International Human Rights Apply Equally, Despite Cultural Differences - Essay Example

?Running head: International human rights International human rights apply equally, despite cultural differences Introduction The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights basically recognizes the dignity and the equal rights of all members of the family. This declaration also emphasizes the international human rights as common standards in the promotion of the rights and freedoms of all nations and all peoples1. In some circles, international human rights seem to apply lopsidedly – favoring some cultures and some people more than others. For which reason, issues on unequal treatment and on the failure to respect owed to other peoples’ rights seem to be major issues in the domestic and international scene. This paper shall critically discuss the following statement: international human rights apply equally, despite cultural differences. This statement shall consider the different human rights as declared by the United Nations; it shall also discuss the different human rights which are available to every individual in the world and the particular applications of these rights. It shall consider situations and cases which portray the applications which help establish support for the protection of international human rights. Discussion International human rights Based on the UN Declaration of Human Rights, all humans “are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”2. Article Two also discusses that all people are permitted the enjoyment of all rights and freedoms indicated in the Declaration, regardless of race, color, sex, language religion, political opinion, national or social origin, birth and other status3. The human rights specified by the UN Declaration of Human Rights include the following: the right to life, liberty, and security of person; freedom from slavery or servitude and slave trade; from being subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of punishment; to be recognized as a person before the law; freedom from discrimination; entitlement to equal protection under the law; right to effective remedy for violations of fundamental rights; freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile; right to a fair and public hearing by an impartial tribunal; to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise; freedom from arbitrary interference with his family or home; freedom from attacks on his honor and reputation; freedom of movement and residence within the borders of his country; freedom to leave and return to his country; freedom to seek asylum and to flee persecution; right to a nationality4. Article 16 also emphasizes that men and women of legal age who have no limitations to marry have the right to marry and start a family; to own property and to associate with others; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of opinion and expression; peaceful assembly and association; to choose government officials; to access public services; to social security; to choose their work and to enjoy just and favorable work conditions, including equal pay for equal work; to rest and leisure; right to a standard of living sufficient for his health and well being (food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and social services); to education; to freely participate in the cultural life of the community; and to social and international order where rights can be realized. These rights are also in line with a person’s duties in the community. These rights are subject to limitations as determined by law and in line with the recognition of the rights of others and of ensuring morality, public order, and general welfare5. In effect, these rights are not absolute and they still have to be evaluated in terms of their impact on public order and morality. Universality of human rights Human rights, as discussed by some circles are said to be endowed to individuals by the mere reason of being human6. Rights are means by which members of society participate in the activities in society. These rights are expressions of societal values combined with religious and legal principles which consider societal justice within the scenario of struggles against oppression and inequity7. Rights cannot be considered separately from humans because they are part and parcel of the holistic vision of participation in human activities. These rights are already enumerated above and these affect the intimate and national relationships of humans with each other, including global relations which impact on human activities8. Rights consider liberties which make humans seem selfish and self-oriented. However, they also take into consideration the duties which ensure that these freedoms have more basic expressions. In finding the efficacious balance between selfish interests and bigger community and civic interests, there is a need to consider the legal and political precedents which govern the territories, as well as the implications of the issues on morality and on public order and safety. There are two main opposing visions on human rights. The first vision suggests a universal and absolute moral structure which covers all areas of culture and civil society9. In this vision, no one is exempt. In the general view, there is an unchangeable basic quality of humanity which endows unchangeable demands on a person10. Such rights also cover the rights of states to implement legal provisions which may not sit well with universal rights principles. In this case, universality is founded on a basic respect for differential forms of humanity and is not to be interchanged with uniform plurality; all individuals share a basic respect for life, which therefore often covers respect for the diversity of life11. The second view of human rights provides a more relative perception of these rights. It suggests that the value of