Human Rights in Modern World - Essay Example

Topic: Lecturer: Presentation: Introduction All human beings are equal and have inalienable rights by virtue of being human beings. These include right to life, liberty, equal protection of the law, freedom of association and right to non-discrimination among others. All these rights were agreed upon by nations during the UN declaration of human rights in 1948. Though they originated from western nations who felt appropriate to set a universal bill of rights to protect individuals, most nations accepted and affirmed them in the UN declaration and in subsequent conventions. Everyone is entitled to human rights regardless of race, religion, sex, gender and culture (Forsythe, 2006). However, as Donnelly (2003) puts it human rights should not be misunderstood as absolute rights; rather, they are subject to requirements and provisions of the law. The human rights are used to set limits on state and its law and as such, each state by affirming the UN declaration has an obligation to protect the rights of its citizens. Debate has been going on as to whether human rights are or are not western impositions bearing in mind that they originated from the west. Various reasons have been given by opponents of universalism of human rights such as state sovereignty, conflict with values and cultures of different nations or rather imposition of western culture on third world countries, and emphasis on individual while ignoring collectivities (Donnelly, 2006; Mohr & Tsedroen, 2010; Forsythe, 2006). However, I will argue that human rights are not a western imposition and that they are universal in nature. Whether they originated from the west or not, it is worth noting that they apply to all human beings to preserve human dignity and as such, nations should stop using it as an excuse to violate the fundamental rights of their citizens. The international law guarantees is there to ensure that nations carry out their duties and obligations to their citizens. Are Human Rights a Western Imposition? It is true that the idea of human rights originated from the west. According to Mohr and Tsedroen (2010) human rights were a result of European enlightenment thinking. However, the question that we need to ask ourselves is does the origin matter? There are many other advancements that emanated from the west such as technology and industry but have not experienced rejection since they are viewed as essential for development. Just as these developments are essential so are human rights and we cannot deny that all human beings deserve better living standards in form of food, shelter, health and education and that individuals also require to associate with others in the society for development to be realised (Donnelly, 2003). Some would argue that by the time the UN declaration on human rights was affirmed, many nations were not members of the UN especially those from Africa. In fact according to Morsink (1999: 3) when the UN charter was founded in 1945 and the process began of formulating the international bill of rights, only 58 nations constituted the UN. As such, most nations did not participate in the process and in this regard, human rights may be seen as a western imposition especially so because most of the members were western nations. To be members of the UN nations had to be sovereign and in most cases African nations were still under colonial rule and could not participate. The bill of rights which was later accepted as human rights was aimed at protecting human rights as part of conditions for peace and end of the war (World War II) and to promote social progress and better standards of life (p. 1). On the other hand, though most nations did not participate in formulating the bill of rights by their accepting and affirming the UN declaration of human rights and implementing them in their own countries, this proves that human rights are universal. Everyone needs freedom to associate, equal treatment in the eyes of the law, protection from torture and slavery. Another argument in favour of universalism is that though nations did not participate in the process, the consequent conventions show that they accepted the universality of human rights. For example, the African charter was not an imposition of the west and neither was the African Union constitution Act. In fact, the African declaration for peoples and human rights borrows its preamble from the universal declaration (Donnelly, 2003). African countries cannot therefore claim that human rights are a western imposition but should rather appreciate and ensure citizen rights are protected. Claiming so is just a tactic by authoritative and oppressive regimes to violate human rights and avoid criticism from the international community. Another criticism usually levelled against human rights is that they infringe on state sovereignty. Each state has the freedom to conduct its internal affairs without interference from external forces and this includes dealing with affording human dignity to its citizens. Different nations have different cultures and values and feel that by following values that originate from the west their sovereignty is being infringed (Biersteker & Cynthia, 1996; Mohr & Tsedroen, 2010, Forsythe, 2006). However, proponents of universalism would argue that this is just another excuse to violate human rights. How does ensuring human dignity by respecting the rights of individuals entail infringement of sovereignty? All human beings have basic needs that need to be addressed irrespective of where they come from and western values have no impact on such needs. Besides, as Biersteker & Cynthia notes sovereignty is a social construct in that it emanates from social beings. As a social construct state sovereignty needs to be checked or limited by international laws otherwise states would use their unchecked authority to victimise citizens. For example, the political killings of Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador could not be tolerated by international community in the name of protecting state sovereignty. The UN convention allows nations to take measures against countries found violating human rights. Such measures include but not limited to sanctions, withdrawal of aid, stoppage of loans, economic and trade boycotts and military strikes (Donnelly, 2003: 109). Some nations would argue that this is interfering with the affairs of another state but states also have a right not to offer financial support or trade with countries they feel are not respecting human rights based on their own values. The only situation where this would be undermining the sovereignty of another state is intervening in the affairs of another state such as use of military intervention or as Donnelly puts it imposing its system of government on another state (p. 109). States have the right to formulate own policies in regards to human rights. This is because different nations have different conditions that warrant different treatment from other nations. This is not to say that human rights are not universal. On the contrary, it means nations are free to design policies that ensure these rights are afforded to citizens in line with