Universal Validity of Human Rights - Essay Example

Name: XXXXXX Course: XXXXXX Institution: XXXXXX Date: XXXXXX Instructor: XXXXXX Universal Validity of Human Rights Introduction The most basic definition of human rights is the rights that one is entitled to by the simple virtue of being human beings (Donnelly 2003). Human rights are the moral, legal or even divine claims made by individuals or a group of individuals for the respect and observance of certain values by other individuals or groups. They can therefore be considered as a universal concept in terms of the moral and legal entitlements to every member of the human race. This essay will discuss human rights and examine the universal validity of the concept of human rights. The essay will first attempt to define human rights and discuss their categorizations. The essay will then illustrate the importance of human rights in global society. The essay will identify two competing schools of thought on human rights, universalism which argues that human rights are universal concepts and relativism which argues that that different societies have different conceptions of human rights which should also be upheld and respected as truth is relative.in conclusion, the essay will argue that despite the relativist argument, human rights are a universal concept which provide a floor or minimal standard for the treatment of individuals by the state and capture the common aspirations of most peoples in the world. Definition, Nature and Scope of Human Rights While there is no consensus on a single definition of human rights, there are several agreed principles about the nature and the scope of human rights. Human rights can be understood as demands made by both individuals and groups against other individuals, groups or institutions for certain cherished values and capabilities such as wealth, political power, health and most importantly respect (Weston 2006). Therefore, for example, the right to life is a fundamental value which the individual is entitled to as a human being. The right to own property is also a cherished value as it would enable a human being to lead a dignified or decent life by securing the basic needs necessary for survival. A distinction that must be noted is that they do not merely refer to what human beings “want” but basically what they “need” (Weston 2006). Human rights are based on mutual respect for these values which demands reciprocal tolerance and mutual forbearance in the pursuit of such values and capabilities (Lauren 2003, Weston 2006). A person’s right to life, for instance, is conditional on and demands that they also respect other people’s right to life. Another important and commonly accepted argument about the nature of human rights is that with the exception of a few, they are not absolute and are restricted as much as is necessary to ensure that the comparable rights of others are secured and that common interest is advanced (Bharvaga 2003, Weston 2006). For example, with respect to the freedom from torture and slavery, there should be no acceptable circumstances in which torture and slavery can be justified. However, a person’s right to life-the most fundamental of all rights- is limited to the extent that they do not violate other peoples’ right to life. There are various discernible categorizations of human rights- first generation, second generation and third generation human rights. First generation rights are expressed as individual civil and democratic rights such as the right to life, movement, free speech, privacy and to vote which are commonly entrenched in Western democracies. Second generation rights are expressed as social, economic and cultural rights concerned with issues such as housing, clothing, food, education and social security. These also include various categories of rights which are defined by the nature of their holders such as worker’s rights, rights of refugees, children and indigenous groups. Third generation rights, on the other hand, are derived from developing, socialist-leaning countries which view the rights of groups as compromised by individual liberties and freedoms (Bharvaga 2003). Contemporary human rights exist both as natural rights and legal rights contained in both national (domestic) law and international law. Domestically, rights are usually codified in a state’s constitution usually under a Bill of Rights, their implementation contingent on the ability or capacity and the willingness of individual states to recognize these rights and to observe and uphold them (Lauren 2003, Ishay 2008). In international law, these rights are articulated in treaties, declarations and covenants such as The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Political Rights, the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and treaties such as the Rome Treaty on crimes against humanity. Internationally, rights are observed and enforced through international organizations such as the United Nations and its agencies, international courts and regimes or observed as part of the norms of international relations (Lauren 2003). Importance of Human Rights in Global Society Human rights are of fundamental importance in global society. Principally, they serve to protect individuals and groups from gross abuse or the excesses of state power. They impose duties and responsibilities on the part of the state making them accountable to their citizens and protect individuals and communities from gross abuse due to the arbitrary exercise of power in modern societies (Claude and Weston 2006, Donnelly 2007). They form the basis for domestic law. Internationally, the monitoring of human rights standards has prevented the outbreak and recurrence of atrocities such as the Holocaust during the Second World War and other massacres such as the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and the Srebrenica Massacre. Even in circumstances where they have occurred nevertheless, the pursuit and enforcement of human rights have been influential in shaping recovery and restoring human dignity in war torn societies (Lauren 2003). Human rights are also the agenda for a preferred world policy, forming a critical part of both domestic and international law and providing a framework for a world order of human dignity (Claude and Weston 2006). For example, an international organization such as the United Nations was formed principally to protect the universal right to life and preservation of communities by preventing the outbreak of war on a global scale. Social, economic and political rights capture the common aspirations of most individuals