Debating Human Rights in International Relations - Report Example

Human Rights 1 Abstract The concept of Human Rights is not so new as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was put forward in 1948. However, some of the critics are still asking whether the idea has any credibility in the modern world of cultural diversity; whether anything could be universal at all in this present scenario. Also, some argue that Human Rights is an essentially Western concept of the developed world which ignores different cultural, economic and political realities of the developing world. And there is an ongoing debate on whether Human Rights is "Western-centric" and therefore not applicable for the non-west countries? The Human Rights supporters, on the other hand, feel that the idea basically stems from being human. It ensures that people across the world would get the fundamental support and security for their existence as human beings. Human Rights are not legal obligations, rather an approach to make life worthy of living to the mankind. And hence it is not something dumped by the Western countries to the East, but a universal approach. Debating Human Rights in International Relations Before we start debating on the universality of Human Rights and answer the question, Is Human Rights "Western-centric" and therefore not applicable for the non-west countries? Why or why not? Let us have an idea about what Human Rights is. Human Rights is by and large defined as the “fundamental rights which humans have by the fact of being human, and which are neither created nor can be abrogated by any government. These include cultural, economic and political rights, such as right to life, liberty, education, and equality before law, and right of association, belief, free speech, information, religion, movement and nationality. Promulgation of these rights is not binding on any country, but they serve as a standard of concern for people and form the basis of many modern national constitution”1. The term ‘Human Rights’ was coined first by the UK philosopher John Locke (Locke) in the 17th century. Locke defined it as absolute moral claims or entitlements to life, liberty and property2. However, the concept gained much popularity after the US declaration of rights in 1776. In December 10th 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and since 1950s December 10th is celebrated as the Human Rights Day (60th Anniversary of UDHR, 1948-2008)3. However, there is an ongoing debate on the universality of Human Rights. More and more the critics are asking whether anything in today's multicultural, diverse world can be truly universal or not. According to some, the whole concept of Human Rights is essentially a Western concept. Some of the critics questioned Is Human Rights "Western-centric" and therefore not applicable for the non-west countries? While in the West people are increasingly coming to a consensus on its universality, the very idea is severely opposed by the critics in other parts of the world. Moreover, there are some religious critics who are against UDHR as they feel that nothing could be universal if that is not founded on the basis of the religious almighty. The philosophical objection against it is another fundamental idea held by the societies that in this diversified world, nothing can be universal. It is the cultural perception that defines and governs all rights and values and when no one can claim that the culture is universal across the world, hence there could be no universal Human Rights. Some of the philosophers have even objected the very idea of Human Rights saying that it is based on an anthropocentric approach4. Anthropocentric approach means that it is a human-centered view of the world; an individualistic view where the propagators are thinking human beings as an autonomous creature. Consequently, Human Rights propagate the idea of private property, the right to freedom of contract and the right to exercise privacy. However, the communitarian idea put forward by some other cultures and ideologies is in conflict with this idea. In communitarian idea the emphasis is on society and the society is conceived as far more than the sum of its individual members. In fact, in many non-Western cultures individual rights are not entertained in the same manner as that of the West. For example, in the Confucian or Vedic traditions, duties are considered as more important than the rights. On the other hand, in some of the African states, it is the community who protects and nurtures the individuals. An African writer has summed up their philosophy as "I am because we are, and because we are therefore I am"5. In those particular cultures the community revolves around respect, restraint, responsibility and reciprocity instead of rights. They put group rights above the individual rights. The political decisions are also made by the means of group consensus, not through individual assertions of rights. Besides, in many developing countries of the third world, some of the Human Rights concepts are simply not relevant to their societies. For example, the article no under UDHR that says "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment". Free choice of employment and favourable conditions of work are simply un-imaginable in some of the sweatshops of the Third World countries. The 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, Austria focused on Cultural and value differences in the context of universality of Human Rights. The China emphasized on regional differences and gave an opinion that the Human Rights frameworks should consider regional diversity. Some of the critics argued that the concept of Human Rights is Eurocentric or Western. The critics feel that individual rights are excessively ‘individualistic’, based on individualistic culture. And this is a concept of the Western world. Individualism is found and propagated by the West only. This concept is in opposition to cultural, communal family and spiritual values of the East. According to Chinese opinion, ‘Individuals must put the state rights before their own’6. The Asian communities, in general, gives less emphasis on freedom and more on order and discipline than their Western counterparts. The political and civil rights as declared in the UDHR are less relevant in Asia than in the West. The Asian values try to defend authoritarianism. Lee Kwan Yew (Lee), the former prime minister of Singapore, was in favour of the idea that the growth in Asian economy is a result of authoritarian policies. However, on the other hand Amartya Sen (Sen), the Nobel laureate economist from India has criticised this concept on the following points. First, there is no evidence that authoritarian politics directly influence economic growth and there are lots and lots of contradictory evidence. Second, he questioned what are the so called Asia values and where in what aspect? Are the values cultural or religious? According to Sen, there are different systems of values in Buddhism and Confucianism. While Buddhism value freedom, Confucianism value authority. While the West values