Since its adoption in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, herein Declaration) has acquired the status of ‘customary international law’. Despite its critical acclaim, however, critics propose that the Declaration ultimately is inept in dealing with complex modern human rights issues. This is because (1) The document does not equally account for the human rights concerns of all peoples; and (2) It lacks a comprehensive scheme as to suggest how its provisions should be adapted by member states. As a consequence, critics believe that a re-examination of the Declaration is in order. In relation to this allegation, this paper will concede that certain complex modern human rights issues may be beyond the scope of this Declaration. In its Preamble, the Declaration claims to be a “common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations”. However, considering the origins of the human rights movement and the events contributing significantly to the drafting of this document, it can be read as only prioritising the human rights concerns of democratic nations of the time. A proponent of this thesis may well advance the cases of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision. The point, the proponent reiterates is that within the Declaration, although not explicitly stated, there is this preconception of ‘culture’ as the antichrist of modernity. Given this, the Declaration is inadequate to dealing with complex human rights issues as it is insensitive to a multitude of cultures, and therefore needs ‘Historical priority doesn’t confer moral superiority’ (Ignatieff, M 1999, p. 22). The Declaration’s function is not to universalise European values but to put certain of atrocities, as endured throughout history, under eternal ban. Non-Western foes of human rights take proclamations of ‘universality’ as an example of Western arrogance and insensitivity. But universality properly means consistency: the West is obliged to practice what is preaches. This puts the West, no less than the rest of the world, on permanent trial. Genuinely ‘universal’ human rights regimes might well arraign that male circumcision enacted by certain democratic nations is no less in violation of human rights than FGM. Therefore, the Declaration does not warrant a
I argue that female genital mutilation (FGM) should not be covered under the universal code of ethics when dealing with cultural tolerance, parents should not be able to make harmful decisions for their children, and doctors are under no obligation to perform such rituals to conform to the beliefs and traditions of their patients such as in cases of
How much more do we need to do before we start responding to these legacies? Works Cited United Human Rights Council. United Human Rights Council. N.p., n.d. Web. The Web.
After the initial remarks, the author presents the four myths by setting out the works of several scholars. Marks identifies the first myth as “The Myth of Presumptive Universality”. She presents Joseph Raz’s views that we have human rights not because we are human, but because those rights simply exist. Raz also claims that the rights that we have adopted are biased and do not respect the cultural diversity of the world. The scholar claims that if rights were truly universal then we should’ve had a higher
The French Revolution was a tumultuous period, with France exhibiting a more fractured social structure than the United States. In response, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen proposed that “ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities, and of the corruption of governments” (National Assembly). This language indicates that the document, like its counterpart in the United States, sought to state the rights of men explicitly, so no doubt existed as to the nature of these rights. As France was the center of the Enlightenment, so the Enlightenment ideals of individuality and deism are clearly expressed in the language of the document. The National Assembly stated its case “in
Every day, people are denied basic necessary human rights. One well known event that striped millions of these rights was the Holocaust, recounted in Elie Wiesel’s memoir, Night. As a result of the atrocities that occur all around the world, organizations have published declarations such as the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights. It is vital that the entitlement to all rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind, freedom of thought and religion, and the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being of themselves be guaranteed to everyone, as these three rights are crucial to the survival of all people and their identity.
The issue of human rights has arisen only in the post-cold war whereby it was addressed by an international institution that is the United Nation. In the United Nation’s preamble stated that human rights are given to all humans and that there is equality for everyone. There will not be any sovereign states to diminish its people from taking these rights. The globalization of capitalism after the Cold War makes the issue of human rights seems admirable as there were sufferings in other parts of the world. This is because it is perceived that the western states are the champion of democracy which therefore provides a perfect body to carry out human rights activities. Such human sufferings occur in a sovereign state humanitarian intervention led by the international institution will be carried out to end the menace.
Since the Renaissance of the 15th century, societal views have evolved drastically. One of the largest changes has been the realization of individualism, along with the recognition of inalienable human rights.(UDHR, A.1) This means that all humans are equal, free, and capable of thought; as such, the rights of one individual cannot infringe on another’s at risk of de-humanizing the infringed upon. The fact that humans have a set of natural rights is not contested in society today; the idea of human rights is a societal construction based on normative ethical codes. Human rights are defined from the hegemonic standpoint, using normative ethical values and their application to the interactions of individuals with each other and state bodies. Human rights laws are legislature put in place by the governing body to regulate these interactions.
Importantly, the crux of this question mainly lies on a critical analysis on Harris’s statement on the application margin of appreciation under Art.2. and Art. 8 of European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as ‘ECHR’). In examining Harris’s statement , it simply denotes that the application of the convention may often be varied because of the absence of consensus probably due to cultural relativism or pluralism. It has been propounded that human rights is universal , but it is inevitable for each country to adopt different practices and perception.
On August 26, 1789, the assembly issued the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen.” Through judicial matters, this document was written in order to secure due process and to create self-government among the French citizens. This document offered to the world and especially to the French citizens a summary of the morals and values of the Revolution, while in turn justifying the destruction of a government; especially in this case the French government, based upon autocracy of the ruler and advantage. The formation of a new government based upon the indisputable rights of the individuals of France through liberty and political uniformity.
There is such a thing as universality of human rights that is different from cultural relativism, humanity comes before culture and traditions. People are humans first and belong to cultures second (Collaway, Harrelson-Stephens, 2007 p.109), this universality needs to take priority over any cultural views, and any state sovereignty over its residing citizens.
Rights have been and continue to be violated across the world on both massive and miniscule scales. With rights violations being a constant issue, it is necessary, although it may be difficult, to determine which violations are human rights violations. Two aspects are crucial in this process: universality and paramountcy. Although practicability is also set forth as a criterion by Maurice Cranston, it is not as crucial when determining which acts violate human rights, or when they came into existence. This is due to the fact that when trying to distinguish between rights and human rights, almost all rights, not just specifically human rights, can, in some way, be practicable. For this reason, practicability, for the purpose of this essay, is
On December 10th in 1948, the general assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, although not legally binding, created “a common standard of achievement of all people and all nations…to promote respect for those rights and freedoms” (Goodhart, 379). However, many cultures assert that the human rights policies outlined in the declaration undermine cultural beliefs and practices. This assertion makes the search for universal human rights very difficult to achieve. I would like to focus on articles 3, 14 and 25 to address how these articles could be modified to incorporate cultural differences, without completely undermining the search for human rights practices.
The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background information while supporting my hypothesis that human rights should be based on particular cultural values and finally drawing a conclusion.
The one question people ask themselves when thinking of female circumcision is, “is this a human rights issue?” and “how do we end this practice?”. The debate of whether female circumcision is mutilation and therefore abuse comes up right along with the topic of female circumcision. The fact that this act is
The role that globalization plays in spreading and promoting human rights and democracy is a subject that is capable spurring great debate. Human rights are to be seen as the standards that gives any human walking the earth regardless of any differences equal privileges. The United Nations goes a step further and defines human rights as,