Can Universal Human Rights Exist in a Culturally Diverse World - Literature review Example

The existence of Universal Human Rights in a culturally diverse world Can Universal Human Rights exist in a culturally diverse world? The idea of whether human rights can be regarded as universal or culturally inclined is a debate that has existed for decades. This is because, in considering universality of human rights, ideas regarding right and wrong or good and evil as existing in the society, seems to be incompatible when considering beliefs held by different societies. However, important advances have occurred to narrow the gap that exist between those lobbying for universality on one hand and cultural relativism, on the other hand. In academic literature, the school of thought that who argued against universality in relation to human rights are today establishing new perspectives regarding human rights. This school of thought, now incorporates cultural elements within a universal concept related to human rights, instead of directly criticizing the idea of universality (Hey 2000, p.17). This approach taken in regard to human rights paves way for a focus on various issues affecting the society and the implications in terms of establishing human rights that are recognized internationally. Further, there is a likelihood of a new universalism being born as a result of globalization. This new universalism related to significant developments that have occurred globally in terms of theories and politics related to human rights. In practice, various rights that exist within the society are now viewed as being interdependent. However, there is also an increasing recognition of cultural diversity thus resulting in varying concepts related to rights in regard to a new universalism. For example, the establishment of the internationally recognized criminal tribunals in countries such as the Netherlands or Tanzania, reflect on a consensus for international responsibility, and also accountability in regard to serious crimes that are against humanity. In essence, this paper explores the historical-cultural context related to universality of human rights. (Hey 2000, p.19). Universality is an important characteristic related to human rights and by definition, human rights denotes the rights available to every human being and hence, considered universal. Each human being is considered a holder of human rights that are independent of their origin, their daily activities, where they reside and their citizenship or community. Universality in regard to human rights is often influenced by other factors associated with human rights, and human rights are categorical, egalitarian and indivisible (Onuma 2001, p.33). In essence, a review of universalism and relativism reveals a build-up of two different terminologies, however; the counterpart of the former term is particularism and for the latter term is absolutism. The main reason for the misconception revolves around an assumption identifying universalism as being only legitimate through absolute justification. As a result, a relative means of legitimization can establish only a justification considered relative. The result in this sense related to the proponents advocating for human rights tends to establish an absolute justification in terms of the set human rights. This assumption is influenced by the view that relative justification is not appropriate to establish universality related to human rights (Onuma 2001, p.42). On the other hand, it could be argued that this two terms lack direct association, which creates consequences in regarding to developing an understanding of the universality related to human rights, and also attempt to establish a justification. Human rights often struggles as a result of particular interests among states that place priority for sovereignty over universality related to human rights. In addition, the private sector also impacts on human rights as a result of focusing on self-regulating approaches and capitalizes to establish their influence relative to certain limits. Further, this challenge forms part of the legal and political aspects related to human rights, and as a result, of the moral implications related to human rights, as well. In this regard, individuals are able to recognize a positive trend for accepting human rights among states, establishment of international institutionalization for protecting human rights, and monitoring mechanisms on human rights performance among states (Cohen 2004, p.205). This is a way to respect the universality related to human rights and a minimal effort from the corporate world. On the same note, the establishment of human rights has not reached where it is supposed to be, the majority of human beings still face violations of their rights as human beings. Universality in essence, seems to be a claim, and not a reality. Further, human rights face a challenge from cultural diversity, and the challenge appears in terms of the moral dimension related to human rights. Even though the Conference of 1993 in Vienna, focused on reconfirming the validity related to ideals of universal rights for human beings, this universality faced criticism from different quarters. This is because of speculation about its Western origin, and in the first sight, this seems shocking since human rights is meant to provide individual freedom related to various aspects of life which also enhances cultural diversity(Cohen 2004, p.210). However, as defined in the I948 Universal Declaration related to human rights, this rights are individual rights and reflects on an individual’s perspectives and not the community’s. Further, human rights do not involve the protection of traditions, beliefs or culture. It involves the protection of individual freedom in regard to sharing world views, thoughts or beliefs within a community and to be a member of a community and practice the same way of life. The difference in this sense involves a criticism of human rights as being individualistic biases of human rights that overlooks article 9(Onuma 2001, p.75). Further, there is a notion of viewing human rights as being inherently a product of the west and established in a particular time to accommodate certain interests. This interests, are believed to be projected on the world stage in the form of an ethical mask, but in the real sense, is the old imperial or colonial power asserting itself (Leino 2002, p.465). Critics further view the concrete establishment of law and practice related to human rights as a means of imposing an aspect of humanity on the world stage considered lacking natural affinity