Human Rights and Culture - Assignment Example

Human Rights and Culture Introduction Human Rights are rights that every human being deserves regardless of their nationality, residential place, gender, ethnic or national origin, religion, and language, among others. The rights are interdependent, interrelated and indivisible because violation or improvement of one right affects the effect of the other rights. The state has an obligation to promoting and protecting human rights of their citizens, regardless of the political, cultural or economic systems that exist in the state. All people should not be denied their rights unless in a situation that demands legal action against them. For example, the right to liberty can be withdrawn when a person becomes guilty and gets convicted of an offence. International human rights law in the form of treaties, international law, general principles, and other international law sources are factors that determine Human rights. International law seeks to achieve the universality of human rights; however, it faces challenges resulting from the current cultural diversity. Culture is the people’s way of life and contributes much to aspects of their lives. The different cultures that exist in the world are a challenge to trying to implement human rights law. Some cultures would not allow some actions as they differ with them. This work seeks to discuss how the diverse culture in the world contributes to the efforts put towards achieving or settling universality of human rights. It will discuss how the culture relates to human rights and how it contributes either negatively or positively towards achieving the universality of human rights. It will also focus on different organizations formed to protect and educate the public on understanding their culture and human rights, and how their progress is at present. Background Information Although there have been developments in evolution of human rights, the process is under serious challenge. From 1945, more development of international human rights standards has occurred as compared to previous years (Forsythe, 2009: xviii). However, international issues like Chinese development as a world power, and the United States’ efforts to maintain national security after the September 2001 attack challenge these developments on human rights. As much as the international community talks of human rights and rights laws, there is a violation of the rights as a result of these developments. People did not know about human rights until 1945, but the United States and France practiced ‘rights of man’ although no human rights treaties existed until the period of United Nations. The treaties that existed were rights of foreigners. According to Forsythe, it is D. Roosevelt and others who pushed for inclusion of human rights in the United Nations charter. They believed that human rights contributed to international security and peace and that it was human rights’ violation that led to the origin of World War II (Forsythe, 2009: xviii). The quest to adoption of human rights to the UN charter became the origin of their development. Universality of Human Rights Universality is the quality of being dominant or available. Human rights universality is thus the ability to the existence of human rights to every human being. Universality is rather the ability of a society or state to allow its citizens to enjoy the availability of human rights. The diversity in culture, in the present world, affects the universality of human rights in various ways. Different cultures affect how their citizens enjoy the provision of human rights. According to Osiatyn?ski, the African take on human rights was not on an individual basis; it focused on the community. This is an indication that culture has a relative impact on human rights universality. In most tribes, in Africa, for example, the decision to marry does not come from a girl, but it is a decision made by the family and clan or the community, depending on the family status (Osiatyn?ski, 2009:128). This practice denies the girl child the freedom of choice because the culture does not allow them to decide for themselves. If the girl exercises freedom of choice, the tribe or clan takes it as disrespect for elders and family, and claiming such a right affects the family and society bonds. This is a good example of the contribution of different cultures to the failure of human rights universality. Other cultures limit the boundaries within which their children should marry. Osiatyn?ski gives an example in Northern Nigeria where a girl from Sultan’s family cannot marry outside her religion or below her class no matter their education (Osiatyn?ski, 2009:128). The children in any society have the right to marry from any religion and class, but not in the culture of this family. This denies self expression for the girl child in looking for their partners, and contributes to limiting efforts towards settling universality of human rights. There are other various cultural practices violate human rights. Some communities in African countries like Ghana and Togo practice pledging of infant girls to traditional priests. This is a practice mostly practiced by men as payment for crimes they commit (Osiatyn?ski, 2009:128). These girls work in the farms of the priests and bear children in a slavery way. This denies the girl freedom of choice as she is in slavery and still paying for another crime. Communities in these circumstances cannot enjoy human rights because of violation of the