The notion of universal human rights is a fairly new concept, coming into existence only after the Second World War as enshrined in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The system of rights was premised on the main assumption that since no one could control his or her birth, it should then follow that everyone should have a birthright to be protected from certain ills, or guaranteed certain liberties. Scholars have read the development of rights as a response to several features of modernity. For instance, the deinstitutionalisation of social life has been noted to be a contributing factor to the development of rights. As contemporary culture places less emphasis on traditional sense-making social institutions (such as religious, familial, and so on), this creates an unprecedented feeling of precariousness and vulnerability in the human condition, which is then alleviated by the shared humanity found in the human rights discourse (Turner 2006). Or, another feature that has been said to contribute to the development of human rights is the modern emphasis on a ‘care for the self’, which ties the significance of one’s existence to the extent to which one is able to shape one’s destiny through wilful decisions and actions (Rose 1996). The development of rights dovetails with this emphasis on self-enterprise because it guarantees certain freedoms that allow its exercise. Such perspectives are largely characteristic of work on modernity and human rights, which has often centred on either relating the development of rights to certain characteristics of modernity, or considering how they reflect its fundamental tensions (e.g., Parekh 2008). In this essay, I wish to approach this issue from a different tack; instead of co... ... middle of paper ... ...dividuals by providing an epistemological framework that reduces the other to the same, which is then used to justify hostile intervention. In concluding, I reveal the nature of human rights discourse to be haunted by a fundamental ambiguity. Its propositions are directed at establishing a universal understanding of humanity that is compatible with moral pluralism: one that is applicable across borders, ethnicities and religiosities, and which seeks to address violations of freedoms and safeguard the sanctity of human existence. However, the commitment to rights principles seems to have the opposite effect: a privileging of a decidedly ‘Western’, liberal democratic subject that encourages an expansion of this model of socio-political organisation, and an attention to rights violations that hinders their resolution by focusing on the symptom instead of the cause.
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
According to Hannah Arendt, “The Declaration of the Rights of Man at the end of the eighteenth century was a turning point in history”. (Arendt, 290). She begins her thesis by making this affirmation. However, throughout her essay, she further develops the idea that this “Declaration of the Rights of Man” has been questioned ever since then, because of the fact that these human rights don’t really appear to be implemented over a numerous amount of human beings. This “turning point” which Arendt refers to, indicates that when human rights were first conceived, they stated that only the nation worked as the law, and neither the divine law nor anything else had power over them. This was the moment when control over these rights was lost, since there is a deficiency in the precision of who really has the rule of law over them, if not even the human authorities have been able to manage the “universality” they are supposed to express. Hannah Arendt’s explanation on the human rights article called “The
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.
Refuting in a few pages most of the recent human rights historiography, Moyn contends that modern human rights discourses exploded as late as in 1970s as opposed to the eighteenth century as argued by Hunt and early periods as many historians have said. Indeed, Moyn makes an important distinction between natural rights, which is what he believed the enlightenment project was concerned with and modern human rights. Moyn understands natural rights to be deeply bound to a state-structure power (Moyn, 20) and these were the rights the American, the French and even the insurgents in Saint-Domingue were defending. Natural rights had to do with rights which were guaranteed by a state thus were closely linked to the question of citizenships. Human rights, as it is today understood by various international lawyers and the general public transcend the state. Today’s human rights are (in theory) truly self-evident because they are possessed by all humans, everywhere irrespective of any other variables and exist (again in theory) beyond the state (Moyn, 27). This new understanding of rights came about in the 1970s when figures such as U.S. president Jimmy Carter made use of them in a political platform (Moyn, 154). In this sense, as other world “utopias” had failed by the 1970s, human rights appeared to be the “last hope” of humanity for a better
Since the Renaissance of the 15th century, societal views have evolved drastically. One of the largest changes has been the realization of individualism, along with the recognition of inalienable human rights.(UDHR, A.1) This means that all humans are equal, free, and capable of thought; as such, the rights of one individual cannot infringe on another’s at risk of de-humanizing the infringed upon. The fact that humans have a set of natural rights is not contested in society today; the idea of human rights is a societal construction based on normative ethical codes. Human rights are defined from the hegemonic standpoint, using normative ethical values and their application to the interactions of individuals with each other and state bodies. Human rights laws are legislature put in place by the governing body to regulate these interactions.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted on December 10, 1948. Each of the 30 articles in this declaration defines rights humans need, from basic resources and education to freedom of thought and speech. Article 2 states, “Everyone
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.
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.
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.
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).
Jack Donnelly, when making this distinction, set forth the criteria of universality, equality, and inalienability. Using his criteria, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was the first human rights document, formed out of an overlapping political consensus after World War II (Donelly 25). Donnelly argues early on in his book, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice, that in order for rights to be human they must be universal. He goes into more depth about the subject stating that humans obtain human rights merely because they are human beings. Therefore, by his definition of universal, since humans can never become anything other than human, human rights are also inalienable (Donnelly 10). Then there is paramount importance in accordance to the UDHR. This is where my view leads astray from Maurice Cranston. Cranston uses both paramount importance and universality when analyzing "human" rights, but claims the last ten articles of the UDHR are not of paramount importance. To be of paramount importance, it must relieve distress, but not provide pleasure. I argue that the last ten articles are of paramount importance because without them, for example the right to education, one may not be able to get a job provide for himself or herself and will constantly be distressed. Also, without having social interaction or the ability to think for oneself the individual would be being oppressed and could go
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 is that they are rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, simply because they are 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 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,
In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human rights were devised (UDHR). Everyone has the right to liberty, life, freedom from fear and violence. The obligation to protect individuals and groups the States is required to shield them against human rights abuses (United Nations 2013) The Human Rights Act became effective in the UK in 2000. The purpose of the Human Rights Act is t...