Universal and Conditional Human Rights
Name:
Instructor:
Institution:
Date:
Human rights may be considered to be either universal or relative/conditional. Universality of human rights is an international project; hence is exposed to attacks from different groups. Universal human rights can be described to be relative and have legal, overlapping and functional consensus characteristics. The best universal human rights must be flexible to accommodate relativity, and diversity. Human rights are understood to be the rights and enjoyment by a person just because he is a human. In human rights theory, cultural relativism has been the most discussed issue. A human being has rights which are inalienable, because it is by nature that one is a person, and nobody can change it, because it is neither earned nor lost, and there is no range in defining human being.
Conceptual and substantive universality establishes the rights that a person has, just because he is a human being, and is equally held by all persons. Human rights can be determined on evaluation if anybody enjoys the rights. Complete human rights are disabled by some behaviors that human involve themselves in, like terrorism, crime, genocide among others. Only the internal state can decide on the adoption of human rights, therefore, both implementation and enforcement cannot be done by a different state (Donnelly, 283). This makes the exercise relative, based on the place he lives.
Historical/ Anthropological universality is based on the culture and society history. Human rights have been manifested across all cultures. This has led to a literature based on rejecting western concept of human rights. In the Arab literature, the basic human rights are established by conventions and declarations, while Hindus, African and Asian societies also had the integral part to support and practice human rights in their cultures (Donnelly 284). Historical universality has confused justice, humanity and fairness values. However, human rights help the society to hold their values, as they practice human flourishing and justice as cultures and time change. Anthropological universality is aimed at including an appreciating cultural respect and sensitivity. In the ancient Greece, slavery, racism, and restriction was put on men, yet it practiced human rights, and this was right (Donnelly 286).
Functional universality is based on modern social structure, ideas and practices. It supports those human rights components, based on social, political and economic transformations, and not from the Western roots. In the early modern Europe, the capitalist markets and bureaucratic states destroyed the traditional community systems and obligations. The people faced new economical and political threats, which affected the human dignity. Modernization continuously grew into groups who came up to demonstrate against injustice and disability. Success of some groups in fighting for their human rights created a room for political groups to come up. Human rights can help to cub human dignity in both market economies and bureaucratic states. Functional universality is dependent on human rights, contingent and relative historically, but it merits the universal label (Donnelly 287).
International legal universality is about a widespread endorsement of human rights which are recognized all over the world. This can be established in the human rights law, considering the existing Universal Declaration of Human rights. By the year 2006, there were six recognized treaties under international human rights, based on economic, social, cultural, civil and political discrimination, and women and children torture. This legal universality has however spread internationally. Some states like Zimbabwe and China violate human rights intentionally, and remain legitimate to international law, except when there is a genocide case (Donnelly 289). International legal universality is also contingent and relative. The decision to make Universal Declaration lawful and to what extent is decided by members. Currently, they can choose human rights over national and international conceptions and political legitimacy. International legal universality is replicated at moral and political theory.
Overlapping consensus universality considers different comprehensive doctrines based on political commencement of fairness. The consensus is incomplete, and is based on political point of view, than religious. According to Rawls, justice and equity is hard to get in a society of citizens with divided religious, moral and philosophical doctrines, as they affect cultural and political set up of a society. Different doctrines can be used to give a foundation for human rights. An example is where, through religion, a commandment is used to govern human rights. Unlike today, some ancient western religion and philosophical doctrines ignored or rejected human rights. In some countries, people perceive human rights as a way to express their ethical, political and cultural values (Donnelly 291). Currently, moral equality has been approved by leading doctrines across the world (Iovane 238). Therefore, people are preferring human rights to cultural values, and this is the overlapping consensus universality.
Ontological universality can be founded by a single trans-historical aspect. The single moral code may be valid and objective in all places, and time. This universality may be unappealing politically and implausible, due to three problems. A major problem is because religions believe their philosophy is superior to the rest. The second problem is because; all doctrines applied in the historical times did not consider human rights (Donnelly, 294). This makes it difficult to prove the long believed doctrine to be wrong. An ontologically universal doctrine has authorized human rights as a part of justice conception. The third is the difficulty to prove the religious and moral theories which have been in use since history incorrect. A strong argument is therefore required to support the ontological universality of human right over the long believed and followed doctrine. Overlapping gives multiple grounds for foundation, while ontological universality gives a single ground.
Cultural relativism permits deviation from universal human right standards in interpretation and form (Iovane 237). Radical universalism requires prioritizing demands of the cosmopolitan moral community. Cultural relativism requires a lot of self determination and sovereignty. Cultural relativist account of human rights may lender contradiction on relativity of human being. There has been an insufficient explanation on the best time to respect cultures when human rights decisions are being made. Some cultures like female genital mutilation, abortion among other issues have been addressed in the article 3 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (Weson 43). According to Weson, universal human rights can only exist by considering full identification, explanation and enforcement of rights when subjected to cultural relativism. This means that moral truth, traditions and customs approve the existence of the subject. At the balancing point, a positive, unbiased, and confrontational approach should be practiced to realize the aspects of human rights. In spite of universality, human rights should be applied considering the national, regional, historical, cultural and religious aspects among others. According to the declaration that was made in 1993 at Vienna, human rights are universal, inseparable, consistent and interdependent (Iovane 239).
Relativity has various weaknesses which makes it inappropriate today. It has nothing to do with the modern world trend, and has been noted to use impracticable concept of culture (Iovane 242). It holds on local ideas rather than better ideas which lead to self undermining. The states which have accepted the universality of human rights are controlled by its principle‘Pacta sunt servanda’ , which is challenging to cross cultural practice, due to some reasons (weson 42).
Some relativist states have not approved some human rights instruments; hence have already broken the principle. The tools are ambiguous and deliberately indeterminable to facilitate signature and approval, therefore it requires interpretations, even after acceptance. The contents are inspired by the West; hence increase conflicts instead of resolving them. After their work of signing human right treaties, and finding resolutions, the states bet to their reservations, declaration and statement of understanding, to ensure centralization of their culture and practices is not rendered unlawful.
References
Iovane, Massimo. 2007. “The Universality of Human Rights and the International Protection of Cultural Diversity: Some Theoretical and Practical Considerations.” International Journal On Minority & Group Rights 14, no. 2/3: 231-262
Jack Donnelly. (2007). The Relative Universality of Human Rights, Johns Hopkins University Press 29, No. 2: 281-306. 400-419
Weson H. Burns. (1999). The Universality of Human Rights in a Multicultural World, Transnational. 38-53.