rights, and unless the community or government intervenes, universality of human resources will remain unsettled. There is another practice in Western Africa, as Osiatyn?ski points, where people give up children as young as 4 years to a spiritual leader, who teaches them the Koran and makes them go, into the streets to beg for food. This makes them eat leftovers by people at restaurants. It becomes a form of slavery for children, and it is against human dignity, and this culture, if not stopped, will affect human rights acquisition. Although the above cultural practices exist in different communities, they are not the cause of universality of rights failure. Prevailing cultural wars highly affect universality of human rights as seen in Afghanistan. Cultural wars resulting from the 2001 invasion in the United States challenged the achievement of human rights for Afghans (Forsythe, 2009: 5). Women and minority groups in the country faced discrimination and could not access their rights to justice. Afghanistan is one among the worst hit by human rights violation. For instance, the judicial system is weak, corrupt and dysfunctional and does not comply with international human rights obligations at times. Cultural impunity reigns in the country as it fails to prosecute those that abused and violate human rights. The most violated are women rights despite their positive development from the fall of the Taliban. The women started participating in parliament, fought for equal rights for men and women in the country’s constitution, established a women ministry, and improved quality access to healthcare and education. The situation of women rights in the country remains poor because the country experiences the highest deaths of women and children during birth (Forsythe, 2009: 5). This situation largely affects efforts aimed at making human rights universal to all people. Cultural Relativism Cultural relativism is the take that all ethics, customs and beliefs are relative to individuals within their social context. It is the view that right and wrong depend on culture. What one society consider moral might be immoral compared to another (Brems, 2001:25). People believe that their culture is always the best. Cultural relativism seeks to fight for any culture. It does not see any bad or good thing about a culture; what matters is what the society calls right or wrong. Cultural Relativism and Human Rights Human rights as said earlier are what people consider as a necessity and that which they deserve to have. Whatever the society considers necessary or as a requirement becomes their right. Cultural relativism, on the other hand, has no right and wrong; whatever the society considers a virtue or vice becomes relative to their culture (Freeman, 2011: 124). Thus; cultural relativism does not have any limitation to the application of human rights because whatever the society perceives right or wrong becomes a relative culture (Cerna, 1994: 24). According to Afshari’s Human Rights in Iran, cultural relativity has no influence on universality of human rights. The universality of human rights is a response to the universality of the modern state as a globally convergent mode of governance (Afshari, 2010: 10). Rhoda Howard, a human rights scholar, shows that human rights concepts were formed in emerging western states despite the prevalence of hostile moral precepts western cultures of Christianity and Judaism (Afshari, 2010: 10). The two cultures had no effect on the formation of the human rights concepts. It is the human rights covenants that define what is necessary, in the modern state, to protect a life of dignity and equality, but not the relativity of the culture. Although these covenants started in western states, their foundation is relevant to other states in their move towards achieving human rights universality. Cultural relativism is irrelevant in the application of human rights because, despite the Islamic Republic’s cultural claims, it behaved the same as other states in authority, not only in securing state security but also in rejecting and denying human rights violations (Afshari, 2011: 11). States’ Practice on Rights Protection After the introduction of human rights by United Nations, different states have started practicing human rights protection on their citizens and introduced rapid changes on laws concerning punishment for crimes committed (Steiner, Alston & Goodman, 2008: 18). This is after formation and intervention of international organizations that fight for human rights, for example, Amnesty International. More than half the countries in the world have abolished the death penalties that people who committed crimes were to face. They have done this either through law or in practice (Steiner, Alston & Goodman, 2008: 18). Recent reports by Amnesty International show that 87 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes, 11 countries for all crimes but given an exception to wartime crimes. The report also shows 27 countries having abolished the penalties in practice where they practice retention of the death penalty in law, but have no executions carried out for several years, and are believed to apply a policy of not carrying out the executions (Steiner, Alston & Goodman, 2008: 18). The organization also reports 71 countries that still retain and practice the death penalty, but the number of the countries doing executions in one year is smaller. The report also focuses the progress made towards abolition of the death penalty worldwide. There is a report