UNIVERSALITY Debate on whether human rights are universal or not has been going on since adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights more than six decades ago and is set to go on for as long as different schools of thought on the matter exist. While on one hand there is a growing consensus that human rights are universal on the other exist critics who fiercely oppose the idea. Of the many questions posed by critics revolve around the world’s pluri-cultural and multipolarity nature and whether anything in such a situation can be really universal. The only agreement reached so far by both sides is that human rights are the rights of the human in society. That’s why every state all over the world at one point observes if not all of them then at least some human rights. Proponents of human rights argue that the concept’s universality rests in its non-discriminatory character- human rights are meant for every human being- rich and poor, white and black, men and women, young and old, leaders and followers, elites and illiterate, etc- and are all treated equally. In her article ‘From Citizenship to Human Rights: The Stakes for Democracy’ Tambakaki notes that apart from playing a political role, human rights are in principal moral and legal rights. Like moral norms they refer to every creature that bears a human face while as legal norms they protect individual persons in a particular legal community (pp9). For Habermas they (human rights) are rights of a legal nature, endowed with an extrapositive validity which he says is a projection of the universality of their scope and addressed equally to all human beings – citizens and non citizens of a certain state (Ferrara pp 396). We will come later on Harbemas’ last part of... ... middle of paper ... ... concern and where there are severe violations, intervene to protect the lives of the victims. It is therefore no longer is it credible for a state to turn its back on international law, alleging a bias towards European values and influence. All that humankind now requires to bring about the elusive, but eternal, dream of perpetual peace is a global citizenship based on a strong commitment to principles of equity and democracy grounded in civil society. The challenge that lies ahead probably is the need to work towards indigenization of human rights, and ensure their assertion within each country's traditions and history. The 1993 Vienna Convention on Human Rights speaks on the need to consider the importance of national and regional details as well as various cultural, historical and religious backgrounds when thinking about human rights. =====================
Moyn sees human rights as a concept that emerged in the 1940 after the UDHR and developed, as we know it today in the mid-70s with the worldwide implementation of human rights into the political agenda. In his book, “The Last Utopia”, Moyn argues that the movement for human rights succeeded because it managed to de-politicize itself. He calls it “last utopia” because it “evokes a vision of ‘another, better world’” and it displaced other utopian regimes (communism). However, Moyn claims that in recent times human rights have become a mediator in political disputes and have lost their non-political
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.
Jack Donnelly, Alison D. Renteln, and Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim all have different opinions when it comes to human rights and the exact way we should go about discussing human rights. The debate between the scholars and me come from the debate between the two principles of Liberal Universalism and Cultural Relativism. In my own opinion, I believe that it discussing human rights has to involve both theories and a cross-cultural discussion between us all so that we can come to an agreement when looking for a solution in certain cases.
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.
In the simplest of terms, human rights are those that undoubtedly belong to each person. These rights, from a philosophical standpoint, have certain characteristics that distinguish them from any other. According to Richard Wasserstrom, author of the article, "Rights, Human Rights, and Racial Discrimination," human rights embody several characteristics. Primarily, and perhaps obviously, human rights are those that belong solely to humans (Wasserstrom 631). Moreover, Wasserstrom...
John Tasioulas introduces the idea that human rights are explained by the morals that humans possess through understanding of human dignity. He explains that are three connections that human dignity has to human rights. The first connection presented is that human dignity and rights are rarely distinguished between due to having virtually the same standards in regards to them. The second that dignity is a starting point in moral grounds that human rights build off of. And last, that the idea that human rights are justified by dignity, saying dignity is the ideal basis for human rights. Tasioulas chooses to focus on the last point, that it is our morals that bring about human rights and that our morals come from humans having dignity. The key thing being that human dignity is something that all possess by simply being human beings there is no merit in achievement or by what legislation or social position can give us.
Universalism is sought out to also coincide with human rights because they both believe in the same values of each individual. In the article Human Rights Debate: Universalism Versus Relativism it states “Many scholars see human rights as a universal phenomenon, and they regard them as the means to a greater social end: they are, they believe, fundamental and common to all societies.
Ideally, human rights would be universal. In an ideal world, everyone would have similar moral beliefs which would be reflected through our laws. However, this is not our reality. In reality, each nation’s moral beliefs and interpretation of the UDHR differs from the next. Furthermore, each nation prioritizes the rights stated in the UDHR differently. Because of these differences, the interpretive nature of the UDHR becomes the declaration’s ultimate flaw. Such a flaw manifests itself through numerous disputes between nations over interpretations of the UDHR, UDHR
Throughout history, people’s human rights have been violated, but efforts have also been made to address the violations, and protect their rights. Human rights are rights as regarded belonging to all people. Today we are all entitled to the same rights. In a sense, we are all equal.
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.
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 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,
Over the last few decades, the protection of human rights has increased significantly and becomes the most challenge for the organizations of human rights. It occupies not only the specialist but a public as a whole public all over the world. The United Nation defined the human rights as ’’rights underlying to all human beings, regardless of place of residence, sex, our nationality or ethnic origin, , religion, colour language, or any other status. people are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible .