Universality of Human Rights - Assignment Example

?In a culturally diverse world, universality of human rights remains unsettled Universality of human rights Introduction The history of human rights dates back to the ancient times when different religions and cultures flourished in the world (Sen, 2004, p 325). Key development of human rights in the UK included the Magna Carta of 1215 and later the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679. Britain also implemented the Bill of Rights in 1689. According to Sen (2004), the global recognition of human rights started after the Second World War when countries recognised that atrocities committed during the Second World War were unacceptable and inhumane (p 332). The UK has enacted several legislation that safeguard the human rights of its citizens such as the Human rights Act 1998 that introduced in to domestic law the human rights safeguarded by the international law like European Convention of Human Rights like the right to life, right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, right of education, freedom from slavery and forced labour and freedom of religion. Key development was the Declaration of Human rights in 1948 by about 50 of the United Nations member countries and subsequent ratifications by other countries. Other international conventions that followed aimed at expanding the doctrine of human rights to include civil and political rights, cultural rights, sociol-economic rights and prohibition of all forms of discriminations (Claude and Weston, 2006). For instance, the International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights was adopted in 1966 and ratified by several states. Human rights refer to the recognition and respect of human dignity. Human rights entail a set of moral principles and legal guidelines that promote and protect the identity, values and abilities of individuals in order to enhance the standards of living (Claude and Weston, 2006). Human rights can be termed as the standards that measure and identify fairness and inequality in the society and include rights associated with Universal Declaration of Human Rights. According to United Nations Human rights Commission, these rights are inherent to all human beings regardless of the place of residence, sex, nationality, religion, language or any other identifiable status of the individual (Claude and Weston, 2006). This paper will discuss the contents and principles of human rights, the universality versus cultural relativism of human rights and finally outline the current trend in protection of universal human rights. In the conclusion, the paper will offer a recommendation on whether universality can exist with cultural relativism and ensure universal human rights. Contents and principles of human rights The first guiding principle of human rights is equality and non-discrimination. Non-discrimination acts as the basis of international human right law and is outlined in all the human rights treaties. International human rights conventions such as the International Convention on the Elimination of discrimination especially racial and women discrimination requires all state governments to enact legislations that protect the citizens from such discrimination (Claude and Weston, 2006). This principle is applicable to all human beings regardless of non-exhaustive criteria that include sex, religion and other identifiable status of the individuals. According to Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights, all human beings are born free and equality in their dignity should be respected (Talbott, 2005). The second content of human rights is interdependent and indivisible nature of human rights. This principle asserts that human rights are interrelated and interdependent since enforcement of one rights leads to advancement of the other rights and the ultimate increase in the general standards of living (Claude and Weston, 2006). Accordingly, civil rights such as the right to life and political rights lead to equal protection by the law and fair trial. In addition, a violation of one right such as the right to health will lead to ultimate violation of the other rights such as the right to life thus ignoring the dignity of human life. Human rights also require accountability and transparency since national governments are accountable for the enforcement and protection of the basic human rights in their jurisdiction. The governments are required to ensure the participation of other organisations such as the civil society in the formulation of human rights and measure the attainment of the human right objectives. It is not enough to just recognize the human right in the domestic law thus governments are supposed to educate the public on the human rights and safeguard the violation of such rights by other institutions such as hospitals and schools (Talbott, 2005). Universality of human rights Human rights are also universal and inalienable. The principle of universality forms the basis of international human rights laws and has been emphasised in all major human rights declarations and treaties (Talbott, 2005. Universality requires all individuals in a certain jurisdiction to enjoy the rights equally without any exceptions since it is their entitlement. The Vienna World convention of human rights of 1993 clearly noted that all States have the duty to safeguard human rights and freedoms regardless of the existing cultural system, economic or political system of the country. Accordingly, all the United Nations member countries have committed to the enforcement of at least one of the nine international treaties that promote the respect of human rights (Renteln, 1990). Accordingly, more than 80 percent of the member countries have been more than four of the treaties thus providing evidence that human rights are universal. The ratification of the international treaties signifies the State’s commitment to respect and promote the human rights as outlined in the international law. The states must protect the citizens against human right violations and provide an environment whereby citizens can freely