a right changes according to context, and from culture to culture. This view would basically set forth that human rights may vary with each culture and may be based on the context upon which they are understood12. There are two positions taken on human rights. First, human rights may be considered universal. This outlook ensures the protection of the independent individual at the core – such individual being an independent entity. It then follows that such is the exclusive outlook for human rights. In effect, a person has to follow these rights or not and such rights carry a degree of finality13. Second, these rights are also culturally relative. In this viewpoint, each culture has its own understanding of human rights. These rights can only exist by returning to basic cultural practices, not to the considerations given to western practices. Each and every culture must therefore look at his own practice and come up with his own understanding of what is right. Applying the universality concept of rights is considered cultural imperialism. In effect, such are representations of extreme universality14. Each position then needs to make its position clear by dethroning the other position. In universality, talking about culture brings forth dangers to human rights as they allow cultures with dangerous practices to be mixed in with other rights15. A dangerous claim about human rights is that it is the sole possession and claim of the western nations. However, such conception is very much wrong and even dangerous to concretize. Nevertheless, it is apt to consider that the development of human rights is very much linked to the history of the West through the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle and the the Romans through Cicero16. The list of human rights is a common theme to the process of civilization and statehood. The critique and evaluation of human rights seen in the 19th century is an issue seen within the intellectual culture. These are the works of Bentham, Burke, and Marx, not scholars and thinkers or activists from the west17. The principles of human rights are clearly narrow in focus. The development of the objective right were manifested in the intellectual activities of the dominant government of the early medieval era. And the close interaction between writers and the centers of power has had heavy influences on the people. Since the end of the Second World War, there were different means and measures established in order to secure human rights18. One of these measures was the establishment of the United Nations. Such instruments have conceptualized common standards for human rights and the different member states of the UN have been encouraged to respect these rights and secure the protection of these rights in different parts of the globe19. Outside this trend, there were different areas of resistance seen in various parts of the world where the human rights are only seen as a western right or norm. In the Cold War era, the Soviet bloc linked such rights to capitalism, and the younger and more independent states saw human rights as a threat to their sovereignty20. These two sides supported their claims. The basic worth and dignity of human beings is based on John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Locke claims that all humans are created equal, free, and independent; therefore freedom and equality must be ensured for such rights21. Rousseau emphasizes on the freedom of all people and how men should never give up on their freedom. He states that men who dismiss their freedom also dismiss their quality as human beings22. Soon after many wars were declared, various actions which sought to introduce the precepts of equality and freedom for the citizens of each nation were introduced in England, France, and the US. Only with the establishment of the United Nations did the need to safeguard the rights of all humans was formally recognized and subsequently put in writing. The UN Charter set forth the initial foundations of human rights which all nations and citizens of the world were enjoined to follow and protect. The Preamble stated that the purpose of the UN is to secure “international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedom for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion”23. The UN Declaration of Human Rights further supported and specified essential elements to the protection of human rights – supporting the fact that these human rights are common standards for all peoples and nations. The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which followed the UN declarations also included the basic rights which are indispensable to human dignity. These rights include: the right to life, prohibition of torture, slavery, arbitrary detention, discrimination, and genocide24. Specificity of human rights The philosophical fundamentals of human rights can be found in the liberal and democratic traditions of Western Europe where such traditions are supported through the teachings of the Greek and Roman philosophers25. The West translated said teachings into the current principles of international human rights. Issues therefore have been raised on how universal these rights are and whether or not it is possible to consider differences while also qualifying the common standards of these rights26. On the opposite side of the issue, if the cultural differences cannot be disputed, it would still be possible to allow such cultural differences to excuse human rights violations. In the end, the query is raised on who is supposed to decide the implementation of changes in order to meet the basic standards of human rights and how to avoid the possibility of cultural hegemony27. Relativists claim that moral and cultural traditions are different for each distinct culture. Parekh claims that societies have different systems and morals and this depends on their