How Universal Are Human Rights?

How Universal Are Human Rights?

What you have just read is that certain cultural traditions and practices are not in line with the views projected by the UDHR. At least, that is how it appears. But, there is a little known fact which is, however, of great importance. Before creating the UDHR, the UN appointed a committee to see which, if any human rights were considered fundamental by the different cultures of the world. The committee sent a detailed questionnaire to philosophers, historians, politicians, and thinkers around the world. Replies came in describing what different cultures consider to be human rights. How came the surprise! They found that the list of basic rights and values that they received from all these diverse cultures were essentially similar. For instance, the basic right to life is a value shared by all cultures. So, all the cultures would agree that most of the rights listed in the UDHR are necessary for a decent, dignified way of life. It is only a question of how each cultural group interprets these rights. The difference lies in this aspect.

The different human rights cannot be separated from each other. They form among themselves a harmonious whole. It is the universal harmony that ultimately counts.

The first paragraph of the Vienna Declaration states without ambiguity: ‘The universal nature of these rights and freedoms is beyond question.’

The whole of the fifth paragraph is devoted to this question which, in the words of the Declaration, states:

All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of states, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

These provisions of the Vienna Declaration lead to the following conclusions:

• • They state once and for all that dignity is the common basis of all human rights.
  • They proclaim the universal character of those rights.
  • However, important to note is a need for taking note of national and regional peculiarities and of various historical, cultural and religious heritages as we accept the universal nature of the human rights.

We live in a period of civilization in which human rights have received recognition through universal instrument, international human rights organizations and in some countries through national constitutions and commissions. It is gradually being recognized that man is born free and is endowed with certain universally claimed human rights. However, the paradox of contemporary times is that everywhere such rights are being violated or ignored. Humans without rights are on increase. Blood and tears and trauma and misfortune claim victims everywhere. Human inhumanity takes many forms. Social divisiveness and political instability coupled with different institutional framework and inadequate resources make it impossible to comply with the requirements of UN Declaration. It is argued that either human rights laid down by UN are too valuable to make it possible to establish what constitutes a right violation or that they require to be interpreted by reference to the particular value or tradition of a particular society.

Most of the rights are defined primarily in terms of civil liberties and political rights in the liberal democratic framework. The citizens of Western liberty democracies generally enjoy these rights and liberties. While the erstwhile socialist countries had criticized the nature of human rights from the beginning, the underdeveloped countries, social and political dislocation caused by the process of nation building tended to reduce the government’s observance of human rights as defined by the UN Declaration. The development of liberal democratic institutions usually occurred in societies with high level of communication, urbanization and per capita income. Thus certain minimum level of socio economic development is necessary for liberal democratic values and institutions to take hold in a country. Thus socio political structure of underdeveloped societies has been usually too fragile and inflexible to maintain the level of human rights. As a result millions of people are being deprived of basic and minimum human rights.

Although there have been sharp differences between liberal and socialist countries about the nature of human rights during the cold war, yet the profile of human rights has changed in the post cold war era and the UN has emerged as a significant institution to evolve human rights standards. The 1993 world Congress on Human rights in Vienna noted ‘the promotion and protection of all human rights is a legitimate concern of all in the international community’. Of late the UN has taken steps to protect the rights of people through the use of humanitarian intervention in countries like Iraq, Somalia and Bosnia. It also established tribunals charged with the indictment and persecution of individuals accused of crimes against humanity and genocide in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

 

