With the conclusion of the World War II, the world witnessed the emergence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) with the major purpose of protecting the dignity of all human beings. In 1993, the World Conference on Human Rights acknowledged that these human rights are universally relevant and applicable and no questions shall be raised about their authenticity (World Conference on Human Rights, 1993). Nevertheless, critics from around the world oppose the universality of human rights. Therefore, this essay asserts that the nature of the human rights’ universality is questionable. In the beginning, a brief discussion concerning the dispute’s origin is presented. Later, an argument will be offered in favour of the thesis emphasizing that several of these rights are not religiously and culturally recognised by the entire mankind. The essay will also offer an objection highlighting the fact that the human rights were drafted by representatives from different cultures and the UDHR is widely accepted by the states. However, the argument will be well responded by accentuating that not all states were fully involved in the drafting process. In addition, numerous rights were disapproved by several states’ representatives during drafting. Lastly, the essay will also bring the lack of adherence to the human rights to light questioning the notion of the universality of the human rights.
The debate between Universalists and Cultural Relativists concerning the nature of the human rights has been a hot issue since the formation of UDHR in1948. The Universalists argue that there is no uncertainty in the universality of human rights as several societies and cultures practice them. On the other hand, the cultural relativists call attention to the human rights as ‘non universal’ stressing upon the creation of human rights according to the individuals’ cultural beliefs (Donnelly, 2007). The conflict between these two distinctly dissimilar ideologies generates new insights regarding the human rights’ ‘true’ nature. Some scholars argue that human rights are nothing but mere ‘Westerns beliefs’, or as Rengger suggests “a mask for Western interests” (2011, p. 1173). The Universalists censure such propositions claiming that human rights are universal by definition and are meant for the betterment of all mankind by virtue of being humans. Nevertheless, the Cultural Relativists always challenge the Universalists emphasizing on the nonexistence of a universal culture and the illogicality of universal rights (Le, 2016). Hence, the arguments of Cultural Relativists dispute the perception of universal human rights paving way for an apprehensive conflict between the two opposing sides.
As mentioned, people belonging to different worldwide cultures do not conform to some of the rights presented in the UDHR. For the same reason, the universality of these rights is unconvinced and doubtful. When the UDHR is considered, it can be inferred that the human rights system is fundamentally concerned about the individuals. However, it alienates the groups who may reject some of the proposed rights. These contradictions can be found in religious groups too. In a similar connection, the Muslim community signifies an example of a conservative society where the obligation to the Islamic principles by all the followers of the faith is essential. Due to the stated obligation, Saudi Arabia abstained from casting a vote on the UDHR pursuing the Article 18 that suggests the rights to change one’s religion and freedom of thoughts (Waltz, 2004). The abstention was derived from the Islamic teachings whereby Muslims do not recognise the right to apostasy but the freedom of practicing religions by the believers of the other faiths. For Muslims, apostasy from Islam is believed to introduce and bring false beliefs in the community. Therefore, the discrepancy between what is believed to be universal human rights (that are being individualistic) and the community is evident. This inconsistency can be further affirmed with a comprehensive examination of differing cultural norms. In the African community, for example, the decision to marry is made by the family and the tribe (Kyalo, 2012). The young individuals believe that parents and elderly would make a wiser decision to choose the right partner for them. This norm is discordant with the Article 16 of the UDHR that emphasises the freedom of choosing a partner (United Nation, 1948). The mentioned cases crystal clearly illustrate that prioritising an individual over the community is incompatible with some religious groups and cultural core values. Consequently, it is still uncertain whether human rights are universal or not. With a range of cultural and religious beliefs, it is undoubtedly an extremely difficult endeavour for the world leaders to implement universal beliefs and rights. Although some of these human rights are believed to be universal, they are still not applicable to all human beings.
The UDHR was unanimously acknowledged and the content was drafted by representatives. The selected individuals belonged to different states including China, Chile, Lebanon, and the Soviet Union (Krapf & Hessel, 2013). Those representatives shared a mutual feeling towards common human and cultural rights. For instance, there is a common sense of the right to live a peaceful and secured life in every culture. For that reason, participation in the UDHR drafting by the representatives from different cultural backgrounds indicates that these rights are carefully formulated so that they could be applicable to all cultures. In particular, this belief counters the notion that the West influences human rights stressing its own ideals on the entire human race. This argument is negated by the fact that significant contributions were made by the non-western representatives while the formulation of UDHR. According to Waltz, “a wide range of participants outside the Western bloc made significant contributions to the construction of the most elemental international standard of human rights” (2001, p. 50). Since these rights are chosen by the majority with respect to all the cultures, the UDHR is adopted universally. Currently, there are 192 member states in the United Nation. All of them recognise the declaration and work along with the Human Rights Council to assess and resolve the human rights situations in their respective states (United Nations, n.d.). The global recognition of the UDHR and the contributions in drafting the declaration by different states assert the universality of these rights.
In contrast, it is argued that not all states were involved in the drafting process as disagreements occurred between the delegates. In order to introduce and impose universal rights, every state should have at least a say in the drafting process. Nevertheless, it was rather difficult at the time since several of the current sovereign states were colonised or have achieved their independence just recently. There were only 58 states that were acknowledged as sovereign states and members of the United Nation in 1948 (United Nations, n.d.). It can, therefore, be said that perhaps the UDHR is universally recognised but not universally adopted. Not even there was limited states’ participation, no full agreement about the nature of UDHR or its articles were apparent as numerous delegates disapproved the nature of the human rights. For instance, Chairman Pengjun (Chinese delegate) and Charles Malik (Lebanese delegate) questioned the religious philosophical argument pertaining the nature of the potential human rights. While Pengjun argued that these rights should be based on the Confucian teachings, Malik believed in natural laws and natural rights derived from the Orthodox Christian teachings (Van der Ven, 2010). To some extent, a cultural or religious bias was observable since the drafting stage.
