Universality Of Human Rights

Critique Of Human Rights

Although the concept of human rights has been quite popular after the Second World War and has been universally accepted by the international community by adoption of UDHR, yet it has raised a number of objections ranging from philosophical, legal to ideological. Altogether they have led to the question – of how far human rights are justified.

The opponents of human rights have dismissed them as no more than merely a set of prejudices. While the natural rights were justified on the basis of natural law, the concept of human rights has been detached from natural law thinking. Contemporary political philosophers justify a case for human rights upon the commitment to fundamental values such as freedom, autonomy, equality and human well being. However, the issue of human rights is a complex one because of the diversity in the socio economic political and cultural differences among the states. In fact in spite of their popularity, the human rights are far from being universally accepted. In some cases, they are rejected on a general critique of the rights approach to politics, whereas in others, the criticism is directed against the specific human rights. Some of the important points of criticism are as follows.

1- The first objection is the philosophical basis of human rights and its utility. The assertion that human rights inherent in all human beings is clearly a very sweeping statement irrespective of faith. The Universal Declaration is based on a political commitment by the founding states of UN but raises questions about why the governments of those states at that moment of history should have the power to commit the successor states despite numerous changes of regimes. It must presumably be based on reason or an appeal to common understanding about the human situation but that raises the familiar philosophical dilemma about how values, particularly values said to be binding can be extracted from facts. All governments might agree that human beings seem to enjoy freedom of action in this field or that without agreeing that it is good for them to be given such freedom. In short, the philosophical argument for the Declaration is shaky.

As far the utility of the Declaration many states are dictatorial and the declaration has not deterred most of those regimes from violating several of the human rights specified. It might be said that appeals to the declaration have been at best as empty gestures at worst a weapon in the cold war. Moreover it has failed to bring the violators of human rights before some Nuremberg type tribunal difficult because Article 11 states that no one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under the national or international law, at the time when it was committed.

2- The second objection is the legal one. Followers of Benthamite tradition claim that the human rights are asserted as though their existence is as much a matter of fact as the existence of legal rights. There is a fundamental difference between legal and human rights and if this distinction is recognized then human rights are no more than a moral claim.

3- The social, economic and cultural rights such as right to education, work, social security, rest and leisure and an adequate standard of living, though not completely unprecedented have become prominent within the human rights. But they have raised doubts not only about social justice but also about their intelligibility as human rights. For example, Maurice Cranston says that the economic and social rights are of little relevance because they are no more than utopian ideals for the poorer states and their inclusion may lead skeptics to regard the other rights also as utopian ideals. Similarly, Brian Barry has also questioned the inclusion of social rights because they involve relativities about which arguments are always possible. A number of underdeveloped and developing countries do not have the resources to provide the goods. It is awkward to tell people that they have rights which cannot be provided while on the other side of the globe, there are people who are enjoying them for a long time. Hence they become different standards for different people. The other questionable feature of socio economic rights is that for any specific person, the corresponding obligation to provide the goods falls upon the particular government the right to have that good depends on citizen of a particular state rather than a member of the human race. Again whatever the intention of those who have drafted declaration of rights, it is not logically non sensical to hold that human beings have a responsibility on a world scale for the another’s economic well being.

Some countries believe that the statements in the UDHR are based on a very modern Western way of life and thinking. They go on to argue that other cultures, like ancient tribal cultures or Oriental cultures, have customs that may clash with the ideas and the Articles given in the Declaration.

The ‘culture-dependent’ debate shows up in different ways. Sometimes it takes a religious garb [for example, that human rights are Christian values, and therefore not valid in Islamic states]. Sometimes the debate is in the garb of Asian cultures versus European nations, as the following discussion shows.

In Hindu philosophy, ‘dharma’ is perhaps the closest word to ‘human rights’. Actually, dharma has many levels of meaning: law, norms of conduct, truth, rights, ritual, justice, morality, destiny, religion and more. ‘Vasudhaib Kutumbakam‘ [the world is our family] is the underlying philosophy. In particular, this philosophy says that rights are not confined to human alone; animals and plants also have such rights. [In fact, this is part of the Jain philosophy too.]

Human rights are not rights only; they are also duties, and both are inter-dependent.

As you can see, Hindu philosophy looks at society and the universe as a whole. This differs from the Western view of the ‘individual-based’ notion of human rights. In fact, most Asian societies reject the individualistic approach to human rights. The Buddhist doctrine, for example, does not accept the concept of life based on the self or ego. It emphasizes the holistic nature of things.

If you look at studies of African and Latin American cultures, you will find the same stress on group rights rather than the rights of individuals. Another source of major differences involving community rights versus individuals rights is the right to own private property. The UDHR has listed this as an individual’s right. This has met with strong opposition from societies in which property belongs to the community as a whole. According to them, the Western world is trying to impose free enterprise and capitalism on the rest of the world by calling property ownership a fundamental human right.

In fact, there is a very strong feeling in all these cultures that it is more important to improve the quality of life of the social group as a whole, rather than that of individuals. Giving priority to individuals is thought of as creating a selfish, aggressive and competitive society.

What you have just read is a cross-section of views on human rights in different cultures and traditions. Would you agree that the Third World’s views are clearly against human rights based on aggressive individualism?

 

Universality Of Human Rights

It has been mentioned above that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was accepted by almost all member states of the United Nations Organizations. From it appears that the ideas and nature of rights contained in the UDHR are universally accepted. The fact, however, is that in spite of UDHR there are differences of opinion among states with regard to nature of rights and their universality.

