Opponents of Universal Human Rights - Essay Example

HUMAN RIGHTS CAN NEVER BE UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTABLE Introduction It is apparent that human rights have been considered vital across the globe. Nevertheless, different cultures have different practices that could be analysed to mean that human rights cannot be made universal. For instance, the issue of globalisation has been critical in acculturation and bringing people together for various reasons. In this regard, opponents of universal human rights believe that such developments highly contribute to loose of cultural values that they consider ideal for their wellbeing.1 Opponents of universal human rights In some cultures, for instance in Afghanistan, the new law allows men to attack their wives, sisters and children without the fear of being prosecuted in a court of law. In a normal situation, universal human rights cannot allow such a law to be passed. In fact, any law made to suppress or harm anybody is believed to infringe human rights. In light of this, Afghans could view universal human rights as an impediment to their culture. In some African countries, for instance in Kenya, some cultures support forced marriages and women genital mutilation as important part of their culture. In fact, such cultures have been disobeying government laws that stipulate that every child must be taken to school as opposed to the culture that endorses early girl child marriage. To them, early girl child marriage acts as a form of wealth creation for her family from the bride price paid. In another dimension, it is evident that universal human rights do not recognise female genital mutilation as necessary rite of passage. Nevertheless, some cultures believe that such practices are critical in ensuring that the girl ought to follow such practices because they encourage them to remain respectful and mature. In addition, some religious practices have been in fight with governments over the claim of abuse of their rights because of being forced to take their children to hospital. Some believe that they have power to pray and heal any sick person. Conversely, government forcing them to go to hospital is not acceptable and is considered as an attack of the freedom of worship that is guaranteed by the constitution. The larger number of critics of universal human rights comes from philosophers. They argue that universal human rights are a western concept that tends to ignore different cultural, political and economic facts of the south. 2They believe that values of universal human rights are an unacceptable concept that is ironical in many ways. For example, they argue that universal human rights can only be practical if the world practices communism. They believe that the rights of the poor have never been the same with those of rich people. In addition, the basic argument is that there is no universal culture thus there cannot be universal human rights. Nonwestern societies view some ethic practices as a duty rather than rights. For instance, wife beating is considered ideal because it helps in shaping her behaviors that discourages men from performing their duties and this can lead to loss of livelihood. Politics have also been highly blamed over the making of universal human rights. Some developing countries believe that the concept of universal human rights is politically instigated. For instance, some countries refused to be dignitaries to the international criminal court (ICC) which is viewed as a court to oppress the third world countries. In fact, the argument on the ICC, which was formed to handle cases of violation of international crimes which highly touches on universal human rights violation have been that the court only targets leaders from developing countries. Perhaps, this is so because due to cultural diversity of these countries, most of the human rights are violated in the name of cultural practices. For instance, cattle rustling have been common in nomadic communities. However, in the process, people are killed. As a result, the community of the killed people plans retaliation attacks that end up being chaotic as more people end up dying in the battle. According to such cultures, it is critical to defend ones community even if it means shedding blood. With such deliberations, it is apparent that universal human rights cannot be acceptable by some people or by some cultures. Most cultures from third world countries do not acknowledge universal human rights because some of them were adopted during colonial period and this is seen as unrealistic. Additionally, some religions believe that human rights can only be acceptable if they are formed on the basis of the values of their faith. It is also apparent that inequality has highly contributed to refutation of universal human rights. Poor people believe that the rights of the poor cannot be compared to the rights of the rich. For example, a rich person can easily influence judicial processes to favor him even when he is on the wrong as opposed to the poor that is mostly not favoured by the law. Therefore, according to the poor, their inability to have things their way is already violation of their rights. Nevertheless, this is contrast to what the international community view the issue of human rights. According to the UN, universal human rights are based on the international law that safeguards the interest of all people.3 In this regard, the argument by those that support universal human rights is based on the equality of human race regardless of their cultural or religious affiliation. In addition, the voices of the vulnerable and disadvantaged are aired through the universal human rights. Women and children, who are considered to be most vulnerable, have been catered for through the universal human rights. For instance, they argue that the right to life is basic and nobody is superior to the other. On the issue of culture and human rights, they argue that culture is critical and everybody has the right to practice his culture as long as his