Write an essay about - Can Human Rights be Universal Rights?
Answers
Answered by
0
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 (Langlois, 2009, 12).
Many scholars maintain that human rights are pure -political’, thus unchangeable and unaffected by cultural or political variation.
Donnelly identifies the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the basis in establishing the “contemporary consensus on internationally recognised human rights” (2003, 22).
Human rights hold universal values which should be adopted by states worldwide.
A common challenge to this view is the concept of cultural relativism.
What the West may consider universal norms in human rights are not applicable in other cultures. Human rights are argued to have developed from Western culture and thus they are inappropriate in application to other cultures (Langlois, 2009, 19).
It has been argued that only Western philosophy places such importance on the individual (O’Byrne, 2003, 42).
Claims based on universal human rights are therefore at risk of being a “weapon of cultural hegemony (Ibid).
The most clear embodiment of this challenge are Asian values, where following the incredible economic success of a number of East/South-East Asian states, leaders and academics pointed to an alternative, more authoritative standard of rights, stemming from Asian conservative cultural values (Freeman, 2008, 363).
Western origins of human rights and the incompatibility of its imposition are argued to prove human rights should not and cannot be universally applicable.
There are arguments that economic development must precede human rights, believing that human rights are too expensive and too risky for poor countries (Freeman,2008, 359).
In poor states – particularly with ethnic divisions – human rights can “subvert social order and thus hinder development” (Ibid).
Advocates of this view again cite Asian ‘Tiger’ economies where strong economic growth is credited to authoritative rule (Ayittey, 2011, 18).
This is a clear argument suggesting human rights should not be made universal, as many states are not ready.
A serious obstacle for universal human rights is the claim that it is a new form of imperialism, or as Reneger describes, “a mask for Western interests” (2011, 1173). During the Cold War, the West dismissed human rights, supporting ‘friendly’ regimes notorious for abuses, such as Mobutu, Moi, Selassie (Adar, 1998, 35).
Real concern for human rights emerged only “occasionally” (Adar, 1998, 34).
Samir Amin identifies the human rights agenda as shallow rhetoric disguising the promotion of US interests (2004, 78).
The human rights discussion surrounding the 2003 invasion of Iraq has justified the fear that human rights are a tool of neon imperialism, particularly as the US has not promoted human rights in Kuwait despite years of presence there (Amin, 2004, 77). The US rejects criticism regarding questionable domestic policies on the grounds that it is “their way” (Franck, 2001).
thirds world states accordingly argue ‘rights’ are used to undermine their sovereignty according to the whims of the West Western double standards and narrows minded and hams handed (Donnelly, 2003, 99) policies have been a key reason for cultural relativist and imperialist arguments persisting.
Western aid to authoritarian States has consolidated their hold on power (Coyne & Ryan, 2009, 27).
These factors have culminated in reducing the West’s capacity to promote human rights.
Ayittey believes charges of imperialism have prevented the West from criticising authoritarian states (2005, 422).
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 (Langlois, 2009, 12).
Many scholars maintain that human rights are pure -political’, thus unchangeable and unaffected by cultural or political variation.
Donnelly identifies the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the basis in establishing the “contemporary consensus on internationally recognised human rights” (2003, 22).
Human rights hold universal values which should be adopted by states worldwide.
A common challenge to this view is the concept of cultural relativism.
What the West may consider universal norms in human rights are not applicable in other cultures. Human rights are argued to have developed from Western culture and thus they are inappropriate in application to other cultures (Langlois, 2009, 19).
It has been argued that only Western philosophy places such importance on the individual (O’Byrne, 2003, 42).
Claims based on universal human rights are therefore at risk of being a “weapon of cultural hegemony (Ibid).
The most clear embodiment of this challenge are Asian values, where following the incredible economic success of a number of East/South-East Asian states, leaders and academics pointed to an alternative, more authoritative standard of rights, stemming from Asian conservative cultural values (Freeman, 2008, 363).
Western origins of human rights and the incompatibility of its imposition are argued to prove human rights should not and cannot be universally applicable.
There are arguments that economic development must precede human rights, believing that human rights are too expensive and too risky for poor countries (Freeman,2008, 359).
In poor states – particularly with ethnic divisions – human rights can “subvert social order and thus hinder development” (Ibid).
Advocates of this view again cite Asian ‘Tiger’ economies where strong economic growth is credited to authoritative rule (Ayittey, 2011, 18).
This is a clear argument suggesting human rights should not be made universal, as many states are not ready.
A serious obstacle for universal human rights is the claim that it is a new form of imperialism, or as Reneger describes, “a mask for Western interests” (2011, 1173). During the Cold War, the West dismissed human rights, supporting ‘friendly’ regimes notorious for abuses, such as Mobutu, Moi, Selassie (Adar, 1998, 35).
Real concern for human rights emerged only “occasionally” (Adar, 1998, 34).
Samir Amin identifies the human rights agenda as shallow rhetoric disguising the promotion of US interests (2004, 78).
The human rights discussion surrounding the 2003 invasion of Iraq has justified the fear that human rights are a tool of neon imperialism, particularly as the US has not promoted human rights in Kuwait despite years of presence there (Amin, 2004, 77). The US rejects criticism regarding questionable domestic policies on the grounds that it is “their way” (Franck, 2001).
thirds world states accordingly argue ‘rights’ are used to undermine their sovereignty according to the whims of the West Western double standards and narrows minded and hams handed (Donnelly, 2003, 99) policies have been a key reason for cultural relativist and imperialist arguments persisting.
Western aid to authoritarian States has consolidated their hold on power (Coyne & Ryan, 2009, 27).
These factors have culminated in reducing the West’s capacity to promote human rights.
Ayittey believes charges of imperialism have prevented the West from criticising authoritarian states (2005, 422).
Similar questions