Universal Human Rights Theory : The Universalist Theory Of Legalism

In a growing westernized society built on the principles of freedom, it important to note that the rest of the world is not as privileged as civilization has not always been this way. The idea of state sovereignty, the legal authority of a government over its population, has evolved and adapted throughout history. Post World War II, the world was is an utter shock of what humanity was capable of. Moving forward, a variety of political institutions and documents were created in order to protect global human rights. However many of these institutions were mostly composed of western ideologies and European norms, that by imposing them on the rest of the world can be seen as cultural imperialism (Calhoun, p.15-17). Due to different social, political,

The concept that morals are not inherent or universal but are developed by the necessities of a given society at any certain time, as presented in William Graham Sumner’s Folkways, is inadequate and displeasing. While some moral practices are relative to particular cultures, that does not mean that there are no rights that belong to everyone, nor does it mean that just because an activity is practiced that it is morally justifiable. Each human being is entitled to a certain set of liberties, which are outlined in the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” All individuals are supposed to have equal access to these rights, but according to Sumner, all rights are cultural and none are universal.

It should be distinguished the universality of human rights and the universalism in human rights. The universality of human rights is a universal acceptance of the idea of human rights, while the universalism of human rights relates to the interpretation and application of the previously mentioned idea of human rights. The universality of human rights was reached after several lay down after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which is confirmed by the fact that no state today does not deny human rights and does not feel their offender (Köchler,

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a universal document that is likely acceptable and applicable for everyone. The UDHR identifies basic human rights that are based on the theory of Universalism. On the other hand, relativist claims that human rights are culturally dependent, and that no moral values can be made to apply to all cultures. Second notion is the UDHR are product of western political perspectives, such as Magna Carta of the UK, the American Bill of Rights, and the French revolution. Looking at these different theories about relativism from the Kevin Avruch's piece of reading, I believe that all three forms of relativism (descriptive, normative, and epistemic) contradicts the claim by the principles of the UDHR.

The mistreatment of women in the Middle East desecrates the human rights Americans claim all should have. In the second article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” 203 countries around the world recognize the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and are apart of the United Nations organization itself, if 203 countries agree to govern and provide the rights the Declaration states, then why must women in certain regions receive permission

For decades, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been used as an overall basis for the rights every human is enabled to, no matter their differences. Without a doubt, there are several countries that violate this declaration and have no respect for their citizens’ rights. Many may agree that Pakistan is among the numerous countries that don’t take the steps to make sure that every man and woman is enabled to these rights. In recent years, Pakistan has discriminated against their own citizens, whether it be because of their religion, gender, or even caste, which violated Article 2 of the declaration. In addition, Article 16, or the right of someone to marry who they please and have the right to raise a family has also been violated thousands of times, whether it be by the government, a citizen’s village, or even his/hers own family. The right to have good working conditions and pay, which is Article 23, has also been violated by Pakistan, as many adults and children alike have faced work brutality. As a result of these numerous violations, it is clear that Pakistan does not follow Articles 2,16, and 23, and therefore this country violates the Declaration of Human Rights.

Relativism and Universalism is the debate regarding the human rights source and applicability. Human rights are the rights that the human claims as being human, in accordance to the societal and cultural norms. While the former believes the rights are defined by the culture; the latter opines they are universal to humans. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Relativist argues that, is based on the western history and thus does not adhere to diverse culture globally prevalent and rather is pretentious towards culture. Therefore they doubt the relevance of the post conflict ad-hoc tribunal for Rawanda and the International Criminal Court which are based of notion of Universalism.

The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background

Implemented in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) delineates the basic rights and freedoms entitled to all humans. The freedom of speech and the right to express beliefs freely is a universal human right protected by Article 19 of the UDHR. It declares that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression” and can “hold opinions without interference”. The regional agreements of Iran, China and Bahrain are in accordance with the Universal Declaration and are fully dedicated to upholding the rights of the citizens, the government, and the overall welfare of their nation. While the government is often dealt a difficult hand with defining the boundaries of censorship, the idea of censorship is impermissible. The line between restricting and not restricting opinions becomes unclear when the universal right to free speech coincides with the basic rights of other citizens or openly threatens the balance of the state. Opinions contrary to that of the government do not justify refusing citizens their basic rights, like in the case of Iran, China and Bahrain. It is essential to protect free speech as a universal law for the benefit of society as a whole. The government of Iran, China, and Bahrain clearly violated the fundamental rights listed under the international human rights law. Therefore, they should be scrutinized for refusing citizens the ability to express their opinions.

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a doctrine created to ensure a mutual standard of treatment amongst all humans, every person deserves an equal set of life standards. According to Article 18 of this 30 Article document, “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance” (Campbell, MacKinnon, and Stevens 98). This document also states in Article 5, “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (Campbell, Mackinnon, and Stevens 97).

Human rights are universal rights that we are entitled to. It is a freedom that is guaranteed based on the principle of respect for an individual. As mentioned in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights are a “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all member of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world” (Kent, page 80). When asked what our rights are, we tend to get different answers and meanings. Some people recite the rights that they know; but let’s face it, not everyone knows all of the rights that they truly have. The rights we have consist of many things such as the right of having an adequate food supply. The right to

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” These opening words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights express a concept of man which underpins the framework of human rights embodied in the Universal Declaration and the two international covenants of Human Rights. Western political traditions is a concept that it derives from, is in harmony with moral and social teachings to be found in many other traditions and patterns of belief.

Several competing bases have been asserted for universal human rights. It is essential to understand these various foundations, since they can result in quite different understandings of the specific benefits protected by human rights. As well, each approach to human rights has different strengths and vulnerabilities in facing the challenges posed by relativism and utilitarianism.

Universal human rights are those that apply to everyone no matter where they come from, who they are or what they do. They are held by the individual person and protect them from other people and/or collectives (Bell,1999). Human rights instruments found today are also compared to those in religions and ancient civilisations that have contributed towards the understanding of human dignity (James, 2007). There are many arguments on whether human rights are universally achievable and if they have already been achieved. This essay will put forward different perspectives on this issue. Such as how the claimed universal human rights are not universal, why they are not, and solutions to this issue to help them become achievable.

Three theories on this matter: 1. The Naturalist – under this theory, there is a natural and universal principle of right and wrong, independent of any mutual intercource or compact, which is supposed to be discovered and recognized by every individual through the use of his reason and his conscience. 2. The Positivist – under this theory, the binding force of international law is derived from the agreement of sovereign states to be bound by it. It is not a law of subordination but of coordination. 3. The Eclectics or Groatians – this theory offers both the law of nature and the consent of states as the basis of international law. It contends that the system of international law is based on the “dictate of right