history, traditions, geography, and the way they see the world28. There is therefore no way of judging such views because there are no objective and universal standards which can be used; even if there were, society would demand that these standards be established29. Cultural differences may therefore impact on human rights issues in instances when national competence, state sovereignty, and the desire for self determination do not agree with the application of uniform standards for human rights30. The Vienna Conference can be considered a scenario whereby the universal principle of human rights did not go well with relativistic assumptions. Before such conference unfolded, African and Asian groups planned to set forth their views at the conference. The Tunis Declaration reflected the convictions and expectations of the African people; but the African group of nations gave a different expectation in the Vienna Conference. As they accepted the importance of the universality of human rights, they however agreed that no standard model should be prescribed at the global level because there are historical and cultural trends for each nation; these traditions and cultures cannot be disregarded to accommodate such universal standards31. This group also emphasized the principle of indivisibility of human rights by emphasizing the fact that civil and political rights cannot be separated from economic, social, and cultural rights and these rights must not be prioritized over others. The Tunis Declaration also highlighted the relationship between human rights and economic development in the sense that political freedom is in a vulnerable position when it is not supported by economic, social, and cultural rights32. They further pointed out that the people’s right to pursue development should therefore be inalienable. Economic development, human rights, and peace depend on each other. If there are issues in any of these factors, human rights cannot be adequately secured. Africa nevertheless states that even with its precarious economic development which often causes tension within the region, is still very much committed to securing equal human rights. It is also calling on the international community to do the same, more particularly to assist in improving international cooperation, and to assist in economic development and assistance33. The Bangkok Declaration is a similar declaration, this time applying more to the Asian group of nations. This group points firmly oppose Western imperialism and they pointed out that the global community must also consider their cultural differences in relation to these human rights34. As they agree with the position of the Africans on these human rights and their universality, they also pointed out that such rights must also be understood in the context of a developing process of international policy and norm-setting. Moreover, these rights must also be conceptualized while understanding the importance of distinct national historical, religious, and cultural backgrounds35. They also added that promoting human rights must be ensured through cooperation and consensus, not through the imposition of incompatible practices and expectations. They also criticized the fact that the human rights are often used as conditions for extending assistance and as a tool for imposing political pressure. In essence, the Bangkok Declaration emphasized the importance of avoiding double standards in implementing human rights36. The Indonesian Foreign Minister also pointed out that even if human rights may be universal in character, their implementation in the context of each individual country must remain the responsibility of each government. In effect, the various issues, as well as the social, economic, and cultural issues for each nation must be considered37. In other words, the issues and the satisfaction of basic needs of food clothing, and shelter must take precedence over other rights like freedom of expression. In some ways, these human rights may even be viewed as Western luxuries which other developing nations cannot afford to secure over and above their more basic needs. In effect, expecting human rights to be universally applied is an impractical consideration and expectation in this scenario. Right to difference: double standards Admitting the right to difference can however create negative consequences because Asian and African nations may seek to justify abuses based on specificity. They may further justify their abuses based on the national sovereignty of each state and on the non-interference in the internal affairs of each state38. In some ways, such reasons may actually be used to justify the acts of dictatorship and abuse. Baehr points out that governments often disagree with the western standards of human rights because they seek and want to stay in power39. Such has been the case for Africa where the major concerns were not on democracy or the protection of human rights, but on the implementation of political unity and the non-interference in internal affairs of states40. The principle of sovereign equality of member states of the Organization of African Unity and the principle of non-interference has had an impact on the need to protect human rights. However, western powers are seen to condone the violation of human rights in the South because the peculiarities found for these nations. This may also create a double standard in the protection of human rights. Evaluating the Bill Clinton’s visit to China in 1998, the precarious balance that the president tried to maintain between the trade issues and human rights became apparent41. The President was also pressured to establish clear standards on freedom of expression and human rights violations in Tibet; he was also pressed to discuss China’s opening its doors to US business investments. In this case, advocating for foreign trade with the Chinese was considered