as required (Bell 1996, p.643). However, such perceptions in relation to human rights should be rejected, but there is a need to identify the reason behind such criticism and how to convince the critics. Scepticism related to universalism is influenced by philosophy, politics, international relations and law. The history related to rights established for human beings has often been associated with the West. This begins with the era of philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato and certain Roman pedigree that includes Cicero through the Roman Catholic Church. The idea of human rights further moved to northern Europe and other outposts such as the United States (Leino 2002, p.468). However, the argument by the west regarding universality of human rights continue to receive vehement opposition from other corners of the globe. The idea of universality elicit various questions as it provides answers to same questions. The questions relate to the whether the multipolar or pluri-cultural world can be considered to be truly universal. In essence, the issue here, relate to human rights as a western concept that ignores different cultural, political and economic realities existing in other parts of the globe (Tharoor 1999, p.2). Conversely, the present day world is accustomed to wars related to lobbying for human rights where international laws have been established that presupposes the concept of universality. On the same note, the view that human rights in terms of causing universal discourse, serve the purpose of convenience to others with questionable agendas. As a result, the universal discourse is responsible for the questioning of the human rights ideology and opposition by intellectuals and countries. From a point of view of philosophical objection, it reiterates that nothing is universal, and all rights or values entails a definition influenced by cultural inclination. Hence, where there is not existence of universal culture, there is also no existence of human rights viewed as being universal. Opponents to universality contend that it clashes with communitarian view that reflects on other ideologies and traditions where society involves more than an individual member (Donnelly 2007, p.285). In regard to the idea of defining human rights, the concept depends on the context of either a state or a culture. For example, in countries that are not West oriented, individuals are not permitted similar rights compared to the west. The opponents of universal human rights concur that, within a Confucian tradition, duties prevails over rights. Further, in Africa, the community serves the purposes of establishing and protecting individual rights. In addition, a number of African societies, group rights always prevails over individual rights, and decisions of a political nature often engage a group consensus, and not by personal assertions of rights(Tharoor 1999, p.3). The cultural differences seem to have practical implication in regard to the universality of human rights. It is a common occurrence in the third world countries to argue against various human rights they regard to be irrelevant in their societal set-up. A number of countries and particular, in the developing countries, the idea of universality associated with human rights is viewed a way of imposing the western values. There are various cultural practices that impede on the universality of human rights such as the impossibility of women rights in certain cultural settings. For example, human rights cannot be viewed as universal especially in societies that embrace divergent cultural practices (Javanovich 2010, p.32). Apart from cultural beliefs, there is the issue related to religion, and among religious critics, the idea of universality in regard to human rights, nothing is universal when not based on a transcendent value represented by God and confined to the protection of different faiths. Such heritage does not synchronize with the Universal Declaration related to human rights. Critics further argue that in practical terms, the third world countries normally, are not able to accommodate human rights because, the responsibility in regard to nation building, consolidating state structure and economic development is incomplete. As a result, authoritarianism is more appropriate in terms of enhancing economic growth and development. This is the scenario in regard to the Asian values case that identifies economic growth evident in the Southeast Asia as a product of Confucian values. Such values include order, obedience and adherence to authority and suspending human rights is viewed as sacrificing a few for the benefit of the majority(Tharoor 1999, p.4). Mutua (2001, p. 202) conversely reiterate that the originators of rights related to human beings are the main cause of the existing discourse in regard to the universality of such rights. They include the Western countries, charity institutions or INGOs and also, United Nations. Further, there are three dimensions that are considered to highlight on the theoretical flaws related to the conception of human rights (Mutua 2001, p.202). In the first dimension, states are seen as the savages in terms of suppressing civil societies while, on the other hand, states regarding themselves as “noble” engage in controlling their demonic inclinations by cleaning itself and internalizing human rights. The “evil” state, however; engage in an illiberal or authoritarian antics, and as a result, the restoration of the state mainly depends on accommodating the human rights norms. Countries have a responsibility to guarantee the rights entitled to citizens, but is also a target for the existence of law related to human rights. However, on another note, the state should not be viewed as the villain, but the cultural development of a state. States become worse only when illicit cultures prevails over the establishment of good culture. The savage in essence relate to cultural practices considered disregarding human rights, and the savagery emerge in the conceptions and practices that include instituting a single-party state or military junta among other savagery practices across cultures. The state stands as an empty vessel which is used to perpetrate savagery in terms of fostering a savage culture (Mutua 2001, p.205). The second feature relates to the idea of the victim, in addition to victimhood where, human beings whose rights have been violated as a result of savagery is termed the victim. The victim presents a powerless figure whose rights are violated as a result of the actions associated with the state. In essence, the structure related to human