document, it can be interpreted as simply prioritizing human rights concerns. man of the democratic nations of the time. Proponents of this thesis could well advance the cases of female genital mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision. The important point, reiterates its promoter, is that within the Declaration, although not explicitly stated, there is this preconceived conception of “culture” as the antichrist of modernity. Under these conditions, the Declaration is inadequate to address complex human rights issues because it is insensitive to a multitude of cultures and therefore requires “Historical priority does not confer moral superiority” (Ignatieff, M 1999, p 22). The function of the Declaration is not to universalize European values ​​but to place under eternal ban certain atrocities endured throughout history. Non-Western enemies of human rights take proclamations of “universality” as an example of Western arrogance and insensitivity. But universality strictly speaking means consistency: the West is obliged to practice what it preaches. This puts the West, as much as the rest of the world, in a permanent test. Truly “universal” human rights regimes may well denounce male circumcision promulgated by some democratic countries as a violation of human rights on par with FGM. Therefore, the Declaration does not guarantee