the means for the achievement of human rights standards42. Clinton pointed out during his visit that a high degree of personal freedom is important in ensuring the success of society in the current age of information technology because there is a need for people who feel free to consider their own convictions and then to fulfill their dreams—and such precepts will help to add stability to society. There was however no mention of political prisoners, censoring in the media, harassment of students, and the ban of trade unions43. The reality however is glaring with China’s market relying on a booming economy which is founded on issues like the death of workers in factories prison. Moreover, issues like forced abortion in compliance with the one-child policy, violations of freedom of expression, and similar problems do not seem to mar its image as a booming economy. However, there is indeed a need to bring sharper focus on these human rights issues. It is important to also note how the Chinese were also more concerned about discussing business investments, not so much on actually protecting of human rights. Chinese president Jian Zemin even set forth a plea for rights of difference among states in terms of human rights44. He claimed that the American standards in human rights protection, must not be applied and expected to all nations. He further claims that the principles of democracy and human rights must be relative and specific and must be based on the national situations for each nation45. The China and US interaction during Clinton’s regime may be understood in the sense of the US not wanting to be seen as imperialistic. Bill Clinton, as a matter of fact, pointed out that the ideas of economic liberalization and individual freedom were appropriate and applicable to China46. This is very much in line with the principles developed by Brzezinski who stated that the US goals must include the perpetuation and promotion of America’s position in the current and future generation; it must also include the creation of geopolitical frameworks which can consider the eventual strains of socio-political change and political core of shared responsibility in global management47. It therefore seems apparent that there is a double standard of human rights, mostly reliant on personal interests. The progress of human rights may be made vulnerable by the radical argument that makes cultural differences absolute and by supremacist who want to impose their will on their constituents48. China, as in Africa is different from the West; however, this does not necessarily mean that each state must have its own understanding of democracy and human rights. The universal precepts on human rights can therefore be effective in ensuring accountability of all nations among their own cultures and societies, as well as between conflicting independent states49. The discussion on whether or not human rights should be considered as universal or culturally relative has taken on different changes. In 1947, as soon as ideas for the formulation of international human rights were conceptualized, the American Anthropological Association expressed its concern about the universality of said human rights. The main issue of the association was based on the ideas of good and evil which existed in each society which are sometimes not the same as the ideas of other nations. Moves to close in the gaps have however been made in order make universality and cultural realism much more compatible with each other50. Through the Vienna Convention these moves were slowly integrated into the system. In effect, the Convention emphasized that all rights are universal and interrelated and the global community must consider human rights as equal and fair. Moreover, it is the duty of the states, regardless of political and cultural systems to promote and protect human rights and freedoms51. Similar trends have been apparent in the academic scene. Authors Pollis and Schwab discussed their issues with the universality of human rights and they have come up with new perceptions on human rights, including the cultural aspects into the universality of human rights. These ideas have not exactly directly challenged the principle of universality52. Their approach considers human rights as new aspects of research; helping ensure that more attention is given to cultural, economic, and social differences in the implementation of human rights53. Pollis and Schwab’s new concept of universalism focuses more on the significant changes which have taken place in relation to human rights. They further point out that the social, economic, cultural, and political rights are interdependent with each other. However, within such universalism, there is also a growing recognition and respect for cultural diversity54. Developments in the international criminal tribunals in the Netherlands and Tanzania portray an agreement on international responsibility and accountability for the most heinous crimes; this agreement now steps in the national sovereignty of each nation55. These judgments are now feared as tools to extend universalism beyond the right to life and on to the specific qualities of all cultures. There is however a lack of clarity between the old notion of universalism and the human rights advocated by other writers and philosophers. Hence, the resolution of the issue remains to be hanging. Discussion on women’s rights in Islamic nations presents issues which need to be resolved within the context of universality56. The argument that human rights do not match Asian values and women’s rights have to be designated in Islam is considered as a doctrine supported by leaders or authorities—not by the people in these countries. Other authors also claim that if Islam is to implement human rights, there is a need to indigenize human rights. They discuss that around the world, environmental issues having human rights