Abstract

The notion of human rights is a long and historical journey. When we hear the term “human rights”, often what comes to our minds is the scenes from the news about unwarranted physical violence, wanton disregard for the rights of others at the hands of government authorities, or other images that we tend to associate with human rights violations. But let us stop and ponder. Does the term “human rights” mean a valid and universal term, or is the term just a word concocted by Western culture?

Human rights: A definition

            Human rights can be defined as fundamental moral guarantees that individuals in all nations and states possess simply on the basis that they are people (Andrew Fagan, 2006). On this basis, by terming these guarantees “rights”, they are bestowed on entities that can invoke or use these guarantees (Fagan, 2006). The term “right” also implies that these guarantees can be and should observed in a mandatory manner, rather than in a discretionary manner (Fagan, 2006). The universality of these rights implies that these rights should be enjoyed by people simply because they possess them, regardless of the country or group that they belong to (Fagan, 2006).

There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay.
Tell us what you need to have done now!


order now

            The human rights doctrine is derived from a particular claim in philosophy (Fagan, 2006). The basis lies in the existence of a logical, rational, and identifiable order of things (Fagan, 2006).  It is an order that supersedes any historical or social status applying to all humans in any and all instances (Fagan, 2006). The fundamental goal of human rights is to identify the basic requirements for an individual to have the minimum requirements to live an acceptable way of living (Fagan, 2006).

Human rights: A brief history

            All humans have to be afforded human rights, even the basic ones. The concept of human rights is basically a novel idea (Paul Conway, 2001), but not an old one (Conway, 2001). A political concept at best, it wasn’t a topic for discussion in international forums (Conway, 2001). The first introduction of the term human rights may be found in the United Nations’ charter’s preamble drafted a little over five decades ago (Conway, 2001). In its own way, the United Nations pledged to actively promote human rights basing on the context that seem contradictory to its stated purpose (Conway, 2001).

            The organization was grounded on the following guideline- that it considers all member states as sovereign (Conway, 2001). But the United Nations just does the exact opposite in meddling in the internal affairs of its member nations (Conway, 2001). The action of the world body does not have any sound legal basis, and this goes for any other international organization (Conway, 2001). This also is in conflict with the concept of immunity of world leaders from criminal prosecution, even for the most heinous crimes that these have done in their own lands (Conway, 2001).

            The Nuremberg Trials, after the Second World War, afforded the world with the prosecution of the most barbaric members of the Nazi war machine (Conway, 2001). The trials founded the principle that people who have done “crimes against humanity” were accountable and could be punished for their acts (Conway, 2001). Even if they were acting only as they were ordered, they could still be punished for their actions (Conway, 2001). As the United States helped steer the United Nations, the world body crafted a Genocide Convention, making any mass killing of people on the basis of their national, race, religion as an act against humanity (Conway, 2001).

            With the drafting of the Convention, it was the UN’s hope that this would help stop any future incidents of mass murders or genocide by setting forth a legal framework that would guide the prosecution of any individual who might think of proceeding with policies with a genocidal intent (Conway, 2001). This was in anticipation for the creation of an international legal entity for the purpose of trying, prosecuting and, if evidences warrants, convicting these individuals (Conway, 2001). After the document was finally written, the document was completely forgotten, with the United States refusing to sign the document, ironically the country that helped frame the convention (Conway, 2001).

            Yet, there was another document that was crafted in the post war years in the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Conway, 2001). Adopted by the world body on the 10th of December 1948, it was a marking of a new political, moral and cultural chapter in the modern world’s history (Leadership University, 1998). The document served as an affirmation of the dignity of the human being, and sought to secure that dignity and specified a number of freedoms and rights that were needed and deemed essential to that dignity (Leadership, 1998). In 1948, one totalitarian threat was defeated, but the threats to human rights still were very much existent (Leadership, 1998).

Discussion of the rights of humans

            The idea or concept of human rights since its inception in the middle of the 20th century and onward may be characterised by an odd double character (Euan Macdonald, 2004). On one hand, stands the enormity and language used to convey the message of the declaration (Macdonald, 2004). For example, the acceptance of the International Bill of Rights seems to convey a unity on what constitutes moral issues (Macdonald, 2004). The concept of human rights has gained a centrality, if you will, on the level of our thinking that it is accepted as difficult to alternate it with any other word or concept (Macdonald, 2004).

