Are Human Rights Truly Universal PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay titled "Are Human Rights Truly Universal? Give reasons for your answer"...

Description

INTRODUCTION TO KEY CONCEPTS AND ISSUES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Module code: 1INR410 Task: Essay Are Human Rights Truly Universal? Give reasons for your answer.

In this essay we will argue that human rights are not truly universal. In order to reach this assumption we will start by defining human rights according to the definition presented in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations and explain why this Declaration was not even universal from the start. After that we will focus on the three main critiques of the universality of human rights: the strength of cultural relativism; the critical theory argument that human rights are imposed by the “West” to other parts of the world as a form of imperialism; and the fact that in practical terms, “international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power” (Morgenthau cited in Dunne and Schmidt, 2011: 87) and so the state’s national interests are always above human rights. We will also examine a different perspective by Jack Donnelly but we will conclude that his arguments do not have enough practical strength and is nothing more than aspirational. In 1948 the United Nations created the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was meant to be seen as “a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948) or, in other words, a truly universal set of rights. The human rights established in this Declaration are universal because, as stated in Article 2, “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status” (1948). However we should analyse the creation of the Declaration in more detail. In 1948, on the creation of the

Declaration, 48 countries voted in favour and 8 abstained (Alves, 2000: 481). So how can we argue that a Declaration signed by only 48 countries is undeniably universal in a world which currently has more than 200 states? Well, one can argue that this argument is not valid because a state must agree with a certain set of standards to join the United Nations, but then again there are some members who do not have any concern with human rights, such as China or North Korea. Thus we can see that even this document was not born of an agreement of all the international system. One of the strongest arguments against the universality of human rights is the issue of cultural relativism. Cultural relativists argue that “no human rights are absolutes” (Shestack, 1998: 228) and “that the principles that one may use for judging behaviour are relative to the society in which one is raised, that there is infinite cultural variability, and that all cultures are morally equal or valid” (1998: 228). Therefore universality is a myth because we are shaped by the culture in which we are raised and we simply cannot apply the same values and beliefs to other cultures since it will clash with their own principles or it may just be irrelevant for them (Tharoor, 1999: 2). A classic example of this clash between human rights and cultural practices, mentioned by Sonia Harris (2003: 136), is the issue of female circumcision or female genital mutilation in several African countries. This is a deeply embedded practice which many countries believe to be part of their culture and therefore do not want to remove it even though other cultures might see it as an obvious defiance to the Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948). Harris also points out other polemic traditions such as “early and forced marriage, gender discrimination, civil and political rights and corporal punishment” (2003: 136). Another example of cultural relativism is the concept of “Asian values”. Many Asian

countries, as Amartya Sen states, are less supportive of freedom and more concerned with order and discipline because having authoritarian regimes is more effective in promoting economic success (Sen, 1997: 10). As an implication of this critique, the argument that the conception of human rights is not universal but merely from the elites of the “West” and that western countries are using it as a political instrument to intervene in the affairs of the rest of the world has been gaining many supporters. Makau Mutua argues that “human rights are part of the cultural package of the West” (Mutua, 2001:) and that its imposition particularly in the developing world has its roots in the belief that Europe and the United States have the “imperial mission to civilize the other and to convert other societies into inferior versions of the same” (Slate cited in Mutua, 2001:). Most of the western civilization still has this ignorant and discriminatory belief of being superior to all others. This conviction of the need to “civilize” is nothing more but a new form of colonialism. An evident implication of this conviction is the humanitarian intervention issue. In the name of human rights Western countries intervene in other countries, therefore undermining its sovereignty and legitimacy, but in reality there is always a particular interest in doing such action in the country in question. Slavoj Žižek gives a great emphasis on this point in his work. As he once said “‘human rights’ are, as such, a false ideological universality, which masks and legitimizes a concrete politics of Western imperialism, military interventions and neo-colonialism” (Žižek, 2005: 128-129). We could argue that key word here is “masks”. Human rights are not universal for the reason that they were indeed originated in the West and are now being used to mask the real interests of Western countries: dominating the weaker countries of the developing world (Hoover,

