This document discusses controversies around the universal conception of human rights, specifically challenges posed by cultural relativism and sovereignty concerns. It outlines arguments that human rights are universal and pre-political, derived from natural law traditions. However, it also examines criticisms that universal human rights ignore cultural and religious differences and risks imposing Western values. Relativists argue there are no universal moral standards between societies and cultures shape what is considered right and wrong. The document also discusses challenges posed by Asian cultural arguments for exceptionalism based on purportedly unique "Asian values."
Original Description:
64518_Controversies and Constraints in Implementing Human Rights
Original Title
64518_Controversies and Constraints in Implementing Human Rights
This document discusses controversies around the universal conception of human rights, specifically challenges posed by cultural relativism and sovereignty concerns. It outlines arguments that human rights are universal and pre-political, derived from natural law traditions. However, it also examines criticisms that universal human rights ignore cultural and religious differences and risks imposing Western values. Relativists argue there are no universal moral standards between societies and cultures shape what is considered right and wrong. The document also discusses challenges posed by Asian cultural arguments for exceptionalism based on purportedly unique "Asian values."
This document discusses controversies around the universal conception of human rights, specifically challenges posed by cultural relativism and sovereignty concerns. It outlines arguments that human rights are universal and pre-political, derived from natural law traditions. However, it also examines criticisms that universal human rights ignore cultural and religious differences and risks imposing Western values. Relativists argue there are no universal moral standards between societies and cultures shape what is considered right and wrong. The document also discusses challenges posed by Asian cultural arguments for exceptionalism based on purportedly unique "Asian values."
SOVEREIGNTY, CULTURAL RELATIVISM The ‘Universal’ Human Rights
It is important to first define the
theoretical basis of ‘universal’ human rights. Universal conceptions argue human rights are inalienable, self- evident and applicable to all human beings (Donnelly, 2003, 10). These arguments are often linked to origins in Western philosophy and natural law, developed from philosophers such as John Locke The idea of a natural law determining right behaviour which stood above the people of the world and ordered their conduct Hugo Grotius further expanded on this notion in De jure belli et paci, where he propounded the immutability of what is naturally right and wrong:
Now the Law of Nature is so unalterable, that it cannot be changed even by God himself. For although the power of God is infinite, yet there are some things, to which it does not extend. ...Thus two and two must make four, nor is it possible otherwise; nor, again, can what is really evil not be evil. Many scholars maintain that human rights are ‘pre-political’, thus unchangeable and unaffected by cultural or political variation. The attraction of human rights is that they are often thought to exist beyond the determination of specific societies. Thus, they set a universal standard that can be used to judge any society. With an acceptance of human rights, all religions, capitalists, socialists, democracies, or tribal oligarchies may all legitimately censure each other. This criticism across religious, political, and economic divides gains its legitimacy because human rights are said to enshrine universal moral standards. Without fully universal human rights, one is left simply trying to assert that one's own way of thinking is better than somebody else's. Unfortunately, the very motivations and benefits of human rights pose direct challenges to their existence. Human rights are universal since they are said to belong to all humans in every society. However, these universal and inalienable qualities of human rights are disputable in both their conception and operation. To some extent, the universality of human rights depends upon their genesis. Moral standards, such as human rights, can come into being in two manners. They may simply be invented by people, or they may only need to be revealed to, or discovered by, humans. If human rights are simply an invention, then it is rather difficult to argue that every society and government should be bound by something they disagree with. If human rights have some existence independent of human creation, however, then it is easier to assert their universality. If human rights are simply an invention, then it is rather difficult to argue that every society and government should be bound by something they disagree with. If human rights have some existence independent of human creation, however, then it is easier to assert their universality. (This argument is rather slippery) Because such independent moral standards may arise in only two ways: if they are created by God, or if they are inherent in the nature of humankind or human society. Unfortunately, both these routes pose substantive pitfalls. No divine origin for universal human rights would be acceptable, nor is it often advanced, since there is agreement amongst all that only one God is to be recognized universally (Andrew Heard, 1997) Relativism The growing consensus in the West that human rights are universal has been fiercely opposed by critics in other parts of the world. At the very least, the idea may well pose as many questions as it answers. Beyond the more general, philosophical question of whether anything in our pluri-cultural, multipolar world is truly universal, the issue of whether human rights is an essentially Western concept ignoring the very different cultural, economic, and political realities of the other parts of the world cannot simply be dismissed. Can the values of the consumer society be applied to societies that have nothing to consume? Don't human rights as laid out in the international covenants ignore the traditions, the religions, and the socio- cultural patterns of what used to be called the Third World? And at the risk of sounding frivolous, when you stop a man in traditional dress from beating his wife, are you upholding her human rights or violating his? The philosophical objection asserts essentially that nothing can be universal; that all rights and values are defined and limited by cultural perceptions. If there is no universal culture, there can be no universal human rights. In fact, some philosophers have objected that the concept of human rights is founded on an anthropocentric The UN general assembly (United Nations, 1948) proclaims the Universal declaration of Human Rights as, “a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations” So, such rights must be considered core rights to which every human being is entitled by virtue of being human. In the main part they are-or should be-common to all cultures and societies and the denial of any of these by any reason of cultural relativism is surely indefensible. These cultural differences, to the extent that they are real, have practical implications. Many in developing countries argue that some human rights are simply not relevant to their societies the right, for instance, to political pluralism, the right to paid vacations (always good for a laugh in the sweatshops of the Third World), and, inevitably, the rights of women. It is not just that some societies claim they are simply unable to provide certain rights to all their citizens, but rather that they see the universal conception of human rights as little more than an attempt to impose alien Western values on them. And, inseparable from the issues of tradition, is the issue of religion. For religious critics of the universalist definition of human rights, nothing can