CONTROVERSIES AND CONSTRAINTS

IN IMPLEMENTING HUMAN RIGHTS

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.