            On the other hand, even as human rights have began to gain this acceptability, even reaching the status of what is called “universality”, the same enthusiasm attached to the acceptance cannot be equated with the efforts to create a basis in theory to support the seeming unity (Macdonald, 2004). In reality, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has come under intense fire (Macdonald, 2004). The idea that humans possess universal human rights is being challenged by several sectors (Macdonald, 2004). The increasing opinion that human rights are universal has been attacked from some sectors in the other parts of the globe (Shashi Tharoor, 1998).

            The concept that human rights considered as universal would negate the differing cultural, economic and political factors currently at play in the world (Tharoor, 1998). For example, can the values for a consumer-oriented society be equated with one that is nothing in terms of consumption (Tharoor, 1998)? In more particular terms, if a man is donned in his traditional clothes to stop him from assaulting his wife, whose human rights are protected, his or hers (Tharoor, 1998)? But the United Nations goes against the notion that wealth or material luxury does not excuse a nation from upholding human rights (Advancing Science, Serving Society).

            The ideas that different cultures have the choice to practice their version of human rights have become prevalent in some areas (Scott Philosophy). In short, each culture will exercise their own set of human rights as they see fit (Scott Philosophy). The question is, will the application of these human rights differ if the location is different? Another way of saying it would be, if the country is different, say in Saudi Arabia, will the application of these human rights be different if they are applied in the United States?

            But what could be reason for the denial of the rights of women in Saudi Arabia who aren’t allowed to drive (Ann & John Cinnamon, 2008). Or what could be the reason why political activists are incarcerated in a Cuban penal facility. How do we reason why a Chinese citizen has limited Internet access to research the term “democracy” (Cinnamon, 2008). So does geography have an effect on the exercise of human rights?

            Maybe the reason has to do with cultural examples rather than location (Scott Philosophy). Because each state has evolved differently in terms of society’s norms, then it would be evident that these norms govern the society’s action as to human rights (Scott Philosophy). But in the exercise of the cultural relativity, or putting into the culture’s context of human rights, there would be dilemmas that both universal human rights and cultural relativism would encounter (Scott Philosophy). Let’s discuss these problems as how they relate to human rights (Scott Philosophy).

            In every part of the world, certain societies operate differently than other societies (Scott Philosophy). The premise that if all societies would operate in the same way, as in parallel customs and cultural patterns, then the concept of human rights would be easier to dictate (Scott Philosophy). For example, should China end its policy of one-child per family, the result would be overpopulation in the country. If Egypt would all of a sudden practice divorce, many spouses would avail of the policy, thus ruining the family integral to Islamic life (Scott Philosophy).

            On the flip side, if all workers in the United States were entitled to the “Equal pay for equal work” clause, then the capitalist system would fail and give way to a large-scale depression (Scott Philosophy). These seeming transgressions against human rights are justified in the perspective of maintaining order (Scott Philosophy). In history, the Pope’s tyrannical reign in Europe was helpful in keeping the Muslims at bay (Scott Philosophy). But to equate history’s definition of human rights with today’s context would not be correct (Scott Philosophy).

            Nations meet certain needs at different times in their history (Scott Philosophy). Those needs are met by that culture in its own way (Scott Philosophy). Therefore, to say that one declaration of human rights will meet those needs would be wrong (Scott Philosophy). But if universal human rights is flawed, then what about the relativity of culture and how does it affect human rights? What are its problems?

            The problem of relativity has to do with the concept of being right or wrong (Scott Philosophy). If we are to cite some examples, some of them we in the “civilized” world would consider barbaric. Some cultures publicly advocate stoning women for the crime of adultery, sawing off a girl’s private parts, or even incarcerating political opponents to have stability in the political realm (Scott Philosophy). But in the everyday affairs of the world, there are things that must be inviolable (Scott Philosophy). Some examples would be the right of the people to choose their own form of government (Scott Philosophy).

            Others would include the freedom from persecution. Another would be for unhindered travel. Healthcare and education rights must be respected (Scott Philosophy). But sadly, some cultures still practice traditions and cultural norms from the past (Leadership, 1998). In some areas, humans are still placed in economic, political or other categories (Leadership, 1998). Some place the respect of one’s rights as congruent on an individuals’ race, the color of the person’s skin, sex, language, social status, ethnic origin, religion, among other factors (Leadership, 1998).