 

• Cultural Difference

A number of socialist and developing countries have objected to the universal character of human rights thinking that they lead to cultural imperialism of the West. They claim that the western societies are imposing their value system on the other cultures. For example, the western idea of free speech may not be relevant to an illiterate unemployed or starving individual. Hence employment, food, shelter, education may be more important than political rights and civil liberties in a particular state. Some states have also used this idea as an excuse to curtail the civil liberties. Any how according to this view if the individuals the world over must be accorded human rights, then that may be seen as granting a license for the domination of European culture over other cultures which do not share its conceptions of good life and just society. Also the concept of human rights as developed in the West ignores the rights of the groups such as classes, nations and races. Ideas of liberty democracy though good have paid too little attention to the concerns of class exploitation, national self determination and racial discrimination.

 

• The East Asian Challenge

The opposition to the UDHR discussed above has gained force in recent years. It is known as the ‘Asian Values Debate’ or the ‘East Asian Challenge’ because the arguments are mainly put forward by China, Indonesia, Malaysia, North Korea, Iran, Singapore, etc. In fact, the Bangkok Meet of the NGOs on the eve of the Vienna Conference, and their Declaration on Human Rights in 1993, is usually considered to be the beginning of the East Asian challenge.

Extending the debate Prof. Panikkar, a human rights philosopher, argues that the notion of human rights is a Western concept. Yet he also argues that these human rights are very necessary for a decent life in the modern world. What he and other scholars believe is that these rights need to be adopted and adapted to different cultures. Regarding this matter, the Bangkok NGO Declaration stresses that the world can learn from different cultures and draw lessons from the humanity of these cultures to deepen respect for [universal] human rights. Different cultures should be allowed to co-exist and their positive aspects must be respected by all. But, the Declaration goes on to insist, those cultural practices which go against universally accepted human rights, including women’s rights, must not be tolerated.

As an example of adaptation, the Islamic Council of Europe [London] prepared a document called the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights [UIDHR]. This is based on the values and principles of the Quran and the Sunnah. Like the UDHR, the UIDHR also recognizes the right to privacy, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to use one’s own culture and the right to freedom of religion. In this context, it is interesting to learn what Mohammed Kamali gathered from a brief survey. He found that ‘even though Muslim jurists never articulated a precise definition of human rights, Islamic law was not only cognizant of these rights [haqq] but it even developed other more comprehensive and precise concepts such as hukkum [order or legal decisions of God] which subsumed the former’.

In the following section you will have the opportunity to learn a little more about ancient traditions and what they have to say about such humanitarian objectives. [The major points highlighted below have been taken from Prof. B.K.Roy, Burmon’s research.]

1- The rock edicts of Ashoka [in the 3rd century BC] proclaim the emperor’s concern for the well being of the hill-dwellers. This line of thinking which shows concern for the disadvantaged people runs through all the ages and has produced bold advocates like Jyotiba Phule, Periyar and Ambedkar in the recent years. Manusamhita forbade the king from misbehaving with the wife of the defeated enemy.

2- In various chapters of the Quran, female infanticide has been condemned, and freeing a slave has been praised as an act of great merit. In fact, the Prophet himself had hundreds of slaves freed and allowed, after conquest, Christians and Jews to pursue their own faith.

3- In China, Confucius laid the foundation of ethics in social relations. Chinese cultural traditions emphasized the importance of living together with dignity and happiness.

4- Ancient Roman laws required minimum ‘horror of the sword’ to be sued to conquer enemy. Christian churches in early days ‘prohibited the use of cross-bow in war as it was deadly and odious to god’.

5- In tribal societies, even today, rape of women is unheard of.

 

• Use And Misuse Of Cultural Relativism

There is one important aspect of the issue that we have not yet discussed. Can this argument be misused by people for their own ends? For instance, if we are talking of Asian values, who was upholding these values when the Chinese government shot down hundreds of students demonstrating for democratic rights in Beijing? Were the students less Chinese than the rulers? Often ruling classes indulge in their power games under the guise of culture. People in power use the cultural-relativism argument to justify political repression and restriction of rights.

Of course, this is not always so. In Japan, the people chose to exercise their political rights according to their culture, and opted for a one-party system without any force by the government or by law.

It should now be clear that there are various dimensions of cultural relativism and for a better understanding it deserves close examination.

 

• Ideological Differences

The traditional western emphasis on individual liberties and political rights has met with objections and skepticism from the socialist and the Marxists as well. The Marxists for example stress that along with liberty equality is also an important human value and they regard the liberal notion of individual rights as a bourgeois illusion. They point out that the substantial inequality in income effect quality of life and power that exists in many liberal capitalist societies. The gulf between haves and have nots is often very wide in these societies. Thus the Western concept of human rights merely promises to everyone an equal chance to be unequal i.e. to become richer than his or her neighbor. Again the promise of equal opportunity is in reality a myth because power, wealth and expertise are concentrated in a few hands. This concentration gives the elite control over the masses and allow a minority to exploit the majority. Finally the Marxists argue that the interest of the society must override the rights of the individual.

 

Related Posts

How Universal Are Human Rights?
Human Rights : Civil And Political Rights
Importance Of Civil And Political Rights
Human Rights : Implementation Of Mechanism
Economic, Social And Cultural Rights