of over 40 countries, which have abolished death penalties for all crimes since 1990 (Steiner, Alston & Goodman, 2008: 19). They include countries in Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and European Asia. Once these countries abolish death penalties, they hardly ever go back to it. The documentation by Amnesty International shows the steps taken by different United Nations countries in fighting for and restoring human rights. The methods used in executing penalties went against human rights as offenders would be beheaded, electrocuted, hung, lethal injected shot or even stoned. The people thought that these methods would deter offenders from repeating their mistakes. International Agreements Signing of treaties, as a commitment not to have death penalties to offenders, is one of the most important steps taken by United Nations countries in promoting universality of human rights. Different bodies, which fight for human rights, signed the treaties. These treaties exist to date and include; i. The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which 57 states have confirmed and seven more countries have signed with an intention of joining the treaty later. This treaty provides for the abolition of the death penalty but allows willing states to retain it in wartime as an exception. (Steiner, Alston & Goodman, 2008: 20). ii. The Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish Death Penalty confirmed by eight states. The provisions of this treaty are as those of the Second Protocol. iii. Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which 45 European states confirmation. This is an agreement on abolishing the death penalty in peace time Steiner, Alston & Goodman, 2008: 20). iv. Protocol No. 13 to the ‘European Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’ (European Convention on Human Rights) where there is confirmation of 36 European states (Steiner, Alston & Goodman, 2008: 20). This protocol provides fro abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances (Steiner, Alston & Goodman, 2008: 20). Current Situation of Human Rights There is a bit of universality of human rights as studies show, not because they claim to be, but because of the efforts that organizations have done to restore them. The organizations that have come into existence after signing of treaties on human rights have played an important role in solving the issue. However, it is not a necessity to have absolute universality of human rights because a community’s right is what their culture will take as essential for them. Cultural relativism does not affect the protection of human rights because the many organizations that have come up to fight for human rights have different cultures, and all have joined with others aiming at promoting universality of the human rights to their people (Beisinghoff, 2009: 15). Thus; cultural relativism, as seen earlier, has little to do with universality of human rights. It can exist in a community at the same time when human rights universality exists, and have no effect on the lives of people. The international treaties signed by different member- states of the United Nations catered for protection of rights of all people ranging from children to women and the minority cultures that exist in the community, thus; every culture is taken care of regardless of its minority or prominence. Conclusion Although culture does not have an adverse effect on Human rights, there are times when it has to be considered in trying to settle to universality of human rights. For example, the different cultural practices that affect the rights of children, women or a minor culture have to be considered because some of these practices have effects challenge human rights. These are the incidences that cause conflict between cultural practices and human rights. However, as seen in the discussion, culture has little impact (if any) on human rights because, what one community calls a right may be a wrong according to another, thus; culture might not be relative to human rights. The shortcomings to human rights achievement, however, result from the methods used to formulate ideologies on how to fight for the rights (Osiatyn?ski, 2009:128). Any government or organization that wishes to fight fro human rights has to involve the people, the civil society although the idea came from western countries, but the non-western people can contribute much to fight for human rights because all of them will not allow torture as they will want to maintain their cultural heritage. Bibliography AFSHARI, R. 2010. Human rights in Iran: the abuse of cultural relativism. Philadelphia, Pa, University of Pennsylvania Press. BEISINGHOFF, N. 2009. Corporations and human rights: an analysis of ATCA litigation against corporations. Frankfurt am Main, P. Lang. BREMS, E. 2001. Human rights: universality and diversity. The Hague [u.a.], Nijhoff. CERNA, CHRISTINA M. 1994. Universality of Human Rights and Cultural Diversity: Implementation of Human Rights in Different Socio-Cultural Contexts Human Rights Quarterly. 16: 740-52 FORSYTHE, D. P. 2009. Encyclopedia of human rights. Oxford, Oxford University Press. FREEMAN, M. 2011. Human rights: an interdisciplinary approach. Cambridge, UK, Polity Press. OSIATYN?SKI, W. 2009. Human rights and their limits. Cambridge [U.K.], Cambridge University Press. STEINER, H. J., ALSTON, P., & GOODMAN, R. 2008. International human rights in context: law, politics, morals: text and materials. Oxford [UK], Oxford University Press. Read More