2013: 3) and consequently spread Western political and economic power (Donnelly, 2011: 507). The third great challenge to the idea of the universality of human rights is what Professor An-Na’im calls “the paradox of self-regulation by the state” (An-Na’im, 2013: 403). Even though there are some international institutions that have the obligation to supervise if human rights norms are being respected, the fact is that these institutions are formed by states and thus it is the state who has the most responsibilities regarding the application of human rights in its territory. However the state must also take into account its sovereignty, integrity and the amount of power it has. Human rights and states’ interests many times collide and in most of the times the one who emerges victorious is the state due to its political and economic power. This is clearly a realist argument which considers that in a world of an anarchical system of states, the survival of the state and the pursuit for power are the most important purposes of the government in office and so national interests are always more important to safeguard than the rights of the citizens (Dunne and Schmidt, 2011: 86-87). The issue of the “national interest” becomes even more important in the developing countries where in addition to these problems they also have to deal with other tasks such as nation building and economic growth since the consolidation of the state organization is still incomplete. Consequently they simply do not dedicate any of their attention or resources in the enforcement of these rights (Tharoor, 1999: 2). Before we conclude this essay we should examine the perspective of one of the biggest defenders of human rights, Jack Donnelly. On his work “The Relative Universality of Human Rights” (2007), Donnelly argues that we should not see human rights as something universal or relative but rather as “relatively universal” (2007: 282) as something that can be applied

on a global scale and still leave some space for cultural differences. To defend his position Donnelly makes a distinction between conceptual and substantive universality. Conceptual universality relates to the fact that human rights is something “one has simply because one is human” (2007: 282), however he does admit that this argument means nothing without the support of a substantive universality which refers to the enforcement of these norms in practice. But then he also states that this a serious issue because the “Enforcement of authoritative international human rights norms, however, is left almost entirely to sovereign states” (2007: 283) and as we have seen before, states are mainly interested in power, not in human rights doctrines. Therefore Donnelly’s argument is understandable in the sense that he is appealing to a better dialogue between cultures to reach some sort of “relative universality” but in practical terms we must admit that it is purely aspirational; it is just a desire, not yet a reality. As we have seen in this essay, human rights are not truly universal. This is so because of several aspects such as the controversial birth of the Universal Declaration of Human rights; the cultural relativist argument; the theory of the imposition of human rights as a political and economic tool of the West; and finally the realist point of view of the current state system of international relations, where the survival of the state and the pursuit of power is all that matters. Some renowned scholars such as Jack Donnelly try to go beyond the current discussion by merging the relative and the universal approach but as we have seen its results are not that effective yet which supports the claim of the inexistence of universal human rights.

Bibliography: Alves, J. A. L. (2000) “The Declaration of Human Rights in Postmodernity”. Human Rights Quarterly.

22

(2),

pp.

478-500.

[online]

Available

from:

Project

MUSE.

[Accessed 1 March 2014] An-Na’im, A. A. (2013) “Human Rights, Universality and Sovereignty: The Irrelevance and Relevance of Sharia”. Global Policy. 4 (4), pp. 401-408. [online] Available from: Wiley Online Library. [Accessed 4 March 2014] Donnelly, J. (2007) “The Relative Universality of Human Rights”. Human Rights Quarterly. 29 (2),

pp.

281-306.

[online]

Available

from:

Project

MUSE.

[Accessed 6 February 2014] Donnelly, J. (2011) “Human Rights”. In: Baylis. J. et al. (eds.) The Globalization of World Politics. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dunne, T. and Schmidt, B. C. (2011) “Realism”. In: Baylis. J. et al. (eds.) The Globalization of World Politics. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harris, S. (2003) “International Human Rights Law: Imperialist, Inept and Ineffective? Cultural Relativism and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child”. Human Rights Quarterly.

25

(1),

pp.

130-181.

[online]

Available

from:

Project

MUSE.

[Accessed

3

March 2014] Hoover, J. (2013) “Towards a politics for human rights: Ambiguous humanity and democratizing rights”. Philosophy & Social Criticism. 39 (9), pp. 935-961. [online] Available from: City Research Online (City University Library). [Accessed 26 February 2014] Mutua, M. W. (2001) “Savages, Victims, and Saviors: The Metaphor of Human Rights”. Harvard International Law Journal. 42 (1), pp. 201-245. [online] Available from: Social

Science

Research

Network

(SSRN).

[Accessed 4 March 2014] Sen, A. (1997) Human Rights and Asian Values. New York: Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs. [online] Available from: Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. [Accessed 6 February 2014] Shestack, J. J. (1998) “The Philosophic Foundations of Human Rights”. Human Rights Quarterly.

20

(2),

pp.

201-234.

[online]

Available

from:

Project

MUSE.

[Accessed 1 March 2014] Tharoor, S. (1999) “Are Human Rights Universal?”. World Policy Journal. 16 (4). [online] Available

from:

World Policy

Institute.

[Accessed 6 February 2014] Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) [online] Available from: Office of the High Commissioner

for

Human

Rights.

[Accessed 1 March 2014] Žižek, S. (2005) “Against Human Rights”. New Left Review. 34 (4), pp. 115-131. [online] Available

from:

University

of

Warwick.

[Accessed 28 February 2014]...