            The debate surrounding human rights is centered on the claim that the concept of universal human rights does not exist (Tharoor, 1998). This assertion maintains that the concept of human rights is dependent on the culture (Tharoor, 1998). Since there is no universal bar of culture, hence, as the claim goes, there can be no claim of universal human rights (Tharoor, 1998). Some philosophers even disagree with the idea of universal human rights, saying that the idea of a universal human rights agenda is mainly based on a need of the individual to be free from the state’s interference (Tharoor, 1998).

            Some Asian states contend that the concept of human rights as written in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights are those that are advocated by Western countries, thus cannot be applicable to the Asian and Third World nations because of cultural differences, aside from other differences (Stephen McCarthy, 2001). One of a number of damaging claims is that human rights is nothing more than a Western idea, that these were made to satisfy certain agendas that serve as a cloak to hide old imperialist colonial interests (Conor Gearty). The premise is that the current idea of human rights is just the imposition on humanity of a new way of thinking that is alien to the realities, culturally that is, and is being forced upon us (Conor Gearty).

            But the universality of human rights is an indispensable truth (Leadership, 1998). The attacks on the theoretical aspect of the universality of these rights are being waged by individuals who deny the nature of humans as universal, even taking to task the nature of the human (Leadership, 1998). To them, there is no such entity that can be labelled as “the truth” (Leadership, 1998). But in the first part of the Declaration, it states the truth that all, not some, are born with an innate dignity, possessing inalienable rights as members of the human  group, that these rights are the base of the freedom, justice and peace in the world (Leadership, 1998).

            These truths must be the sole basis for the affirmation of the Declaration (Leadership, 1998). The concept of human rights is grounded on a universal morality and in the assent of a moral, universal aggregation of humans (Fagan, 2006). Thus it can be stated that even in the conceptualization of human rights is bound by cultural history, no single culture can claim sole ownership, nor does this imply that the universality of human rights is an imposition on the culture of another (Fagan, 2006). The concept of multiculturalism that goes against this declaration of the universality of human rights as only a Western imposition, in essence, denies the reality of the community of humans (Fagan, 2006).

Who defines what human rights are?

            In many parts of the globe, there are differing schools of thought on what constitutes human rights. In some cultures, humans are not given rights as some are afforded in Western cultures (Tharoor, 1998). Some opponents of the concept of the universality of human rights state that in Confucian and Vedic conventions, people are given duties instead of human rights (Tharoor, 1998). On the African continent, the community is responsible for the care and protection of the person (Tharoor, 1998). A number of Africans have contended their complex hierarchy of entitlements in the community and responsibilities center around what people might title the “Four R’s”, respect, but no rights, restraint, responsibility, and restraint (Tharoor, 1998).

            The Africans have always maintained that the rights of the societal groups have consistently been more important than individual rights, and decisions political in nature have been arrived at during meetings, not through the invocation of human rights (Tharoor, 1998). These cultural deviations do have functional implications. A number in developing countries simply argue that some of the human rights being espoused are not practical or have no relevancy to their societies (Tharoor, 1998). Some of the rights they enumerate as somewhat non-relevant include the right to a politically plural society, paid leaves, and women’s rights  (Tharoor, 1998).

Under the cover of a new colonial imperialism?

            It is not that they are not able to provide these rights to their people, but they see them as pressure for them to adopt Western values that are at best alien and foreign to their cultures  (Tharoor, 1998). Some of these countries even equate the imposition of this “universal” human rights doctrine as an attempt at military or forced occupation and an invasion (Conor Gearty). Let’s focus on some of these rights that seem to produce contentious issues in developing nations. Let’s take for example for our discussion the rights of equal treatment and of religious freedom.

            In many cultures, the case calling for the equality of the sexes remains a thorny issue (Tharoor, 1998). They say that the application of the universal women’s rights, in the face of divergent cultural norms, cannot be even considered (Tharoor, 1998). For example, in contracting a marriage, the event is not considered as an agreement between two consenting individuals, but as a covenant to forge a pact between clan and family lines, and the allowable conduct of women is essential to their perception as being honorable (Tharoor, 1998)? In a case of adultery, the Taliban ordered that a woman be stoned to death in public, with the crowd giving a boisterous consent of approval (Thomas Franck, 2001). In another case, the British House of Lords, Great Britain’s highest court, gave two Pakistani women asylum in the United Kingdom, since the crime they have been accused of, adultery, will mean that they will be flogged (Franck, 2001).