Furthermore, there was also an ideological conflict towards the UDHR. The Soviet Union abstained from voting to the UNDH and opposed some of its articles even though its representatives participated in the drafting process. As mentioned earlier, the UDHR aims to protect the individual rather than the community in general. This contradicted the Communist belief of prioritising the community. Thus, the Soviet delegator, Andrei Vyshinsky, stated that “human rights could not be conceived outside the state; the very concept of right and law was connected with that of the State” (Moraink, 1999, p. 21). Furthermore, the Soviet representative emphasised that UDHR articles promote democracy and the declaration would not protect the dignity of the human beings in general (Reis Monteiro, 2014). Therefore, while it is true that the human rights were drafted by a group of culturally-diverse and specifically-selected representatives, the nature of UDHR and its ‘genuineness’ was debated among the representatives. For that reason, the universality of the declaration is questionable.
The lack of adherence to the UDHR by the states is another argument against the notion of universal rights. The western states, believed to be the advocates of human rights, are currently violating these rights. In the United States of America, several cases emerged where various elected US governments violated the dignity of the human beings. In a recent story, the US Police wrongly accused a businessman from the United Arab Emirates of pledging his allegiance to ISIS. In fact, the businessman was just wearing a traditional Arabian dress that made him a suspected terrorist (Grinberg & Johanson, 2016). In contrast, an individual is hardly considered a suspected terrorist, under the same circumstances, if he wears Western clothes.
Such actions are totally against the Article 9 of UDHR stating that individuals should not be subjected to arbitrary arrests (United Nation, 1948). Moreover, Indigenous people are also discriminated on the basis of their race and culture. In Australia, Donnelly reported that the Australian indigenous people are discriminated continually especially in the workforce (2015). These cases suggest that the human rights are being selected in which the state decides the ‘right and wrong’ rights accordingly for a particular group of people. If the human rights are truly universal, they should be applied equally for all human beings. On the other hand, the lack of observance of these rights suggests otherwise.
In conclusion, this essay asserts that human rights are not universal. Some of these rights are not applicable in all cultures. Although the drafters of UDHR were culturally diverse to ensure the applicability of these rights in every culture, there was a clear disagreement concerning some rights and the nature of the rights from the beginning. All in all, the violation of these rights by practicing discrimination questions the universality of these human rights.
References
Donelly, B. (2015, November 05). Aboriginal people face 'systemic' racial discrimination: Report. The Age. Retrieved September 01, 2016, from http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/aborigines-face-systemic-racial-discrimination-report-20151104-gkqlii.html
Donnelly, J. (2007). The relative universality of human rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 29(2), 281-306. Retrieved August 31, 2016, from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/docview/204636302/fulltextF2D2DB51D4854D90PQ/1?accountid=14723
Grinberg, E., & Johanson, D. (2016, July 5). For Muslim visitor, ugly encounter leads to apology. CNN. Retrieved August 31, 2016, from http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/03/us/ohio-false-isis-report/
Kyalo, P. (2012). A reflection on the african traditional values of marriage and sexuality. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development, 1(2), 211-219. Retrieved August 31, 2016, from http://www.hrmars.com/admin/pics/826.pdf
Krapf, T., & Hessel, S. (2013). The last witness to the drafting process of the universal seclaration of human rights: interview with stéphane freed richessel. Human Rights Quarterly, 35(3), 753-768. Retrieved August 31, 2016, from https://muse-jhu-edu.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/article/516848/pdf
Le, N. (2016). Are human rights universal or culturally relative? Peace Review, 28(2), 203-211. dio: 10.1080/10402659.2016.1166756
Morsink, J. (1999). The Universal declaration of human rights: Origins, drafting and intent. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Reis Monteiro, A. (2014). Ethics of human rights. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Rengger, N. (2011). The world turned upside down? human rights and international relations after 25 years. International Affairs, 87(5), 1159-1178.dio: 0.1111/j.1468-2346.2011.01026.x
United Nation. (1948). The universal declaration of human rights. Retrieved August 31, 2016, from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf
United Nation. (n.d.). Growth in United Nations membership, 1945 - present. Retrieved August 30, 2016, from http://www.un.org/en/sections/member-states/growth-united-nations-membership-1945-present/index.html
United Nation. (n.d.). Human Rights. Retrieved August 29, 2016, from http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/humanrights/
Van der Ven, J. (2010). Human Rights or Religious Rules. Leiden: BRILL.
Waltz, S. (2001). Universalizing human rights: The role of small states in the construction of the universal declaration of human rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 23(1), 4472.
Retrieved August 31, 2016, from https://muse-jhuedu.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/article/13764/pdf
Waltz, S. (2004). Universal human rights: The contribution of Muslim states. Human Rights Quarterly, 26(4), 799-844. Retrieved August 29, 2016, from
https://muse-jhu-edu.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/article/174743/pdf
World Conference on Human Rights. (1993). Vienna declaration on human rights.
Retrieved August 31, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/stable/pdf/2938429.pdf