effects have led to social issues having a crucial role in the politics of human rights57. Environmental problems are implying that people should demand respect for their rights to become organized. Moreover, as these social groups are emphasizing environmental issues on political goals, their members are indirectly carrying out their right to political participation58. Perhaps one of the best ways to exemplify the issue of universal international human rights is the case of Fauziya Kasinga, a teenager from Togo, West Africa who sought asylum in the United States after she was “sold” to a man and was in danger of undergoing the tribal ritual of female genital mutilation as part of her rite of passage into marriage59. She was later rescued by her mother and sister and was granted asylum in the United States. After she was offered asylum, the precedent was set on women refugees who were fleeing gender-related persecution as eligible for asylum in the US. Female genital mutilation has already been condemned by the international community as a violation of human rights; however, it is still very much a major part of some Asian, African, and Middle Eastern traditions. Although the international community also protects equality for women as part of international rights, many cultures still deny them such equal rights60. In many countries, Islam is restrictive to the rights of women; and yet it would be difficult to declare them as liable for international human rights violations when their culture does not consider these acts as such. These are the very essence of the controversy on cultural relativism and universality of human rights. Supporters of universality insist that human rights are guaranteed based on international conventions and treaties; and these rights should apply to all countries and must prevail when they come in conflict with cultures and religions61. By contrast, those who support cultural relativism claim that allowing international standards to have precedence over the dictates of culture and religion violates the basic concepts of state sovereignty and state non-interference. In evaluating these two positions, it may be possible for the citizens of the world to determine which side is more morally compelling62. This analysis may be assisted when the origins and objectives of international human rights are considered and the different instances whereby the international norms and cultures come in conflict with each other are also noted. Modern international human rights law as was previously discussed was conceptualized as a response to the atrocities carried out during and prior to the Second World War. At this time, different countries saw the need to come up with formal international standards for the protection of human rights after the atrocities of the Nazis were revealed during and after the Second World War63. Different treaties and conventions were passed in order to ensure that human rights would be protected and secured, regardless of race, religion, and cultural norms. However, for the most part, the rights and freedoms guaranteed by these treaties come in direct conflict with the culture and religion of the people. The UN has already declared practices like female genital mutilation as an act of violence against women and states64. Incidents involving different countries who seemed to violate internationally protected rights have already become apparent. In Afghanistan, for example, the Taliban have prevented women from attending school and from walking outside their homes without a male relative present65. In China, female infanticide is widely practiced66. In India, brides have sometimes been burned to death in instances when the dowry they bring is too small67. In the West Bank, unmarried women who brought dishonor to their families by losing their virginity can be killed68. Other instances of apparent human rights violations were also seen in other forms, not just in terms of violations of women’s rights. In some nations, religious practices have been forbidden and people have been punished for manifesting their religious beliefs69. There are state-mandated religions in some states, and those who were found converting to other religions could be punished, even put to death70. In some countries, offenders could be punished by being stoned to death, having their limbs amputated, and their bodies mutilated. The cultural relativists often view culture as an important element of self-determination and state sovereignty. They also view international practices and norms as legal pronouncements of rich and powerful nations. In this point of view, all the more that international human rights must be protected for all the citizens of the world, regardless of culture. Conclusion This essay has sought to present an academic understanding of international human rights as they come into conflict with the people’s culture. The premise that international human rights apply equally, despite cultural differences, is a premise which is clouded with much controversy, with different nations and cultures clashing with the ideal standards of the international community. The principle of non-interference and state sovereignty is being used as a defense for these nations who seemingly violate these international human rights. The practices set forth as human rights violations may not actually be considered as violations for peoples which have made these practices a part of their culture. Nevertheless, based on the mandates of the UN Charter, these are deemed violations of human rights. Based on the above discussion, there is a need to set forth universal human rights in order to prevent the violations of such rights which are unfairly justified under culture and traditions. Allowing said violations to remain uncorrected is a dangerous practice to carry out because these practices may further support the dictatorial