            Issues of tradition and norms cannot be separated from religious issues (Tharoor, 1998). For the religious authorities, the universality of a thing cannot exist if it is not founded on values where God is not present or approved by authorities of various beliefs (Tharoor, 1998). They claim the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the primary policy paper of the human rights group, cannot claim to this standard (Tharoor, 1998). Religion basically asserts that a human being is not an isolated, independent individual but is part and parcel of a community (Leadership, 1998).

            But still others cling on to the notion that the imposition for the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is just really a mask for the West to intervene, or more specifically interfere, in the internal affairs of developing states, and the use of the human rights issue is just an instrumentality of a new wave of Western colonialist initiatives (Tharoor, 1998). These opponents claim that they simply cannot afford human rights (Tharoor, 1998). The practice of authoritarianism, or dictatorships, is for their more preferred mode as they find the practice more efficient (Tharoor, 1998). This is the core of the argument for the so-called “Asian values”, the tenets of which include obedience, respect for law and order (Tharoor, 1998). These traits they attribute to the success of the Asian economic juggernaut (Tharoor, 1998).

In defense

            Many nations tend to raise a howl when they are being muscled into this frame of being made to adopt something as alien as human rights. But going back to their case, that they are simply too poor in adopting this “universal” rights doctrine, the United Nations has ruled that no state is too destitute to implement human rights policies (AAAS). To say that a country is poor to implement human rights policies is a poor alibi for the country not to afford its citizens even the most basic rights, such as adequate health care, food, educational opportunities and housing facilities (AAAS). Though the pact does recognize that less developed states will take longer in the implementation of the articles in the pact, it nonetheless requires that these countries assure their citizens of the best rights as stated in the pact that the country’s resources will allow (AAAS).

Human Rights: A mask or a right?

            The debate centers whether universal human rights should be held as inviolable, or is it just another instrument of colonialism employed by the West. One stand is that rights, as defined in the UN Declaration, are universal nature, that boundaries, physical and otherwise, should not prove to be a hindrance to it enjoyment. The other states that some of these rights constitute an infringement on their right to practice their culture. A balance must be struck then with the initiative for countries to adopt some of the tenets of the Declaration, while laying the foundation that their rights and cultures that they deem important to their norms be respected. Only then can the world at peace seems become more of reality rather than just a dream.

References

Advancing Science, Serving Society. (n.d.). Promoting and defending economic, social and         cultural rights. Retrieved August 12, 2008, from

            http://shr.aaas.org/escr/handbook/chap05.htm

Cinnamon, A., Cinnamon J. (2008). Human rights are universal, not a matter of geography.         The Indianapolis Star

            http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?            AID=/20080807/OPINION01/808070343/1002/OPINION

Conway, P. (2001). Human rights politics in perspective. July 15, 2001. Retrieved August 12,      2008, from

            http://www.uuso.org/sermons/s010715.htm

Fagan, A. (2006). Human rights. Retrieved August 12, 2008, from

            http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/h/hum-rts.htm#H1

Franck, T. M. (2001). Are human rights universal? Foreign Affairs January/February 2001

            http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20010101faessay4253/thomas-m-franck/are-human-            rights-universal.html

Gearty, C. (n.d.). Are human rights truly universal? Retrieved August 12, 2008, from

            http://www.conorgearty.co.uk/pdfs/Chapter_29_UniversalityFINAL.pdf.

Leadership University. (n.d.). On human rights. Retrieved August 12, 2008, from

            http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9804/articles/ramsey.html

Macdonald, E. (2004). The future of human rights? German Law Journal Volume number 8        August 1 2004

            http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=484

McCarthy, S. (n.d.). Why the Dalai Lama should read Aristotle. Retrieved August 12, 2008,        from

            http://www.buddhistethics.org/8/mccarthy001.pdf.

Scott Philosophy. (n.d.). Universal human rights vs. cultural relativism. Retrieved August 12,       2008, from

            http://www.xanga.com/scottphilosophy/152680975/item.html

Tharoor, S. (1998). Are human rights universal? World Policy Journal Volume 14, number 4

            http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/tharoor.html

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *