Human Rights Are Basic Rights and Freedoms - Essay Example

ORDER No: 453511 TO WHAT EXTENT ARE HUMAN RIGHTS CLAIMS CULTURALLY SPECIFIC INTRODUCTION “Human rights are basic rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethical origin, race, religion, language or other status” (Amnesty International, 2010); these rights – and the duty to protect them - were stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and were adopted by the United Nations General assembly in 1948 (UN, 1948). Although seemingly simple, the concept can easily be distorted and end up by being politicized. Rights are rarely claimed but are generally declared on behalf of others. Thus, in order to uphold a right certain actions may have to be taken to uphold it, which may be unjust. The “right not to be tortured” may seem appropriate to the victims of torture, but politically it has come to mean “an entitlement to prevent torture… by hostile acts by one state against another… an entitlement to make war and impose sanctions” (Treanor, 2004). This example shows that human rights can have different meanings; they have been subdivided into three categories: Civil [{free} movement, association and speech], Political [the right to participate in the affairs and governance of the community] and Legal [the right to impartial treatment and fair trial]. Other rights include the right to life, freedom from torture, and rights relating to employment. It has been argued that the interpretation of human rights owes too much to the Western view of rights (Bromley & Smith p 537, 2004) which is capitalist based and framed in the light of “power, domination and subjection” (Brown et al., 2004). Other areas call upon definitions which relate to family and religious values in contrast to those of the whole nation state. This concept is also part of human rights in some Asian countries where the individual is less important than the family or religion. In some Muslim countries also, human rights operate separately and equally for both men and women (Prokhovnik p 244, 2004) Some of the most important theories and models which have been developed to account for the interactions between human rights and culture now follow. Although models are useful as a framework for manipulating the variables in postulating or explaining a theory they cannot handle the complexities required for a full understanding; theories give a fuller picture. 2. SIGNIFICANT THEORIES CONCERNING HUMAN RIGHTS AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCES 2.1. Cconstructivism (Wendt) Wendt suggests that international order is a social construct in which individuals and states may be treated similarly; they must understand their relation to one another and understand themselves and their role in the international system. He further suggests that international relationships are based on anarchy; at three levels enmity, rivalry and friendship where, in the last two differences are resolved peacefully. He also maintains that international order is built on shared ideas which have a strong cultural element, and that these ideas can change over time. When these ideas are shared between states this leads to a redefinition of the relations between them and how they see themselves; which implies the necessity to define themselves – for example – as defenders of human rights rather than simply using human rights for legitimate power politics. Thus, the individual concepts of human rights are coloured by the inherent culture of the particular state. This can lead to a tension between the universal meaning of rights and the particular understanding of different cultures; it works so long as the anarchy component allows for peaceful resolution of differences (Brown et al., 2004). The two other principal theories are Cosmopolitanism and Communitarianism and, while there are differences between the advocates of communitarianism and among the proponents of cosmopolitanism, the two viewpoints “can be characterised as broad umbrella positions championing a particularist and state-centric perspective, and a universalist and global perspective respectively” (Prokhovnik p 249, 2004). He tends to believe that the communitarian case is the stronger one. 2.2. The theory of cosmopolitanism To cosmopolitans rights are universal, and individuals as well as nation states must be able to enjoy – and distribute – the application of justice in countries outside their own state as they do within it. For cosmopolitans the international scene belongs to the public – all nations – and therefore is capable of functioning as a form of governance in its own right; this leads to the concept of a form of global order with an array of institutions which transcend states (Prokhovnik p 250, 2004). Within this global structure is the UN Security Council, although cosmopolitans believe that the power of veto enjoyed by its permanent members hinders the exercise of globalism and should be discontinued. Retributive justice is also another bone of contention between the two factions; cosmopolitans believe in universal jurisdiction, in preference to a national system. Hence international bodies would be able to act globally to bring to trial at an international court those who abused human rights by eg genocide or ethic cleansing. 2.3 The communitarianism theory Communitarians believe that the promotion of a universal regime of human rights can be fundamentally dangerous, since – due to the tension between universality and particularity - human rights means different things to different people in different contexts. Thus they would argue that rights have “culturally specific meanings and therefore cannot be applied across borders” (Prokhovnik p 251., 2004). They would also argue that to define rights in universal terms leads to such abstractions that their application to real situations is virtually impossible. One of their fears is that the extension of democracy in global terms – crossing national boundaries – will create and empower a breed of “global citizens”. They hold that maintaining the differences and individualities within communities and their culture is just as important as the maintenance of diversity in the animal and plant kingdoms. The communitarian standpoint is exactly that exercised by the authorities in [§ 5.1] and (Treanor, 2004) in a distorted operation of the human rights issues: the rights are “upheld” in the name of Sudanese culture. 2.4. Huntingdon’s theory Samuel Huntingdon’s theory has developed along similar lines to Wendt’s constructivism theory in that states are the principal participants in the international system; he also concedes that shared beliefs and ideas play an important role and are determined by the cultural identity of the state, which is often defined in religious terms (Zubaida p 264, 2004). The basis of his concept of the relationship between states is the clash of civilizations. This provides a very different view of international order – close to Wendt’s first definition of anarchy “enmity” where the influence of culture is predominant. However, he does allow that “culture [a means of understanding one’s society] still serves as a rallying point in the international system…cultural clash does happen [generally] when conditions persuade one group that it is threatened by another” (Garson p 217, 2004). This scenario agrees with Said’s view that “culture is the main battleground on which causes expose themselves to the light of day…the ‘Orient’ is a Western construction fabricated to legitimise Western domination [and culture]” (Garson p 220, 2004). 2.5 Dilemmas exposed It can be seen from the above arguments that there are deep fundamental differences between the theories; for example communitarians believe that not only are “rights and justice culturally specific…[apples cannot be measured in terms of oranges]… [but] things change as we move from the national to the international level… [and so] there is likely to remain a tension between the rights of individuals and the rights and sense of justice of international actors” (Prokhovnik p 260, 2004). A problem [for cosmopolitans] is to “recognise both human rights and state sovereignty, given that states can be both protectors of, and threats to, individual rights” (Prokhovnik p 257, 2004). A resolution will be attempted in the Conclusion. 3. THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT The 20th century has seen unprecedented violations of human rights: the Holocaust, the killing fields in Cambodia, genocide in Rwanda and mass killings in Srebrenica. As a result of debates on the right of humanitarian intervention and the protection of human rights internationally, the United Nations General Assembly in 2005 adopted the principle “The Responsibility to Protect [R2P]”. The R2P “is the [state’s] responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity” (United Nations, 2005). The R2P has been added to the existing languages of human rights and principles formulated to tackle a state’s violence against its own populations. Humanitarian intervention, human security, human rights, crimes against humanity or genocide have been used in international relations to challenge the principles of non- intervention and sovereignty and make violence a question to be dealt with at the international level. However, one of the main barriers to progress in all international resolutions is that not all nations “sign-up” to them, and the most notable abstainers are those states with the worst records of human rights abuses. Many states, particularly in Africa are reluctant to implement its provisions [§ 5.1] even though the principle of norm localisation now helps the resolution of humanitarian problems in Africa (Williams, 2007). International authorities have been reluctant to name such crimes as “genocide” for fear of giving offence to allies of the perpetrators. Nevertheless progress has been made and R2P has highlighted three main elements which can identify problems and offer possible solutions:- The language of rights can be ambiguous and play different roles depending on the context [especially culture] Rights are evolving and are transformed together with the cultures which give them Intelligibility The language of rights is powerful as it can [as we have already seen] create a framework for understanding international political problems even when it does not trigger direct responses. 4. THE PART PLAYED BY RELIGION Although this concept is interwoven with culture, not all cultures are based on religion; some owe their evolution to family and other values. Whilst the majority believe that human rights are universal, some issues - such as the freedom of religion - are difficult to accept as is the question of gender and, paradoxically, human rights and secularism (Goertz, 2006). Whilst it may be debatable to distinguish between the culture of Islam and its religious connotation, “Rights are inextricably linked with law and religion in many Islamic societies. Indeed, their relation to each other is central to their politics…President Sadat [Egypt], in an effort to establish religious legitimacy against Islamist challenges, wrote amendments into the constitution” (Zubaida p 292, 2004). These observations relate well to the following examples in Africa and Afghanistan [§ 5.1 & § 5.2]. 5. RECENT EXAMPLES OF THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS The African continent is one of the places where the most flagrant abuses in human rights occur, although the African Union [AU] has striven to provide unification of a variety of conflicting security policies (Williams, 2007). The author uses the ideas of “security culture and norm localization” to evaluate these policies in the light of the two main props of the AU security culture namely: “intolerance of unconstitutional changes of government and the responsibility to protect principle” (Williams, 2007). 5.1 Human Rights in the Sudan There has been violence in South, East and West Sudan for 20 years during which more than 2m people have died and 6m forced from their homes. The government has also perpetrated a shocking series of human rights violations “including torture, incommunicado detention, unfair trials, excessive use of force… restrictions on freedom of expression and association…[which] have in turn fuelled actions against the government by armed groups who themselves have committed human rights abuses” (Amnesty International, 2010). By refusing to uphold the International Criminal Court’s [ICC] indictment of President Bashir for human rights abuses and the consequent duty to apprehend him, the AU has put itself at odds with many “subscriber” nations. The understanding of these issues [and possible action] all fall within at least two of the elements identified by R2P, [§ 3]. 5.2 Afghanistan A sinister example of cultural specificity in human rights practices is given by the Taliban in Afghanistan where women have been stoned to death for adultery and, even by milder standards, are not allowed to leave home unescorted by a male relative. They are also refused access to public educational facilities (Franck, 2001). Whilst culture based these customs also have a powerful religious dimension [§ 4]. When criticized for these measures they vehemently reject the right of foreigners to interfere with their way of life; a response also incidentally given by the government of Florida when criticized for repeatedly using a faulty electric chair in the execution of a prisoner! 6. CONCLUSION The arguments advanced in this essay have shown that there are four main theories encapsulating human rights: (1) Constructivism (Wendt) (2) Huntingdon’s (3) Communitarianism and (4) Cosmopolitanism. In all of these culture is seen as a vital factor governing the interpretation and protection of human rights. Both Wendt and the Communitarians hold that the rights of the individual are best guarded and administered by the state [§ 2.1 & § 2.3], while Cosmopolitans believe that the exercise and protection of human rights should be extended beyond the boundaries of the state [§ 2.2]. There are similarities between Huntingdon and Wendt, in that both theories embody the concept of violent change caused by a clash of cultures [§ 2.1 & § 2.4]. Both, however allow for peaceful resolution of tensions. It is paradoxical that the most telling examples of communitarianism occur in “dictator” states where “rights” are imposed for the benefit of the majority at the expense of the individual against a background of culture and religious bigotry [§ 5.1 & § 5.2]. However, it is possible to say from the arguments presented that human rights are mostly cultural specific [communitarian] but can be considered so internationally [cosmopolitanism] although the shifts in direction [Western to Eastern {Asian}] and over time [§ 2.1] where the cultural differences may alter the balance of human rights [§ 2.5]. REFERENCES Amnesty International USA, (2010), Human Rights: http://www.amnestyusa.org/human-rights/page.do?id=1031002 Accessed 28/07/2010 Amnesty International Canada, (2010), Human Rights in Sudan: Overview, http://www.amnesty.ca/themes/sudan_overview.php Accessed 28/07/2010 Bromley, S. & Smith, M. J. (2004), Transforming International Order? In: Brown, W. et al. (eds), Ordering the International – History, Change, Transformation, London, Pluto Press, p 537. Brown, W., Bromley, S. & Athreye, S. (Eds.), (2004), Ordering the International – History, Change, Transformation, London, Pluto Press Edelmann, J. (2009), Reinterpreting International Change: Norm Localisation Processes Shaping the African Union: www.uni-leipzig.de/~ecas2009/index.php? Accessed 29/07/2010 Franck, T. M. (2001), Are Human Rights Universal? Foreign Affairs, The Council of Foreign Relations: http://wwwforeignaffairs.com/articles/56666/thomas-m-franck/are-human-rights-univ... Accessed 28/07/2010 Garson, R. (2004), Culture, identity and international relations, In: Brown, W. et al. (eds), Ordering the International – History, Change, Transformation, London, Pluto Press pp 217 & 220. Goertz, H. (2006), Human Rights – Universal or Culturally Specific? Qantara.de, [Dialogue with the Islamic World]: http://wwwqantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-478/_nr-474/i.html Accessed 28/07/2010 Prokhovnik, R. (2004), Rights and justice in international relations, In: Brown, W. et al. (eds), Ordering the International – History, Change, Transformation, London, Pluto Press, pp 244, 249, 250, 251, 257 & 260. Treanor, P. (2004), Why human rights are wrong: http://web.inter.nl.net/Paul.Treanor/human-rights.html Accessed 28/07/2010 UN, (1948), Universal Declaration of Human Rights: http://www.hrweb.org/legal/uhdr.html Accessed 28/07/2010 United Nations, (2005), The Responsibility to Protect [RtoP], Outcome Document of the High Level Plenary Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, September 2005 Williams, P. D. (2007), From non-intervention to non-indifference: the origins and development of the African Union’s security culture, African Affairs, Vol. 106, (423), 253-279. Zubaida, S. (2004), Culture, international politics and Islam; debating continuity and change, In: Brown, W. (eds), Ordering the International – History, Change, Transformation, London, Pluto Press, pp 264 & 292. Read More