rights is considered to be anti-catastrophic and also reconstructive. Anti-catastrophic nature of human rights denotes human rights as carrying out the function of preventing calamities by creating more victims. On the other hand, human rights is viewed as reconstructive as a result of re-engineering the state or the society to minimize the number of victims by preventing the situations giving rise to more victims. For example, the INGOs reports often highlights on the calamities and also provide remedies to deal with such calamities. The third feature relates to the saviour, seen as protecting the victims against tyranny. The saviour further, is viewed as providing freedom from a savagery state, and other negative cultural practices. The saviour in this sense, include the established human rights institutions such as INGOs, the West and United Nations. However, in reality, these institutions are considered as being merely fronts since, the saviour relates to the culturally based norms or practices that form part of liberal thought or philosophy. These human rights institutions though existing for a good cause, they are considered to be Eurocentric, and affected by flaws as identified in the SVS (savage-victim-saviour) metaphor (Mutua 2001, p.206). The first opposition against these institutions is that they belong to the historical continuum of the west’s colonial projects. As a result, the human rights movement’s claim for universality is discarded. Further the claim for universality does not make sense for non-western cultures in the sense that their struggles in advocating for human rights is often overlooked by the contemporary movements for human rights. On a second note, the SVS metaphor opposes the idea of cross-termination of cultures and in turn, propagates a Eurocentric ideology. This ideology involves transforming the non-western cultures into a Eurocentric model. As an example, the political democracy as envisaged in the west, is a product of human rights. As a result, the savage cultures are viewed as being on the peripheral of the established human rights institutions, and not embracing political democracy. This distance or gap in regard to human rights provides a window for various cultures to create victims. Third, the language or rhetoric associated with the human rights institutions presents critical theoretical short comes. This is viewed in the light of a biased rhetoric associated with movements that advocate for human rights thus; unable to achieve a cross-cultural legitimacy. For example, a leader may be labelled as a dictator, but such a label is disregarded locally as a result of the rhetoric by the human right’s movements. This rhetoric further undermines the establishment of a universal warrant to punish real violators and propagate the resistance to execute apprehension or punishment for crimes against humanity (Mutua 2001, p.210). The universal human rights can exist in a culturally diverse world through the establishment of international law in which every country across the world becomes a signatory. This in essence would commit countries to actions that promote universal human rights. As put forth in the Universal Declaration, there exist a broader consensus in regard to human dignity compared to any single culture. Since there are commonalities in relations to different cultures across the world, signing to an international law would ensure a homogenization of the fight against heinous acts such as genocide, racial discrimination, advocating for women’s rights, child abuse, torture and promoting religious tolerance. When member states within the United Nation’s organ reach a standard of setting human rights then, universal human rights can be promoted and advanced to overcome cultural inclinations (Penna & Campbell 1998, p.17). The existence of a uniting body helps to promote international consensus that establishes universality of rights for human beings. In signing to adhere to the established international law, countries have a legal obligation to promote universal human rights. As a result of being members of the United Nations Charter, there is no state that is exempted from adherence to universal human rights. In essence, all member states are bound to promote and safeguard human rights regardless of their cultural perspectives. These obligations were asserted as the first priority for all government across the world to promote and protect. Further, the principle of non-discrimination forms a crucial part in instituting international law. As a result, signatories are obligated to view human rights as existing for all human beings, and not to discriminate against race, religion or political among other rights enshrined for humanity. In the event that a country dismisses the existence of universal human rights based on cultural relativism, this would result in the denial of rights for individuals living under the authority of the state. As such, universal human rights plays a significant role despite the difference in cultural diversity, and its presence globally help to prevent violation of human rights regardless of culture (Penna & Campbell 1998, p.21). References Bell D. A. 1996, The East Asian Challenge to Human Rights: Reflections on an East-West Dialogue. Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 18, pp. 643-645. Cohen J. 2004, Minimalism About Human Rights: The Most We Can Hope for? The Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 12(2): pp. 190-213. Donnelly, J., 2007, The Relative Universality of Human Rights. Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 29(2):pp.281-306. Hey, H. 2001, Universal Human Rights and Cultural Diversity. Human Rights and Human Welfare, Vol. 1(2): pp. 17-20. Javanovich, M. 2010, Are There Universal Collective Rights? Human Rights Review, Vol. 11(1): pp. 17-44. Leino, P. 2002, A European Approach to Human Rights? Universality Explored. Nordic Journal of International Law, Vol. 71(4): pp. 455-495. Mutua, M. 2001, Savages, Victims, and Saviors: The Metaphors of Human Rights. Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 42 (1): pp. 201-246. Onuma Y. 2001, Towards an Intercivilizational Approach to Human Rights: For Universalization of Human Rights through Overcoming of a Westcentric Notion of Human Rights. Asian Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 7, pp. 21-81. Penna, D.R.; Campbell, Patricia J.1998, Human rights and culture: beyond universality and relativism. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 19(1): pp. 7-27. Tharoor, S. 1999. Are Human Rights Universal?. World Policy Journal, Vol. 16 (4): pp. 1- 6. Read More