As most can say, the universalism- cultural relativism is a debate that is full of assumptions, and it proceeds that the international human rights law states that most of these fundamental principles need to send justice into the norms of society cultural and political ventures. This debate further asserts that this relativity on the cultural perspective tends to deny the legitimacy of the IHML. As seen in the opening page, there is a challenge in the presumed linkage between this international law and the valid idea that depicts justice and the criteria behind it. Does this make one accept the relativity towards justice while insisting on the implications for the legitimacy of this international law?
Does this comment challenge the linkage between the international human rights law and the valid criteria of justice? These human rights are standard and obviously culture related, most can say that this is obviously western based.
How do these universally accepted rights of such individuals thought to justify the restraints of international law on the states and the effects on the population? It should never violate the principles of non-interventions since from the view of international rights enforcement, sovereign states tend always to respect the human rights according to Lockean fashion the human rights according to Lockean fashion.
As noted nation-state ideal is somehow rare in the post-colonial world, the sector that is constituted with weaker states tends often to deal with one cultural structure with one cultural structure and as we can see among many rather than a central basin on which another national culture radiates.
Do the specific criticisms of the international law deny the existence of inhering in individual human beings independency on the society and its cultural norms? The critique of imperialism on human rights law tends to hinge on the idea of national self-determination that may end up being unrealistic for much of the modern world. The governance of these societies tends to be inevitable whether or not we acknowledge it.
How good do the ‘universalist’ supporters respond towards the inviolability of individual humans that are not categorically superior to the beliefs on the values of group solidarity, democracy, majoritarian and national self-determination.? The argument according to the critique of the concept of cultural relativism ends up making people believe that all the values are culturally related and when these are based on cultural relativity, the value judgment undercuts the authority hence these critics cannot come up with their self-values uniquely.
Why do we demand something more out of this international human rights law and how legitimate are the natural laws if they fail miserably?
What happens if the international law fails to be effectively implemented and soundly look into the legitimacy of citizen protection?
Rather than asking whether human rights standards are authentic to the national cultures of the developing world, we should ask whether and how human rights law marginally contributes to building societies capable of self-determination at some future point. It should showcase the real effect behind all options considered in this article. Best related opinions should always be brought to the table and related constructions should be untied making implementation an easy task to entice.
References
Billet, B. L. 2007. Cultural relativism in the face of the West. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Binder, G. and Weisberg, R. 2000. Literary criticisms of law. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Gilbert, M. J. and Russell, S. 2002. Globalization of criminal justice in the corporate context. Crime, law and social change, 38 (3), pp. 211--238.