and abusive regimes of governments. In effect, although there are inherent dangers which are expected with the implementation of standard human rights, the gains are very much beneficial to most cultures and to the citizens of the world. Bibliography Acharya, B. (2010). Can human rights be universal and have respect for cultural relativism? Retrieved 17 April 2011, from http://legalservicesindia.com/article/article/can-human-rights-be-universal-&-have-respect-for-cultural-relativism-381-1.html Ankumah, E., (1996). The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Practice and Procedure, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, p. 67 Baderin, M. & Ssenyonjo, M. (2010). International Human Rights Law: Six Decades After the UDHR and Beyond. California: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, pp. 37, 40 Baehr, P., Castermans-Hollerman, M., & Grunfeld, F. (2002). Human rights in the foreign policy of the Netherlands. Nevada: Intersentia nv, pp. 179-180 Brown, W., Bromley, S. & Athreye, S. (2004). Ordering the international: history, change and transformation. New York: Pluto Press, p. 244 Chapman, R. (2010). Culture wars: an encyclopedia of issues, viewpoints, and voices, Volume 1. New Jersey: M.E. Sharpe, p. 85 Covenant of Civil and Political Rights Engle, K. (2000). Culture and Human Rights: The Asian Values in Debate in Context. 32 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 291 Fischlin, D. &Nandorfy, M. (2007). The concise guide to global human rights. New York: Black Rose Books, p. 234. Gearty, C. (2005). Are Human Rights Truly Universal. Chapter 29. Retrieved 17 April 2011 from http://www.conorgearty.co.uk/pdfs/Chapter_29_UniversalityFINAL.pdf, pp. 2-5, 7 Glasse, C. & Smith, H. (2003). The new encyclopedia of Islam. New York: Rowman Altamira, p. 447 Gupta, N. (2003). Women’s Rights and the Practice of dowry in India. Journal of Legal Pluralism. Retrieved 17 April 2011 from http://www.jlp.bham.ac.uk/volumes/48/gupta-art.pdf, p. 86 Hey, H. (2001). Universal Human Rights and Cultural Diversity. Human Rights and Human Welfare. Retrieved 17 April 2011 from http://www.du.edu/korbel/hrhw/volumes/2001/1-2/pollis-hey.pdf, pp. 17-18 Ignatieff, M. (2004). The Lesser Evil. Political Ethics in an Age of Terror. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 50, 56 Irmgard Coninx (n.d). Are Human Rights universal, a common heritage shared among culture? Retrieved 17 April 2011 from http://www.irmgard-coninx-stiftung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/archive/014%20Yimga.pdf Lauren, P. (2003). The evolution of international human rights: visions seen. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, p. 135 Lawson, S. (1998). Democracy and the problem of cultural relativism: normative issues for international politics. Global Society: Journal of Interdisciplinary International Relations, volume 12(2), p. 251 Lynch, E. (2011). Clinton on U.S-China Relations – A Changed Approach. China Law and Policy. Retrieved 17 April 2011 from http://chinalawandpolicy.com/tag/tim-geithner/ Mandel, M. (1998). A Brief History of the New Constitutionalism, or ‘How We Changed Everything so that Everything Remained the Same. 32 Israel Law Review 250, pp. 34-35 Morsink, J. (2000). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: origins, drafting, and intent. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 282-283, 290 Nabudere, D. (2005). Human rights and cultural diversity in Africa. Association of Law Reform Agencies of Eastern and Southern Africa-(ALRAESA) Conference on the Fusion of Legal Systems and Concepts in Africa. Retrieved 17 April 2011 from http://www.justice.gov.za/alraesa/conferences/papers/ent_s4_nabudere.pdf More, E. (n.d). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in today’s world. International Communications Journal. Retrieved 17 April 2011 from http://www.internationalcommunicationsjournal.com/issues/volume-11-no-2/the-universal-declaration-of-human-rights-in-today%E2%80%99s-world-.asp Musalo, K. (1997). When Rights and Cultures Collide. Santa Clara University. Retrieved 17 April 2011 from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v8n3/rightsandcultures.html Ng, M. (1995). Are Rights Culture-Bound? in M.C. Davis (ed.) Human Rights and Chinese Values Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, p. 59. Over, W. (1999). Human Rights in the International Public Sphere. Civic Discourse for the 21st Century, Stanford: Ablex Publishing Corporation, pp. 3, 5, 6, 8 Pollis, Adamantia and Peter Schwab, Editors. (1979). Human Rights: Cultural and Ideological Perspectives. New York: Praeger Publishers, pp. 55, 17 Shanawez, H. (n.d). Human Security in Asia: by Universal Human Right or Cultural Relativism? Human Security Conference. Retrieved 17 April 2011 from http://humansecurityconf.polsci.chula.ac.th/Documents/Presentations/Shanawez.pdf, p. 14 Subotic, M. (2005). Cultural Relativism for Universality of Human Rights: The Case of Reservations to Human Rights Treaties. Center for Interdisciplinary Postgraduate Studies. Retrieved 17 April 2011 from http://www.irmgard-coninx stiftung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/archive/081%20Subotic.pdf Tharoor, S. (1999). Are Human Rights Universal? University of Toronto. Retrieved 17 April 2011 from http://hmb.utoronto.ca/Old%20Site/HMB303H/weekly_supp/week-02/Tharoor_Universal_HR.pdf United Nations. (1948). United Nations Declaration of Human Rights Preamble. Retrieved 17 April 2011 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml United Nations. (1948). United Nations Declaration of Human Rights Articles 1-30. Retrieved 17 April 2011 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml Wall, W. (n.d). China’s Infanticide Epidemic. Topical Research Digest. Retrieved 17 April 2011 from http://www.du.edu/korbel/hrhw/researchdigest/china/InfanticideChina.pdf, p. 1 Read More