be universal that is not founded on transcendent values, symbolized by God, and sanctioned by the guardians of the various faiths. the assertion that human values, far from being universal, vary a great deal according to different cultural perspectives. Some would apply this relativism to the promotion, protection, interpretation and application of human rights which could be interpreted differently within different cultural, ethnic and religious traditions (Diana,1995) ‘cultural relativism maintains that there is an irreducible diversity among cultures because each culture is a unique whole with parts so intertwined that none of them can be understood or evaluated without reference to the other parts and to the cultural whole, the so-called pattern of culture (Lawson, 1998). Today`s world shows sign of positive progress towards the universal system of human rights. The globalization of human rights began when the world was awakened to the crimes committed under one government (Hitler), and the need for a more universal system of accountability and responsibility. Asian Culture Many Asian societies reject outright the globalization of human rights and claim that Asia has a unique set of values, `Asian Values`, which provide the basis for Asia`s different understanding of human rights and justify the ``exceptional`` handling of rights by Asian governments. (Hossain,2009) - in asserting these values, leaders from the region find that they have convenient tools to silence internal criticism and to fan anti-Western nationalist sentiments. At the same time, the concept is welcomed by cultural relativists, cultural supremacists, and isolationists alike, as fresh evidence for their various positions against a political liberalism that defends universal human rights and democracy. 3 levels of challenging UNIVESALITY
According to the scholars the
universality of human rights can be challenged by cultural relativists on three different levels (Donnelly, 1989) The first level is the substance of the list of human rights to be protected. The thesis of cultural relativism holds that different societies have different perceptions of right and wrong, so human rights substances should also be different. But it is absurd to make a critical standard of morality dependent on the level of support it has from various societies as every society try to set it according to their own interest. The second level where cultural differences may challenge the universality of the human rights doctrine is the interpretation of specific rights. According to cultural relativists interpretation of human rights is also relevant with cultural perspectives. But apart from the question of whether or not people differ a lot in how they interpret human rights and what they consider to be violations of them, it is not possible to allow for major differences in interpretation of human rights standards if they are to give any serious protection to individuals at all. Thirdly, there may be differences of form in how human rights are implemented in different cultures. But Independent of the form of implementation, the minimum standard set by the international human rights doctrine must be met. Balance or Blanket? Though controversial there are some grounds for cultural relativist to fight for a culturally relative human right doctrine. But these grounds became irrelevant when we see many Asian states and leaders endangering human security by violating basic human and group rights in the name of `Asian values` and trying to justify it in the name of cultural relativism. This conflict between Universal Human Right and Asian views and how they endanger human security in Asia is evident in the following debate :
1. Rights are ``culturally specific`` in Asia and
distinctive than Western views ‘ 2. Precedence of Social and economic rights than political and civil rights 3. Economic Development rights should get priority over other human rights 4. Prioritizing of group and communal rights over individual rights 5. More regional instruments and less global directives should be included in the Universal Declaration of human rights 6. Discriminatory application of Human rights 1. Rights are ``culturally specific`` in Asia and distinctive than Western views
In the debate of culturally relative human right
in Asia two versions of cultural relativism can be distinguished. The first one claims that human rights are a Western ideal and do not apply in the same way to non-western societies.
The second one formally accepts human rights
as universal, but believe that the cultural differences between the West and nonwestern societies should influence the assessment of non-western states by the UN. Article 8 of the Bangkok Declaration of 1993 Asian states declared that “human rights must be considered in the context of a dynamic and evolving process of international norm setting, bearing in mind the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds.”
Bangkok Declaration, Asian states
themselves adhere to universalism, which is inconsistent with the claim that human rights are alien to Asian culture (Ng, 1995) China`s 1991 White Paper stated that ``owing to tremendous differences in historical background, social system, cultural tradition and economic development, countries differ in their understanding and practice of human rights`` 2. Precedence of Social and economic rights than political and civil rights Proponent of Asian values argues that Asian societies rank social and economic rights over individual`s political and civil rights. And the West is accused of prioritizing civil and political rights over social, economic and cultural rights. Another argument for ranking social and economic rights above political and civil rights is that poor and illiterate people cannot really exercise their civil-political rights. Yet the poor and illiterate may benefit from civil and political freedom by speaking, without fear, of their discontent. BUT… Political repression does not guarantee better living conditions and education for the poor and illiterate.
The leaders who are in a position to encroach
upon citizen`s rights to express political opinions will also be beyond reproach and accountability for failures to protect citizen`s social economic rights. (Hossain 2009 ) Thus by taking advantage of this claims many Asian states are violating human rights in individual, group or community level and endangering human security. 3. Economic Development rights should get priority over other human rights
Asian states refer to the right to
economic development as basic to the implementation of other human rights. In the process of development, human rights violations are unavoidable and therefore the level of development should be taken into account when the UN judges the human rights records of states, according to the Asian states. (Indonesian Statement to the World Conference on Human Rights, 1993). Prioritizing of group and communal rights over individual rights
This Asian view relies on such a
conceptual maneuver to dismiss individual rights, allowing the condemnation of individual rights as anti-communal, destructive of social harmony, and seditionist against the sovereign state 5. More regional instruments and less global directives should be included in the Universal Declaration of human rights the Asian cultural relativist view is that the world community needs more regional instruments and less global directives from the UN. The form in which human rights are protected should also be more cooperative rather than confrontational. This would lead to human rights instruments that are better applicable to specific regions for their culture by taking account of “geographical complexity, diversity and vastness of the region as well as their historical background and levels of political stability, economic development and social progress” 6. Discriminatory application of Human rights
A final major complaint from all non-
western states and many Asian states is that human rights standards are applied discriminatory.