The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background information while supporting my hypothesis that human rights should be based on particular cultural values and finally drawing a conclusion. A general definition of human rights are that they are rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled to, simply because there human. It is the idea that ‘all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.’ The thought that human rights are universal emerges from the philosophical view that human rights are linked to the conservation of human dignity- that respect for individual dignity is needed regardless of the circumstance, leading to the notion that human rights are universal. The earliest form of human rights can be traced back to European history- the French Declaration on the Rights of Man and of Citizen which says that men are born free and equal in rights. The Declaration of Human Rights was drafted in 1948 to recognise the r... ... middle of paper ... ...s/gratis/Ibrahim-17-3.pdf> [Accessed 28 February 2011]. Magno, A., (2001) Human Rights in Times of Conflict: Humanitarian Intervention . Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, 2 (5). [online] Available from: [Accessed 2 March 2011] United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report (2000) Human Rights and Human Development (New York) p.19 [online] Available from: [Accessed 2 March 2011] Charney, E., (1999) Cultural Interpretation and Universal Human Rights: A Response to Daniel A. Bell. Political Theory. 27 (6), 84. [online] Available from: [Accessed 28 February 2011]
After the initial remarks, the author presents the four myths by setting out the works of several scholars. Marks identifies the first myth as “The Myth of Presumptive Universality”. She presents Joseph Raz’s views that we have human rights not because we are human, but because those rights simply exist. Raz also claims that the rights that we have adopted are biased and do not respect the cultural diversity of the world. The scholar claims that if rights were truly universal then we should’ve had a higher
Humanitarian intervention after the post-cold war has been one of the main discussions in the International Relation theories. The term intervention generally brings a negative connotation as it defines as the coercive interference by the outside parties to a sovereign state that belongs in the community. The humanitarian intervention carried out by international institutions and individual sovereign states has often been related to the usage of military force. Therefore, it is often perceived intervention as a means of ways to stop sovereign states committing human rights abuse to its people. This essay will focus on the key concepts of allowing for humanitarian intervention mainly in moral and justice in international society. This essay will also contribute some arguments against humanitarian intervention from different aspects of theories in International Relation Theory.
Before any legislation could be implemented, a definition of human rights had to be compiled and accepted. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was approved in 1948 by th...
Human rights are universal and applicable to everyone no matter their cultural distinctions. The concept of human rights has been cultivated and molded for centuries. Various cultures such as Greece, Britain, and Rome have in their history all had a form of human rights within their ideologies and laws. It was not until World War II that international human rights were determined as law. Traditional legal theory focuses are reason and rationale based. Law is viewed as “application of formulated rules to established facts yielding decisions (Morris, 1958, pg. 148).” Sociologist Catherine Lane West-Newman (2005) in Feeling for Justice? Rights, Laws, and Cultural Context explores the absence of emotions and feelings within our current legal
There is a big problem nowadays that all countries, regardless of religion, culture or governmental system, are facing, and that is human rights. Human rights are moral principals that set out certain standards of human behaviour and are regularly protected as legal rights in national and international law.
The aim of this paper is to provide a brief analysis of the First Generation of human rights. Without the purpose of being redundant, an Epistemological, Phenomenological and Ontological overview on how these rights were constructed is necessary, in order to holistically understand all the possible implications that they had, are having and will have when being implemented. Despite the central argument of “relativity” vis-à-vis “universality” would be mentioned, the core premises of the discussion will try to use analytical approaches rather than mere descriptive ones.
One of the main reasons why human rights have been put in place is to protect the public life and public space of every individual being. One fundamental characteristic of human rights is that they are equal rights; they are aimed at providing protection to every person in an equal way. These rights have been entrenched through laws that are passed by states and international conventions. Human rights laws have evolved over time, and have been shaped by several factors, including philosophical theories in the past. This paper looks at the theories of two philosophers, Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills, and how their teachings can be used to explain the sources of human rights. Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills.
...Humanitarian Intervention: Moral and Political Constraints. (The Lessons of History)." International Journal 62, no. 4 (2007): 942-51.
In the last hundreds years, human beings have been suffered of many kind of arbitrary persecution and punishment. For example, slavery and servitude, in the past it was legal to buy man or women and after period of time you can sell them, so they were treat human beings as same as the goods. There was not law to protect human beings in many regional around the world. So that made some countries to think about the human rights and create a law to control these rights and to live all human beings in peace without any type of arbitrary persecution. For instance, Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the European Convention on human rights in Roma 1950 and other kinds of conventions on human rights. These declaration and conventions were based on the faith of some states for the importance of human rights. There were different between conventions in the definition of human rights, but all of them cover the fundamentals of human rights. A good illustration of the definition of human rights is that it is rights which are held by all human beings. Whatever their ethnicity, national, language, age, sex, religion, beliefs and any other status. Human beings are all equally to have these rights without discrimination . This essay will be consider the definition of three regional for protection human rights which are the Inter-American convention of Human Rights, the European convention on Human rights and the African Charter of Human Rights, and then explain some difference between them in law and how it organize the right of life.
Human Rights are a privilege or power whereby any one person is able to do as they please within reason. Generally, these privileges are outlined by each country in what is known as a Bill, or Charter, of Rights. It is also outlined universally in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 which provides countries, such as Australia who don’t have a Bill of Rights, a reference point for certain pieces of legislation. “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood,” (United Nations, 1948).
Human rights have been developing as a concept throughout the history of humans. Human rights have been present in several nations throughout history including in Ancient Greece as Natural Law, 1689 in the English Bill of Rights, 1776 in the American Declaration of Independence and 1788 in the French Revolution’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. It was not until recently in 1948 that the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights was created as an international concept in response to the genocide of European Jews by Hitler.
There is such a thing as universality of human rights that is different from cultural relativism, humanity comes before culture and traditions. People are humans first and belong to cultures second (Collaway, Harrelson-Stephens, 2007 p.109), this universality needs to take priority over any cultural views, and any state sovereignty over its residing citizens.
Indeed, human right is never just a legal matter as it also involves moral principles to justify its inalienable and non-transferable status. UDHR preamble states that human right is the “recognition of the inherent dignity”. That means we are entitled to human rights because we have inherent values to be pursued and realized. Human rights are originated in ourselves, but not conferred by law or others. If a society does not recognize those aforementioned justifications, human rights would be unsupported and a...
On December 10th in 1948, the general assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, although not legally binding, created “a common standard of achievement of all people and all nations…to promote respect for those rights and freedoms” (Goodhart, 379). However, many cultures assert that the human rights policies outlined in the declaration undermine cultural beliefs and practices. This assertion makes the search for universal human rights very difficult to achieve. I would like to focus on articles 3, 14 and 25 to address how these articles could be modified to incorporate cultural differences, without completely undermining the search for human rights practices.
The role that globalization plays in spreading and promoting human rights and democracy is a subject that is capable spurring great debate. Human rights are to be seen as the standards that gives any human walking the earth regardless of any differences equal privileges. The United Nations goes a step further and defines human rights as,