practices do not bring harm to other people. In light of this, universal human rights go beyond culture beliefs and practices. Therefore, human rights can be universally acceptable as long as everybody focuses on respecting the life of other people. Proponents of universal human rights In right of this, the opponents of the debate regarding to the fact that human rights could never be recognised as universal argue that, the concept human rights has huge significance in the life of the entire human race across the world. Apparently, the struggle to have human rights discussed and embraced by the majority in the world has not been an easy task. Never the less, the creation of the United Nations over five decades ago demonstrated to the entire world that individual nations and groups of nations as well were capacitated to fight for the rights of human beings at all cost. According to The Global Human Rights Regime, it is evident that most people have sort for the recognition of human rights for civil political and other related atrocities without success until the United Nations intensified its campaign on the issues. In essence, the renowned nongovernmental organisation partnered with individual governments and others multilateral institutions to fight for human rights particularly in institutions, treaties and norms.4 As a matter of fact, the UN and the other partisan organisations have portrayed a remarkable progress in ensuring that human rights have been exercised in most parts of the world. To begin with, these organisations have ensured that people who have been denied a number of their individual rights in one way or another have the privilege to access public health care to cater for their health issues through the devotion of a specific amount of funds. In addition, these organisations have been on the fore front in ensuring that slavery and or forced labour that is practiced in most parts of the world is abolished forthwith and instead replaced with better working conditions that embrace the rights of human beings. Similarly, the ever increasing list of human rights as emphasized by numerous human rights partisan organisations have played a huge role in encouraging most states towards legalizing them for the sake of laws that govern them through both constitutions and statues. Of importance to note is that, the concept human rights revolve around many aspects that are directly or indirectly related to human life. For instance, human rights entail the freedom from slavery and or forced labour, torture, gender and racial discrimination, right to education, healthcare among other fundamental rights. In fact, human rights are never constant as they change according to various interpretations that are given out by different defenders and states as well. Consequently, the United Nations Security Council is one of the most respected dependants of human rights across the world and especially in fight against those countries that do not respect the rights on their citizens. Through this Security Council, various court systems have been established and strengthen with the aim of curbing the human rights violations.5 For instance, the International Criminal Court (ICC) based in Netherlands has been involved in the prosecution of people who have played roles in human rights violations across the globe like in Iraq, Syria, Rwanda among other countries. Similarly, countries such as Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone have also come up with tribunals which have assisted in giving punishment to those who are guilty for violating human rights. In light of this, most European countries have consolidated their fight towards achieving compensation for violation of human rights through unique courts where citizens across these countries seek justice through appeals especially when their native countries have sort to violate their rights. Nongovernmental organisations have played an enormous role in giving specific information, with inclusion of supervising related issues.6 According to an article published in ‘The Independent’ the UK government was responsible for the advising the Indian officials pertaining to assault that happened on the Golden Temple of Amritsar over three decades ago. However, it is argued that the government under the rule of Margaret Thatcher agreed to first send them adviser four months before the intended assault as requested by the Indian government. Through this, it was argued that the two governments would have a bilateral relationship. In essence, this article serves as an example to demonstrate that there is a necessity to have relationship between states across the global as this assists in giving more impact towards championing for human rights for human race. In this regard, scholars associated to human rights argue that human rights are specifically meant to cover human race from atrocities that are mostly brought about by political, social and economic aspects that constitutes individual nations and states. Additionally, the issue of human rights been violated in one part of the world means that the rest of the world sympathises with such events and as such play various roles in trying to curb such acts. Bibliography: Baylis John, Smith Steve and Owens Patricia. The Globalization of World Politics. New York: OUP, 2011. Council on Foreign Relations. The Global Human Rights Regime. Council on Foreign Relations, 2013. Diana Ayton-Shenker. The Challenge of Human Rights and Cultural Diversity. Accessed on 5th Feb 2014 from: http://www.un.org/rights/dpi1627e.htm Patricia Feeney. Business and human rights: the struggle for accountability in the UN and the future direction of the advocacy agenda. International journal on human rights, 6 (11): 161-175. Pubantz, Jerry. Constructing Reason: Human Rights and the Democratization of the United Nations. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Cengage Learning, Inc, 2005. Tomuschat, Christian. Human Rights: Between Idealism and Realism. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Read More