international human rights standards stipulated in the international law and UN convention (Donnelly, 2006). It is therefore not proper to indicate that human rights are a western imposition simply because they initiated the process of guaranteeing human rights. Countries therefore have no right to do and practice own set of values about human rights but should use the set international norms and standards as a guide to laws formulation. The changing nature of state sovereignty also supports universal human rights ideology. According to Freeman (2002) the nature of state sovereignty and value of international norms and organisations keep changing due to various reasons such as technological advancements. This has led to globalisation and opening up borders of a country to international trade thus giving up some sovereignty. The world is interconnected thus more sharing of values thus claiming a western imposition of values is outdated. At first, human rights were a western concept but as time passes this became an international concept and each country has a duty to ensure human dignity (Forsythe, 2006: 25). Furthermore, even the west is limited by the international law and organisations. To formulate policies on some issues such as immigration the west is guided by European court on human rights, European court of justice and UN Security Council hence its sovereignty is restricted. This Forsythe claims is essential for the achievement of public goods (p 24). Human rights are also criticised for emphasising on individuals rather than collectives. This is considered a western culture which is contrary to other cultures such as Asian and African cultures (Donnelly, 2006; Ife, 2004). The Asian and African values are based on the society and as such it is believed that societal rights supersede individual rights and this is not what human rights advocate for. They stress the obligation of the state to protect individual rights of citizens as human beings with inalienable rights. On the other hand, the society is made of individuals and as such according individuals rights is enhancing society cohesion. Putting society rights above individual rights would mean the state is at liberty to ignore individual rights leading to mass violations of rights in the name of societal protection. More over, according to Donnelly (2003: 24-25) only individuals can have human rights. He asserts that although collectivities have rights these are not human rights and besides, human rights are embedded in social context. If the social environment is not conducive then individuals cannot enjoy their rights. “Rights are exercised and can only be enjoyed through collective” (p. 25). For example, even individuals have the freedom of expression and association; this is only possible if the society is willing to cooperate as individuals cannot associate in isolation. Another contested issue in regards to universality of human rights is the development-rights trade-offs. Countries may especially western countries believe it is essential to sacrifice some rights for the sake of development purposes (Freeman, 2002). It is therefore common to see governments especially dictatorships sacrificing civil and political rights for economic development. Though development is essential to enable the nation to afford human rights protection especially right to good standards of living, it should not be used as an excuse to violate human rights. The capitalists on the other hand, sacrifice economic and social rights to development. The western countries as donors impose conditions on developing countries while offering aid and this is viewed negatively by these countries. It is seen as imposing western values on developing countries but it is for the benefit of such countries in assisting them to develop and be able to guarantee citizens their rights. For example, the international monetary fund (IMF) and other financial institutions set conditions on countries to ensure they do not violate human rights lest they are denied aid. However, these infringements on rights are just temporary for the sake of development and should be kept in absolute minimum in number, duration and severity (Donnelly, 2006: 110). The international law is there to ensure countries fulfil their obligations to citizens. Institutions such as the international criminal court (ICC) were set up to deal with those who violate human rights through torture, massacre, ethnic cleansing and such atrocities. All countries are signatories to the Rome statute and have ratified these courts except the US. This means that its citizens cannot be indicted by the ICC but for those countries that have ratified the statute its citizens can be subjected to the international court process if they violate human rights (Viotti & Kauppi, 2006). This is one of the reasons human rights are viewed as a western imposition. The western countries commit mass violations of human rights such as people killed in Iraq bombings but their citizens are not prosecuted. Most of the individuals prosecuted at the ICC are from third world countries. However, this is not to say that human rights are western in nature it is the duty of the western countries especially the US to make sure it does not violate human rights and that it leads by example by ratifying the Rome statute. Conclusion Human rights are fundamental moral rights of persons that are necessary for life with human dignity. Every individual by virtue of being human is entitled to these rights and it is the duty and obligation of the state to guarantee these rights and ensure individuals enjoy exercising them by creating a conducive environment. Human rights were an initiative of western countries to ensure peace during war and included a long period of negotiations. The UN Declaration on Human Rights was ratified in 1948 and many nations have accepted and affirmed the declaration. As such, countries are bound by it and it does not infringe on the sovereignty of states as claimed by some nations neither does it impose western values on any nation. It is therefore imperative to conclude that human rights are not a western imposition. References Biersteker, T.J and Cynthia, W. 1996. State sovereignty as social construct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Donnelly, J. 2003. Universal human rights in theory and practice. 2nd ed. New York: Cornell University Press. Donnelly, J. 2006. International human rights: dilemmas in world politics. Perseus books group. Doyle, M. 1997. Ways of war and peace. New York: Norton Forsythe, D.P. 2006. Human rights in international relations. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Freeman, M. 2002. Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity. Ife, J. 2004. Human rights and social work: towards rights-based practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Mohr, T and Tsedroen, J (9eds). 2010. Dignity and discipline. USA: Wisdom Publications. Morsink, J. 1999. Universal declaration of human rights: origins, drafting and intent. University of Pennsylvania Press. Viotti, P and Kauppi. 2006. International relations and world politics: security, economy, identity 3rd ed. Prentice Hall. Read More