UNIVERSALITY Debate on whether human rights are universal or not has been going on since adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights more than six decades ago and is set to go on for as long as different schools of thought on the matter exist. 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. The only agreement reached so far by both sides is that human rights are the rights of the human in society. That’s why every state all over the world at one point observes if not all of them then at least some human rights. Proponents of human rights argue that the concept’s universality rests in its non-discriminatory character- human rights are meant for every human being- rich and poor, white and black, men and women, young and old, leaders and followers, elites and illiterate, etc- and are all treated equally. In her article ‘From Citizenship to Human Rights: The Stakes for Democracy’ Tambakaki notes that apart from playing a political role, human rights are in principal moral and legal rights. Like moral norms they refer to every creature that bears a human face while as legal norms they protect individual persons in a particular legal community (pp9). For Habermas they (human rights) are rights of a legal nature, endowed with an extrapositive validity which he says is a projection of the universality of their scope and addressed equally to all human beings – citizens and non citizens of a certain state (Ferrara pp 396). We will come later on Harbemas’ last part of... ... middle of paper ... ... concern and where there are severe violations, intervene to protect the lives of the victims. It is therefore no longer is it credible for a state to turn its back on international law, alleging a bias towards European values and influence. All that humankind now requires to bring about the elusive, but eternal, dream of perpetual peace is a global citizenship based on a strong commitment to principles of equity and democracy grounded in civil society. The challenge that lies ahead probably is the need to work towards indigenization of human rights, and ensure their assertion within each country's traditions and history. The 1993 Vienna Convention on Human Rights speaks on the need to consider the importance of national and regional details as well as various cultural, historical and religious backgrounds when thinking about human rights. =====================
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
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.
Jack Donnelly, Alison D. Renteln, and Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim all have different opinions when it comes to human rights and the exact way we should go about discussing human rights. The debate between the scholars and me come from the debate between the two principles of Liberal Universalism and Cultural Relativism. In my own opinion, I believe that it discussing human rights has to involve both theories and a cross-cultural discussion between us all so that we can come to an agreement when looking for a solution in certain cases.
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.
On August 26, 1789, the assembly issued the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen.” Through judicial matters, this document was written in order to secure due process and to create self-government among the French citizens. This document offered to the world and especially to the French citizens a summary of the morals and values of the Revolution, while in turn justifying the destruction of a government; especially in this case the French government, based upon autocracy of the ruler and advantage. The formation of a new government based upon the indisputable rights of the individuals of France through liberty and political uniformity.
In the simplest of terms, human rights are those that undoubtedly belong to each person. These rights, from a philosophical standpoint, have certain characteristics that distinguish them from any other. According to Richard Wasserstrom, author of the article, "Rights, Human Rights, and Racial Discrimination," human rights embody several characteristics. Primarily, and perhaps obviously, human rights are those that belong solely to humans (Wasserstrom 631). Moreover, Wasserstrom...
John Tasioulas introduces the idea that human rights are explained by the morals that humans possess through understanding of human dignity. He explains that are three connections that human dignity has to human rights. The first connection presented is that human dignity and rights are rarely distinguished between due to having virtually the same standards in regards to them. The second that dignity is a starting point in moral grounds that human rights build off of. And last, that the idea that human rights are justified by dignity, saying dignity is the ideal basis for human rights. Tasioulas chooses to focus on the last point, that it is our morals that bring about human rights and that our morals come from humans having dignity. The key thing being that human dignity is something that all possess by simply being human beings there is no merit in achievement or by what legislation or social position can give us.
Ethnocentrism is another major factor in the case of human rights and it has existed since the beginning of the human race. The use of universalism which is the idea that advocates loyalty and concern to others without regard to one’s nationality and culture, can help manage ethnocentric based issues. Universalism is sought out to also coincide with human rights because they both believe the same values of each individual. In the article Human Rights Debate: Universalism Versus Relativism it states “Many scholars see human rights as a universal phenomenon, and they regard them as the means to a greater social end: they are, they believe, fundamental and common to all societies. Human rights are part of the inherent dignity of every human being: they belong to all in equal measure because all are human...Universalists thus base their understanding of human rights on the liberal tradition that rights accord to the individual a set of minimum standards by virtue of his or her being human – a universal concept in that they reach out to every person alive.” (www. eurasia review.com) With the use of universalism the practice of genocide, human trafficking, racial and gender discrimination can be prevented given human
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.
Ideally, human rights would be universal. In an ideal world, everyone would have similar moral beliefs which would be reflected through our laws. However, this is not our reality. In reality, each nation’s moral beliefs and interpretation of the UDHR differs from the next. Furthermore, each nation prioritizes the rights stated in the UDHR differently. Because of these differences, the interpretive nature of the UDHR becomes the declaration’s ultimate flaw. Such a flaw manifests itself through numerous disputes between nations over interpretations of the UDHR, UDHR
Throughout history, people’s human rights have been violated, but efforts have also been made to address the violations, and protect their rights. Human rights are rights as regarded belonging to all people. Today we are all entitled to the same rights. In a sense, we are all equal.
Rights have been and continue to be violated across the world on both massive and miniscule scales. With rights violations being a constant issue, it is necessary, although it may be difficult, to determine which violations are human rights violations. Two aspects are crucial in this process: universality and paramountcy. Although practicability is also set forth as a criterion by Maurice Cranston, it is not as crucial when determining which acts violate human rights, or when they came into existence. This is due to the fact that when trying to distinguish between rights and human rights, almost all rights, not just specifically human rights, can, in some way, be practicable. For this reason, practicability, for the purpose of this essay, is
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.
Over the last few decades, the protection of human rights has increased significantly and becomes the most challenge for the organizations of human rights. It occupies not only the specialist but a public as a whole public all over the world. The United Nation defined the human rights as ’’rights underlying to all human beings, regardless of place of residence, sex, our nationality or ethnic origin, , religion, colour language, or any other status. people are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible .
This paper will argue that even if human rights promote what is viewed as universal values they cannot be applicable to all of humanity, primarily because of issues with the concept of universalism. To argue this view firstly the topic of human rights will be introduced, so that there is an understanding of the use of the words human rights within this paper. Secondly, the development of the concept of human rights will be discussed, as a way to show the evolving nature of the social human groups around the world. Thirdly the connection between morality, values and human rights will be discussed. Then the concept of universal morals will be discussed, as this is the primary concept that applied to the idea of human rights being universal. This