Human rights became a concept in the early 1900’s so to protect the rights of human beings worldwide and establish a more harmonious global society. This concept was embodied in international law for the first time half a century ago (Heuer & Schirmer, 1998), however the concept of universal human rights did not take consideration to the fact that most cultures do not follow identical morals to those of the west. Hence, these rights are certainly not universally-applied today, with oppression, torture and various atrocities committed in many parts of the world still (Lower, 2013). Advocates of cultural relativism argue that permitting international norms to override the dictates of culture and religion is a violation of state sovereignty (Musalo, 2014), so many cultures do not follow the human rights concept established by western societies. In fact, the director of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies in 2006 expressed that “many Arabs perceive internationally recognized human rights as a western import and thus unsuitable for [their] societies” (quoted by Bahey El Din Hassan; IRIN, 2006). The concept of universal norms is one considered by western states, and so this idea of human rights is far from applicable in many other cultures. This essay will argue that although the concept of universal human rights would be beneficial for the entire globe, the concept as it stands today is fundamentally western orientated, and thus is a form of western cultural imperialism if imposed in a non-west state. This essay will begin by illustrating that the origin of the universal declaration of human rights is essentially western, and further highlighting several renowned human rights activist groups and NGO’s that are in danger of all...
... middle of paper ...
.... M., n.d. Nigeria: Please Stop The International Amina Lawal Protest Letter Campaigns - For Now. [Online]
Available at: http://www.wluml.org/node/1025#http://www.wluml.org/node/1025
[Accessed 1 May 2014].
Lower, M., 2013. Can and Should Human Rights be Universal?. [Online]
Available at: http://www.e-ir.info/2013/12/01/can-and-should-human-rights-be-universal/
[Accessed 23 April 2014].
Musalo, K., 2014. When Rights and Cultures Collide. [Online]
Available at: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v8n3/rightsandcultures.html
[Accessed 31 April 2014].
News, B., 2003. Amina Lawal Campaign 'Unhelpful', United Kingdom: BBC News.
Parenti, M., 1992 - 2005. Imperialism 101. In: Against Empire. s.l.:Michael Parenti, p. Chapter 1.
Terman, R., 2013. The Unintended Consequences of Western Human Rights Intervention. Open Democracy, 10 December, p. www.opendemocracy.net.
...f social imperialism and imperial rivalry in the world system. Durham: Duke University Press, 1991.
There have been many humanitarians that strive to help countries suffering with human right abuses. People think that the help from IGOs and NGOs will be enough to stop human rights violations. However, it hasn’t been effective. Every day, more and more human rights violations happen. The problem is escalating. People, including children, are still being forced to work to death, innocent civilians are still suffering the consequences of war, and families are struggling to stay firm together. Despite the efforts from the people, IGOs, and NGOs, In the year 2100, human rights abuse will not end.
The issue of human rights has arisen only in the post-cold war whereby it was addressed by an international institution that is the United Nation. In the United Nation’s preamble stated that human rights are given to all humans and that there is equality for everyone. There will not be any sovereign states to diminish its people from taking these rights. The globalization of capitalism after the Cold War makes the issue of human rights seems admirable as there were sufferings in other parts of the world. This is because it is perceived that the western states are the champion of democracy which therefore provides a perfect body to carry out human rights activities. Such human sufferings occur in a sovereign state humanitarian intervention led by the international institution will be carried out to end the menace.
Introduction: The epoch of imperialism cannot be defined simply as a proliferation of inflated egos tied to the hardened opinions of nationalists, but also a multi-faceted global rivalry with roots of philosophies tainted with racism and social Darwinism. The technique of each imperialist was specific to the motivations and desires of each combative, predominantly Western power and subsequently impacted the success of each imperialist and its colonies. Driven by industrialization, Europeans are aware of the urgent need for raw materials and new markets to maintain a constant rate of expansion and wealth. Imperialism became a competition; in general, the European countries led with fervor while the non-Western regions deemed likely to be stepped on.
With rampant violation of the human rights norm, are norms relevant in international politics? What significance do they hold if they do not inform policy decisions? Can anything be done in order to strengthen the normative element of human rights protection on a large scale? Constructivists declare that norms, principles, regimes or ideas are important factors at play in the international system mitigating pure self-interest and power politics that dictate behavior, as per the dominant realist worldview. However, to what extent norms actually influence decision-making is the true test to the relevance of constructivist arguments. Are norms and ideas affecting state interests in any real ways? I will argue that the human rights norm does not have a meaningful impact on policy, while admitting that it does indeed exist in some form. And, in order for it to be significant, it must be internalized beyond the system level.
There is a point of time in certain a country’s history where they become dominant and more powerful than ever before. During this elongated process a country becomes an empire. The British and the Ottomans were states that succeeded in this process, but becoming an empire such as theirs required vast amounts of political and social maneuvering to expand their boundaries, called imperialism. Imperialism is, “a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force”. By becoming a modern nation enjoying economic prosperity and political stability, the British and the Ottomans created an imperialistic impact over the globe with distinctive motivations and approaches especially during the transition period of gaining ample amount power and influence globally.
Internet Modern History Sourcebook: Imperialism." FORDHAM.EDU. July 1998. Web. The Web.
45 Oona Hathaway, ‘Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference?’ (2003) 112 Yale Law Journal
This method of understanding imperialism that contrasts with the traditional ideas provides a much more complete understanding of not only European imperialists in the 19th and 20th centuries, but of the concept of imperialism as a
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.
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.
While on one hand there is a growing consensus that human rights are universal on the other exist critics who fiercely oppose the idea. Of the many questions posed by critics revolve around the world’s pluri-cultural and multipolarity nature and whether anything in such a situation can be really universal.
ABSTRACT: This paper defends the claim that the contemporary canon of human rights forms an indivisible and interdependent system of norms against both "Western" and "Asian" critics who have asserted exceptionalist or selectivist counterclaims. After providing a formal definition of human rights, I argue that the set of particular human rights that comprises the contemporary canon represents an ethical-legal paradigm which functions as an implicit theory of human oppression. On this view, human rights originate as normative responses to particular historical experiences of oppression. Since historically known experiences of oppression have resulted from practices that function as parts of systems of domination, normative responses to these practices have sought to disarm and dismantle such systems by depriving potential oppressors of the techniques which enable them to maintain their domination. Therefore, human rights norms form a systematic and interdependent whole because only as parts of a system can they function as effective means for combatting oppression and domination.
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.
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,