• Worldwide Influence Of The UDHR

Soon after the Declaration, the issue of human rights began to be persuaded vigorously throughout the world and gradually attained a status of a movement. While the Western democratic countries saw in the human rights a vindication of the liberal capitalist ideology and a weapon to fight the cold war, the ex-colonial countries of Asia and Africa saw in them an opportunity to get rid of their old feudalistic systems and a necessary tool for their development. The idea of human rights was propagated by a number of regional organizations which provided separate conventions and covenants for the enforcement of human rights and fulfilling the gap left by UN. For example, a more marked reaction in favor of human rights was seen in Europe not only because of its memories of the atrocities of the Nazis and Fascists rulers but also because the democratic Europe lived very near the communist USSR whose outlook negated all the conclusions of philosophy which had led to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Congress of Europe at The Hague in May 1948 announced its desire for a Charter of Human Right guaranteeing the liberty of thought, assembly and expression. It was followed by a Europeans Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in November 1950. The Convention guaranteed the right to life, liberty, security of persons, of a fair trial, to respect for one’s private and family life, home and correspondence, to marry and found a family freedom from torture or inhuman treatment or punishment, freedom from slavery and servitude, freedom of thought and expression, conscience and religion and freedom of assembly and association. Subsequently, right to property, to free election, right of parents to educate their child in conformity with their beliefs, freedom from imprisonment for debt, freedom from exile and prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens were also added. In marked contrast to the UN Deceleration, the European convention was ‘to take the first step for the collective enforcement of certain rights of UN Declaration’.

Similarly, across the Atlantic, the Latin American states established an American Organization of States [OAS] in 1959. The various articles of this charter of OAS held the states responsible for protecting human rights an American convention on Human Rights was signed by Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, Panama Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela in 1969 which came into force in 1978.

In 1960s when the winds of change were blowing across Africa, the leaders of the African states formed the Organization of African Unity [without South Africa] and proclaimed the right of the people to self-determination. It prepared a draft of an African Charter of Human Rights and peoples right [1981] and worked hard to establish bodies to provide, promote and protect human rights. The OAU has successfully performed. It covers peoples rights known as group rights or collective rights. It too has a commission which examines the periodic reports from state parties on their complaints within the provisions of the Charter and established dialogue with the state representatives aimed at encouraging states to implement their human rights obligations. The OAU has been successful in bringing apartheid to an end.

The experience of the European, Latin American and African countries proved an encouraging example for the countries of South East Asia also. But such progress could not be made because of certain factors such as lack of political rights and civil liberties, lack of democratization and multi party system, self serving constitutional process, excessive national security laws, preventive detention and constraints upon due process of law, extensive limits on freedom of thought, expression and assembly, a compromised and defective judicial criminal system, unbalanced development, inadequate social safety nets etc. Still some regional initiatives have been taken to the direction of human rights such as the Non-aligned movement, The association of South East Asian Nations and the United Economic and Social commission for Asia and pacific, and South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. The landmark achievement of the ASEAN is a treaty signed between it and EEC in which ASEAN expressed its willingness to work for the betterment of human rights at regional level. Nearer home, SAARC formed with a strong signal for human rights awareness. It has been fighting against terrorism and human rights violation and hope to adequately respond to these challenges. Also national human rights institutions in the form of human rights committees and commissions have also been set up in countries like India, Philippines, Indonesia, Sri Lanka etc.

 

• NGOs On Human Rights

Apart from the regional organizations and human rights commissions at national levels, a number of non governmental organizations have also come into existence throughout the world to keep a watch on the national governments with regard to any possible violation of human rights on the one hand and to promote and protect the human rights awareness on the other. Some of the NGOs of international fame are International Commission of Jurists, the International Federation of Human Rights [Paris], the International league of human rights [NY] and the Minority rights Group [London]. All these organizations have a special consultative status with UN. Two other important NGOs of international recognition are the Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch. The Amnesty International was established in 1961 and its main thrust is to secure immediate and fair trials of political prisoners. It seeks an end to torture, execution, disappearance, arbitrary killings, hostage taking and other inhuman cruel or degrading treatments and punishments. The Human Rights Watch was established in 1987 in New York and it has more than 8000 members. It evaluates the human rights practices of governments in accordance with standards recognized by international law and agreements and UN Declarations. It identifies governmental abuses of human rights by monitoring.

 

Related Posts

Meaning Of Human Rights
Nature And Evolution Of Human Rights
International Efforts To Develop Human Rights Norms
Universal Declaration Of Human Rights
Universality Of Human Rights