enjoy their human rights (Talbott, 2005. Regardless of the domestic law system, the international law provides for mechanisms for individual citizens or groups to make complains at either the regional or international level in order for such governments to be compelled to respect the human rights of its citizens (Steiner and Alston, 1994). Some of the universal rights that are championed by the Declaration of Human rights 1948 include the right to life and liberty, the right to education, the right to participate in the cultural life of the society, the right of protection against cruel or any other inhumane treatment and finally the freedom of expression, thoughts and worship (Arnold, 2013). Universality versus the cultural relativism of human rights has remained a pertinent issue in human rights ideology. According to universality principle, the primitive cultures will eventually require to enact the same system of laws like the Western cultures in order to adhere with the universality principle outlined in International human rights laws (Arnold, 2013). According to universalism, the individual is considered as a distinct social unit while cultural relativism model asserts that the community is the basic social unit and concepts like individual right of choice and equality are not emphasised. Universalist argues that cultural relativism undermines the universal rights due to the definition of human rights relative to national histories, cultures and religions (Steiner and Alston, 1994). Arguments for universality of human rights There are numerous arguments that have been put forward in support of the universality of human rights. One of the arguments is that universality of human rights is recognised by the international law and that human rights are not privileges since such rights are natural-born rights (Talbott, 2005. For instance, the United Nations Charter requires all member countries to universally respect the human rights while the International Bill of Rights affirms the consensus on the universal standards of the human rights. Arnold (2013) argues that universality is that human rights should value the individual dignity and should not be constrained by the political relationship of the society with the individual. According to Talbott (2005), Article 17 and Article 18 of the Universal declaration outline the social and economic liberties and are consistent with universality since these rights aim at advancing individual entitlements and individualistic ideology as opposed to the communitarian entitlement as advanced by the cultural relativism notion (Renteln, 1990). Arguments against universality of human rights Opponents of universality argue that it is based on Western construct of human rights. For instance, the opponents point out that universality conflicts with Islamic faith and cultural values in East Asia region (Steiner and Alston, 1994). Although Article 16 of the Universal declaration asserts that marriage between men and women can occur without any limitation to region, nationality or race and marriage should only be entered in the free consent of the spouses, but Islamic traditions require the participation of the parents in selecting the spouses. Universality does not hold the moral intuition of the society in to account when formulating the human rights. For instance, Ancient Greeks prefer cremating the deceased while Ancient Indian tribes eat the body of the deceased. In this case, the universality cannot rely on any moral intuition to advance for the universality of human rights (Arnold, 2013). Cultural relativism of human rights Cultural relativism presents a challenge in attaining universality of human rights across the globe. Cultural relativism can be defined as the position which local cultural traditions, legal practices and religions determine the existence and nature of civil, political and economic rights of the members of a particular society. The cornerstone of cultural relativism is that no common moral standards that exist upon which human rights can be formulated and implemented across the world. It denies the judgment of human rights upon the Western cultures and asserts that states should implement their own systems of human rights or adjust the political systems to the local cultures and human right norms (Steiner and Alston, 1994). However, the radical cultural relativism argues that culture is the sole source of rule or moral right. Accordingly, radical cultural relativism would be of the view that culture is not relevant in the validity of human rights that are considered as universally valid. On the other hand, weak cultural relativism recognises some universal human rights, but allows some of the human rights to be limited to the local existing cultural conditions (Kao, 2011). Proponents of cultural relativism argue that human nature is culturally relative. For instance, marriage spouses are selected on the basis of cultural attributes such as height, skin color and other physical attributes (Kao, 2011). Culture does not prohibit universal recognition of human rights since caste systems and slavery that denies the existence of moral humanity is universally condemned across all global cultures. In addition, prohibition of torture is accepted as a binding right across all cultures (Kao, 2011). Opponents of cultural relativism argue that it denies the national governments the opportunity of safeguarding basic human rights. For instance, while slavery has been customary to numerous African societies and sexual discrimination has been exercised for years, these practices are not logical defensible in the modern global society (Steiner and Alston, 1994). Furthermore, some common cultural practices such as detention and arbitrary arrests have no cultural basis since there are no culturally established traditions to justify such atrocities. The arguments for the cultural relativism are usually made by political elites have long abandoned their traditional cultures (Gould, 2004). Accordingly, the government officials denounce the Western culture and universal human rights while at the same time engage in massive