individual, Confucian philosophy concentrates on family and community. The Confucian values feel that the Western principles are abstract. Rather, the Confucian approach pays attention to concrete social roles and attitudes to life. This school of thought sees human beings as socially embedded and not autonomous individuals. There are four major philosophical differences with Confucian philosophy and Human Rights. These are the following: Human Rights promotes a concept isolated individualism, a de-socializing concept which is different than the Confucian philosophy Confucian emphasis on social collectives is antithetical to individual rights. It focuses on social responsibility prior to individual rights. Hierarchy and paternalism are at odds with the idea of moral autonomy and equality of individuals The non-litigious nature of social interaction does not encourage self-interest and profit-mix which the Western rights are protecting It could be concluded that while Human Rights protect important interests in humanity, but they are based on different value systems than that of Asian nations that follows Confucianism. However, Human Rights could be a fall back apparatus. These rights are important when virtues fail or personal relationships break down. It’s better to exercise the rights as the last instrument, rather than the first, as the means to resolve conflicts. On the other hand, Buddhism, another major religious belief followed by a large number of people in Eastern countries, while supports some of the aspects of UDHR, at the same time differ on some other aspects. Buddhism talks about ‘No-soul’ or ‘anatman’ which denies the idea of autonomy and authenticity of self. Though it does not deny self as a person, but it does not support self-centeredness. Buddhism talks about liberation from egoism and wants it followers to focus on serving others. It believes in inter-connect ness of all beings including both human and non-human. And it encourages in actual participation in relief work and charity. While Lee supported that the growth in Asian economy is due to the authoritarian policies followed by the Eastern world, his main focus was the East Asian countries like Korea, Japan, Vietnam and China. However, these are very distinct from the Southeast Asian countries. A Southeast Asian nation like India is very heterogeneous culturally and spiritually. Therefore, Asian values could not be generalised as such. Another major controversy revolves around the rights of women and equality of sexes7. Some of the societies treat this idea of equality as an attempt to impose alien Western values on them8. Generally in those societies, marriage is not seen as a bond between two individuals rather an alliance between two families. Hence often the right under UDHR "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution" is simply unimaginable in those societies9. We can take the example of Afghanistan under the aegis of Taliban. There was an incident where a lady, who was the mother of seven children, was stoned to death apparently for adultery in front of a large crowed of men and children10. In another incident, Britain's highest court - the House of Lords, allowed two Pakistani women who were accused of adultery, to take refuge in the United Kingdom to protect them from death. In most of the Arab States women are denied voting rights. They can not even access public education or go outside alone. Either their brother or husband has to accompany them. On the other hand, some countries do not conform to the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" as mentioned in the UDHR. Some of the critics, on the other hand, simply feel that the developing countries are just unable to afford Human Rights. As in developing countries the tasks like nation building, economic development, and consolidation of the state structure consumes all the time and energy. Also, until and unless these minimum requirements are there, its difficult to achieve much subtle issues like the UDHR. In this way, the critics feel that the Human Rights concept is understood, applied, and argued over only by a few people in Western developed countries. They feel that if UDHR is called universal that universality is only of the privileged ones. It does not extend to the lowest rungs of the ladder. However, there is, of course, a case for the defense. The philosophical objection that nothing could be universal in this diversified world, could be overruled as things such as the concepts of justice and law, the legitimacy of government, the dignity of the individual, protection from oppressive or arbitrary rule, and participation in the community affairs are found almost in every society across the world. There are numerous common denominators between different cultures. Then, a number of developing countries like India, China, Chile, Cuba, Lebanon, Panama etc. took active part in the drafting of UDHR. Also, the principles of human rights have been widely adopted, imitated, and endorsed by the developing nations. Besides, the critics who feel that the principles of UDHR are invading their culture should understand that culture is not a closed system11. Rather, it is constantly evolving. In fact, in every culture there are some values that societies outgrow and reject over time. For example, there was a time when slavery was acceptable almost throughout the world. However, it is not so in today's world. Also, one culture sometimes imbibes some values from some other culture and then assimilates those new values as its own. Sometimes it has been seen that it’s the fundamentalists who exercise their whims under the disguise of making a hullabaloo about protecting their culture12. The case of individual freedom of India’s Muslim Women regarding Protection of Rights upon Divorce Act could be taken as an example in this case. In one such a case Shah Banu, a divorced Muslim woman, asked for alimony and the Indian Supreme Court upheld her right. However, this created outrage from Muslim traditionalists who claimed this violated their religious beliefs that divorced women were only entitled to the return of the bride price paid upon marriage. The Indian parliament then passed a law to override the court's judgment, under which Muslim women married under Muslim law would be obliged to accept the return of the bride price as the only payment of alimony. However, the official Muslim charity foundation would assist them. Supporter of Human Rights feel that culture should not be imposed as coercion to the members of the society. Rather, it should be like those who freely choose to live by and to be treated according to their traditional cultures are welcome to do so whereas others, who choose to be free from this, should not be oppressed. Kofi Annan (Annan), the U.N. secretary general, argued that there are no qualms between Human Rights and religious faiths but there is, of course, point of difference with the faithful. In any case, freedom is not a value found only in Western faiths: it is highly prized in Buddhism and in different aspects of Hinduism and Islam. And then freedom supports