and societies to lead a life of dignity through rights such as access to basic needs, preservation of their cultures, religion or way of life (Bharvaga 2003). They also help foster humane governance by protecting vulnerable groups such as refugees, minority groups, women and children, people with disability and prisoners of war (Dustin and Phillips 2008). They also form the basis for international laws, regimes and norms which not only influence relations between states, shape international trade and commerce practices and also govern transnational groups such as workers through labor rights (Lauren 2003, Bharvaga 2003). Human rights also form the standard for assessing national behavior (Claude and Weston 2006). For example, democratic states where human rights are upheld are regarded as more favorable travel and investment destinations while totalitarian and dictatorial regimes which do not observe political rights such as Libya (under Gadaffi) and Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) are prone to conflict and economic stagnation. Human rights, order and economic prosperity are all correlated. However, there has been debate over whether human rights are universal concepts or culturally relative concepts contingent on the context in which they are applied. Universalism versus Relativism in Human Rights The Universal Declaration of Human Rights The modern conception of human rights is anchored in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human rights which followed the devastation due to mass human rights abuses such as genocide in atrocities such as the Holocaust witnessed during the Second World War. The Declaration defines human rights as a common standard of achievement “for all peoples and all nations” which are characterized as inalienable rights, rights that one possesses simply because they are human, and therefore shared universally by all human beings (Reichert 2006, Turner 1997). The Declaration declares that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, endowed with reason and conscience and entitled to the rights expressed in the Declaration without any discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, creed/religion, political opinion or other status. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is thus the principal basis for universality of human rights, essentially treating human rights as universal concepts and values. Donnelly (2007) states that regardless of their advocates, human rights capture and respond to the some of the most important social and political aspirations of individuals, families, and groups in most countries of the world. It is difficult to find a modern society which still condones human rights abuses such as slavery, torture or genocide. While it may be argued that some of the elements of contemporary human rights and freedoms were or are inconsistent with the values of particular regions, cultures, doctrines or civilizations, human rights are increasingly viewed by the people and governments of such cultures and civilizations as a contemporary and shared political expression of their deepest ethical, cultural, and political values and aspirations (Donnelly 2003). On the other hand, cultural relativists often criticize or reject the universal application of human rights on the claim that human rights are westernized values. According to Melville Herskovitz (1948) “the rights of man in the twentieth century cannot be circumscribed by the standards of any single culture, or be dictated by the aspirations of any single people” which would “lead to frustration, not realization of the personalization of vast values numbers of human beings (Preis 1996 pp.286-287).” Proponents of cultural relativism argue that the role of power cannot be ignored in understanding the origins and imposition of universal human rights on Asian, African, Muslim and Hindu societies (Zechenter 1997). Relativists argue that the concept of universal human rights “distorts” and “attacks” non-Western societies (Mutua 2001). Conclusion While there are plausible arguments for both cultural relativists and universalists in the human rights debate, universal human rights essentially provide a minimal standard for the treatment of individuals by the state Only reasonable variations in practice which do not mutilate or contradict fundamental human rights values are acceptable. For instance, honor killings, execution of apostates and violence against homosexuals are by their very nature incompatible with fundamental rights and freedoms such as the right to life and freedom of choice (Dustin and Phillips 2008). Donnelly (2007) argues that tradition and culture should not sanction human rights abuse. Human rights should allow human beings to exercise this own freedom of choice whether in regards to religion, political expression or cultural beliefs. Bibliography Bharvaga, G 2003, Meaning and Sources of Human Rights, Gyan Books, New Delhi. Donnelly J 2007, ‘The Relative Universality of Human Rights’, Human Rights Quarterly Vol. 29, No.2 , pp 281-306. Donnelly, J 2003, Universal Human Rights: In theory and practice, 2nd Edition, Cornell University Press, New York. Dustin, A & Phillips, A 2008, ‘Whose agenda is it? Abuses of women and abuses of ‘culture’ in Britain’, Ethnicities, Vol. 8, No.2, pp 405-424. Ishay, M 2008, The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era, University of California Press, California. Lauren, PG 2003, The Evolution of International Human Rights: Visions Seen, 2nd Edition, University of Pennsylvania Press. Makau, M 2001, ‘Savages, Victims and Saviors: The Metaphor of Human Rights’, Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 42, No.1, pp 201-245. Preis, A 1996, ‘Human Rights as Cultural Practice: An Anthropological Critique’, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 18, No.1, pp 286-315. Reichert, E 2006, ‘Human Rights: An Examination of Universalism and Cultural Relativism, Journal of Comparative Social Welfare, Vol. 22, No.1, pp 23-26. Turner, T 1997, ‘Human Rights, Human Difference: Anthropology's Contribution to an Emancipatory Cultural Politics’, Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol.53, No.3, pp 273-291. Weston, BH 2006, ‘Human Rights: Concept and Content’ in Claude, RP & Weston, BH (Eds), Human Rights in the World Community: Issues and Action, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia (PA), Pennsylvania. Zechenter, E M, 1997, ‘In the Name of Culture: Cultural Relativism and the Abuse of the Individual’, Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 53, No.3, pp 319-347. Read More