corruption that denies the communities development opportunities. Article 18 to 21 deals with freedom of thought and religion, but some cultural societies have not differentiated between political rights and state religion (Steiner and Alston, 1994). For instance, some countries have implemented a state religion that contravening the right of citizens to freedom of religion. There is a similarity in the relative values that all cultures seek to preserve such as social order, protection from torture and safeguarding the dignity of life. Universal human rights aim at ensuring a fair share of the subsistence means and protect individuals from degrading treatment (Gould, 2004). Tendency of states in practice and variations in regional conventions The tendency of states in implementing the Universal Declaration on Human rights tends to support cultural relativism. For instance, the European Court doctrine of the margin of appreciation allows the court to make in to consideration the fact that the member states will interpret the Convention differently depending on the historic, philosophical and cultural differences between the concerned nation and Strasbourg. The first principle of the Convention requires the state members to decide democratically what is appropriate and the main responsibility of protecting the rights lies with the concerned state. Accordingly, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) human rights Declaration has failed to entrench the fundamental right of association as a universal right thus allowing the domestic laws to trump the existing universal human rights that are granted by the International Human rights laws since the declaration is based on cultural relativism (Steiner, Alston and Goodman, 2008). Although Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights defines the full age or age of majority as 18 years, the different member states have the authority to decide in their own national context when a person has reached the age of majority (Steiner and Alston, 1994). Accordingly, Article 26 grants the right to education, but several nations especially developing countries have limited resources for the provision of free education to children. The American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 allows derogate from universal human rights especially in times of public danger or when the independence of the state is threatened (Steiner, Alston and Goodman, 2008). Accordingly, Saudi Arabia declined to ratify the Universal declaration since it contravened the Islamic beliefs (Steiner, Alston and Goodman, 2008). Conclusion Universal human rights that are outlined and protected by the international law and treaties thus governments must act in a manner that protects and promotes the fundamental human rights and freedoms of its citizens. Human rights entail certain principles and obligations that guide their formulation and implementation. Absolute universality of human rights is a necessity since the Universal Declaration of human rights aims at protecting the basic individual rights and not cultural rights. In this case, autonomy of individuals should be guaranteed in order to attain universality. Accordingly, equality and non-discrimination in the treaties reflects the modern view of society while the human rights that prohibit slavery aim at attaining individual full membership with the particular community through ensuring protection from slavery. Article 8 to Article 11 enables the individual access fair trial and legal remedies thus ensuring protection against arbitrary detention or arrests in order to ensure universally accepted ideals of fairness in modern states. Cultural relativism impedes the attainment of universality of human rights. For instance cultural relativism arguments cannot justify the prohibition of the right to life, freedom from slavery and probation of the right to be protected against inhumane treatment. The above basic human rights are inalienable from the individuals and must be universally protected. Cultural values like bride price and some indirect conditionality to the marriage are subordinate to the right to enter in to a marriage and establish a family. The cultural rights of men to participate in culturally sanctioned domestic violence should not be allowed to override the human rights promoting freedom from degrading treatment and human dignity. Human rights can not be universal and respect cultural relativism at the same time. Cultural practices like female genital mutilation (FGM) violate the human rights of women yet such cultures are widely accepted in Middle East and African cultures. In order to make the Convention to Eliminate Discrimination against Women and make the right to be free from discrimination universal, countries must ensure the equality of genders and eliminate the cultural practices that discriminate and oppress women in the society. Though Islamic teachings tend to restrict the freedoms and rights of women, the universal international human rights must prevail over the dictates of religion or culture of a particular society. Reference List: Arnold, R. 2013. The universalism of human rights. New York: Springer. Claude, R.P and Weston, B.H. 2006. Human rights in the world community: issues and action. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Gould, C.C. 2004. Globalization of democracy and human rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kao, G.Y. 2011. Grounding human rights in a pluralist world. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press. Renteln, A.D. 1990. International human rights: universalism versus relativism. London: Sage Publications. Sen, A. 2004. ‘Elements of a theory of human rights’, Philosophy and public affairs, 32(2) 2004: 315-356. Steiner, H.J and Alston, P. 1994. International human rights in context. London: Sage Publications. Steiner, H.J., Alston, P and Goodman, R. 2008. International human rights in context: law, politics, morals: text and materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Talbott, W.J. 2005. Which rights should be universal? New York: Oxford University Press. Read More