development and change. Authoritarianism promotes repression, not development, as it prevents change. Even the economic development of a country includes a high level of literacy and school education, successful land reforms, openness to competition, export and industrialization etc; none of which could be achieved by authoritarianism and none of these are incompatible with Human Rights13. Rather, the political and civil rights acts as the base to draw attention to the individual needs and to demand action from the government to provide individual rights. The Human Rights supporters often wonder why the critics oppose its promotion so much. These are nothing but the fundamental rights that human beings need for their existence14. Who would not want the right to life? The right not to be enslaved, not to be physically assaulted, not to be arbitrarily arrested, imprisoned and executed? Annan once asked at a speech in Tehran University in 1997, “When have you heard a free voice demand an end to freedom? Where have you heard a slave argue for slavery? When have you heard a victim of torture endorse the ways of the torturer? Where have you heard the tolerant cry out for intolerance?”15. Human Rights could be considered as a system opposing to torture, child sacrifice, genocide etc., which has a universal appeal and reach. It appeals to the reasoning and self-interest of all humans. It is supported by painful experiences from history that destroyed both parties: the torturers and the tortured ones. In order to accept that torture or racism is bad one does not need to become the follower of a particular religion or Western, or Eastern. The simple reasoning that is there in a grown up individual would make him know this fact. There are many people from all religions, regions and cultures who have no problem with accepting the goals of UDHR. Its appeal, in general, transcends cultures and religions. Tolerance and mercy have been considered as the ideals of government rule and human behavior across the cultures. It has been noticed that it’s only the authoritarian rulers and power elites who defend the idea of Human Rights to sustain their power. Human Rights is an active and positive idea that focus on development of the mankind16. On the other hand, without development, Human Rights could not be proliferated. In a nation with a billion hungry, deprived, illiterate, and jobless citizens, Human Rights could not be practiced17. Hence to begin with, the right to development should be considered as a universal fundamental right to the human folk18. The Human Rights concept not only tries to restrict political oppression or racial persecution but also prevent social deprivation and economic exploitation19. The critics who are against Human Rights could be questioned that why would some societies have the right to deny human beings the opportunity to fulfill their aspirations for growth and fulfillment while others would permit the same? On what basis should we accept this double standard? However, we should keep in mind that universality of Human Rights could not be assumed as the uniformity. The views or idea of Human Rights might not surpass all possible philosophical, cultural, or religious differences or represent a miraculous collection of the world's ethical and philosophical systems. Rather, it is something which does not fundamentally contradicts the ideals and aspirations of any society and reflects a common universal humanity. Basically, the ideas of Human Rights derive from the fact of being human and not something of a legal code. However, its standard is being proclaimed internationally. It could be fully realized only when different countries across the globe would accept and implement it within their own legal systems. In conclusion, it could be said that the philosophy that negotiates individual rights with common good under the light of reason and empirical evidence will ultimately provide all citizens of this planet with a sound and universal human rights20. And that will be gladly accepted by the nations irrespective of East or West. Individual rights are also necessary to lead a healthy, happy and peaceful life. When individual freedom and happiness is lost does anybody care about culture and society? Who cares about a society consisting unhappy individuals? Sure, only those who enjoy oppressing and exploiting in the name of culture.  When individuals freely participate in shaping their government and legislation, both the individual and society is full of joy and peace. We can hope that with time, a healthy balance will be discovered between individual freedoms and social norms and constraints. The source of human rights is freedom of expression and open society and people should focus on that instead of the whole Western or Eastern issue. References: Human Rights: Definition, http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/human-rights.html What are Human Rights?, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.aspx Universal Declaration of Human Rights, http://www.udhr.org/udhr/default.htm Tharoor, S. (1999/2000), Are Human Rights Universal?, WORLD POLICY JOURNAL, Volume XVI, No4, WINTER The Rise of Cultural Exceptionalism, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/56666/thomas-m-franck/are-human-rights-universal Life of John Locke (2007), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/ 60th Anniversary of UDHR (1948-2008), http://www.un.org/events/humanrights/udhr60/ The Universality of Human Rights, (2005) http://idw-online.de/pages/de/event15613 Tharoor S. (2001), Are Human Rights Universal?, New Internationalist magazine, http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Human_Rights/Are_HR_Universal%3F.html Human Rights, Justice and Reform, Third World Travellor, http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Reforming_System/HRJusticeReform.html Azizah al- Hibri. (1994), Who Defines Women's Rights? A Third World Woman's Response, http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/v2i1/alhibr21.htm Korner A. (2006), Third World countries and rights to development, http://mexico.tigweb.org/express/panorama/article.html?ContentID=8733 Women in Islam, http://www.themodernreligion.com/w_main.htm Third World Countries in terms of political rights and civil liberties, http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world.htm Right to Culture, http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=157 Lasso Jose A. (1997), A culture of human rights - UN human rights program, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1309/is_n4_v34/ai_20518046/ Women in Islam, http://www.islamfortoday.com/women.htm Gender Equality, http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=418 Sfeir-Younis S. (2006), Human Rights Must Be a Consideration for Economic Development Organizations, http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/commentary/data/000002 Lynch Owen J. (1997), Human Rights, Environment, and Economic Development: Existing and Emerging Standards in International Law and Global Society, http://www.ciel.org/Publications/olpaper3.html Read More

