Universal Human Rights The Debate

A very highly contested issue in international political theory is the issue of universal human rights and its interpretation is dependent on the manner in which particular theorists understands it and the moral obligations related to it as well as international laws and the manner in which the two concepts of obligations international laws relate to one another. The fundamental interpretations about what is right and the extent to which the existing rights tend to be accepted and enjoyed by everyone forms that basis of the philosophical debate about whether human rights are universal or not (Kessler). The variant transition of value systems that result from the philosophical theories and practical politics when examined makes the debate more complex.

Debates have been surrounded around the issue of universalization of human rights within the world that has numerous independent systems that are diverse and sometimes of a conflicting nature dependent on the cultures and the political viewpoints of regions and countries. The debate still continues about the universal application of human rights throughout the world even as there have been advances that have formulated a code for human rights requirements internationally but are sometimes in conflict with issues of national obligation and its relationship with the need to respect the sovereignty of a region or country and the justifications for intervention into the sovereign rights.

The Debate

The debate about the universality of human rights hinges on the availability of sufficient proof about the availability of human rights that are universal as well as the accessibility of such rights for everyone. Theorists and philosophers have for centuries tried to codify and formulate various issues of human rights so that they are applicable universally. However, there is enough debate yet which are related to human rights issues dependent on cultures and countries and even with respect to what is considered to be right and wrong within cultures and subcultures (Donnelly).

For example, many cultures and societies perceive the roles and responsibilities of the female folk of the population to be primarily limited to the house and the family. Such cultures and societies view women to be primarily responsible for the efficient management of homes, children, and the family women are not expected to go out and earn a living for the family -- that is the responsibility of the males. This is a violation of the human rights of women to many philosophers and thinkers but is naturally accepted in societies where this culture is prevalent. Hence to conclude that women have equal human rights to men in terms of personal and family responsibilities and earnings for the family might be applicable and accessible to some cultures and societies while it might not be the same for other cultures.

There are however a number of viewpoints within the realm of political theories that can be used to claim the universal applicability of human rights. Such theories claim that there are certain rights which are applicable simply because they are applicable to one being a human being (Donnelly). Such rights are based on the concept and conviction that every human being share equal right simply because they are members of a global community. According to Pogge, (1992), one such theory is the theory of cosmopolitanism which seeks to emphasize the need of equal 'legal rights and duties' among the 'fellow citizens of a universal republic' (Pogge). Thinkers who follow this line of thought assume that there is a responsibility for the international community to ensure that there are universal rights for every global citizen and that such human rights are globally upheld.

Human rights thinker and theories also stress the importance of a moral duty with respect to interstate relations when they talk about human rights in reference to the 'the nature of human duty or obligation' (Baylis and Smith, p. 194). Such thinkers since every government or state have a moral duty to uphold a set of human rights applicable to all global citizens, intervention into the affairs of the state by the international or global community can be made if the state fails to realize its moral duty of upholding the human rights of its citizens. Theoretically, a set of human rights thinkers and philosophers hold this to be true. This, therefore, reflects a set of human rights that are considered to be universal and applicable and accessible to everyone. The arrest of Pinochet in 1998 'on an international warrant and extradition request from Spain' (Langer) is an example of the adoption of such universal human rights ideas. The extraction...

Such theories and thinkers claim that human rights not inherited by every individual simply because they are humans. Philosophers debating universality of human rights claim that humans acquire their human rights from the fact of them being members of a specific community. For example, the communitarianism thought of political theory stresses on the 'fundamental differences among groups in their moral norms and values and accompanying world views' (Nickel, p. 69). This means that it is virtually impossible to create any single code for human rights that are applicable, acceptable and accessible universally due to the need for moral relativism and in respect of varied differences in cultures. Such thoughts are supported by related theories and schools of thought on morality that stresses that these cultural differences result in differences in morality and exemplifies the dangers that are associated with the universalizing of the morality override with any honorable intentions at a universal or global level in a manner that is essentially 'incompatible with a commitment to human rights' (Nickel, p. 69).
Many philosophers point to the varied differences between the cultures of indigenous communities and the more urbanized decedents from the European colonial powers in places such as in Latin America. The extent of cultural divergence between such communities also creates differences in moralities and thus consequently human rights as morality often drive what is right or what is wrong. The relative definitions of human rights are determined by the differing cultural factors in indigenous communities and such definitions often vary considerably to what foreign powers view related human rights definitions to be true. Thus according to Shapcott, (2008), it is up to the liberal states to accept that they 'have no cosmopolitan duties to globalize their own conception of distributive justice' (Baylis and Smith) and hence rights of humans are intricately dependent on culture and thus vary in their nature.

In this context, it is pertinent to discuss the importance and validity of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations and its limitations and usefulness. Often the interpretation of human rights at the national level is limited to finding of independent solutions to specific violations of human rights and forms one of the criticisms of the declaration. For example, there exists a certain degree of ambiguity in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which pertains to the right to 'life, liberty and security of person' ("The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.") due to the absence of a very clear definition of the terms that are often used within the realms of statutory agreements and thus requires the interpretation and translation separately with relation to separate cases of human rights violation allegations.

This, therefore, leaves scope for the application of human rights based on theoretical cultural divergence in practice while it still tries to ensure a minimum level of human rights universally. However, the universal nature of human rights gets limited when they are allowed to be interpreted and defined separately in different circumstances. This allowance essentially has the effect of liberating states and organizations from any form of a universal framework for human rights designed to ensure that every individual of the global community to enjoy access to agreed rights.

Conclusion

From the discussions above it can thus be said that universal human rights are a very relative term which is not accepted by all. Despite the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human rights, the universal application of the concept is doubtful. Theorists and philosophers have been arguing about the universal applicability of human rights for many years now. Theorists say that human rights flow from the concept of what is right and what is wrong for individuals in a community. This right or wrong is also dependent on the way various communities, cultures, and societies view what is right and what is wrong. This again flows from morality which varies from one culture or society to another. Therefore, the concept of human rights, arising from the concept of what is right and what is wrong for embers of a community, also varies with varying cultures and societal norms. Moreover, there are also debates about whether an individual acquires…