The philosophical objection against it is another fundamental idea held by the societies that in this diversified world, nothing can be universal. It is the cultural perception that defines and governs all rights and values and when no one can claim that the culture is universal across the world, hence there could be no universal Human Rights. Some of the philosophers have even objected the very idea of Human Rights saying that it is based on an anthropocentric approach4. Anthropocentric approach means that it is a human-centered view of the world; an individualistic view where the propagators are thinking human beings as an autonomous creature.

Consequently, Human Rights propagate the idea of private property, the right to freedom of contract and the right to exercise privacy. However, the communitarian idea put forward by some other cultures and ideologies is in conflict with this idea. In communitarian idea the emphasis is on society and the society is conceived as far more than the sum of its individual members. In fact, in many non-Western cultures individual rights are not entertained in the same manner as that of the West. For example, in the Confucian or Vedic traditions, duties are considered as more important than the rights.

On the other hand, in some of the African states, it is the community who protects and nurtures the individuals. An African writer has summed up their philosophy as "I am because we are, and because we are therefore I am"5. In those particular cultures the community revolves around respect, restraint, responsibility and reciprocity instead of rights. They put group rights above the individual rights. The political decisions are also made by the means of group consensus, not through individual assertions of rights.

Besides, in many developing countries of the third world, some of the Human Rights concepts are simply not relevant to their societies. For example, the article no under UDHR that says "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment". Free choice of employment and favourable conditions of work are simply un-imaginable in some of the sweatshops of the Third World countries. The 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, Austria focused on Cultural and value differences in the context of universality of Human Rights.

The China emphasized on regional differences and gave an opinion that the Human Rights frameworks should consider regional diversity. Some of the critics argued that the concept of Human Rights is Eurocentric or Western. The critics feel that individual rights are excessively ‘individualistic’, based on individualistic culture. And this is a concept of the Western world. Individualism is found and propagated by the West only. This concept is in opposition to cultural, communal family and spiritual values of the East.

According to Chinese opinion, ‘Individuals must put the state rights before their own’6. The Asian communities, in general, gives less emphasis on freedom and more on order and discipline than their Western counterparts. The political and civil rights as declared in the UDHR are less relevant in Asia than in the West. The Asian values try to defend authoritarianism. Lee Kwan Yew (Lee), the former prime minister of Singapore, was in favour of the idea that the growth in Asian economy is a result of authoritarian policies.

However, on the other hand Amartya Sen (Sen), the Nobel laureate economist from India has criticised this concept on the following points. First, there is no evidence that authoritarian politics directly influence economic growth and there are lots and lots of contradictory evidence. Second, he questioned what are the so called Asia values and where in what aspect? Are the values cultural or religious? According to Sen, there are different systems of values in Buddhism and Confucianism. While Buddhism value freedom, Confucianism value authority.

Read More