View this Free Essay in PDF format

This free essay has been submitted by: Guest User

Universal Human Rights

The notion that human rights are universal stems from the philosophical view that human rights are linked to the preservation of human dignity. This means that respect for individual dignity is due equally to one and all, regardless of circumstance. In this way, human rights should apply universally.

This is clearly the thrust behind the world's main human rights instruments in operation today. The earliest human rights Charter of the modern era - the French Declaration on the Rights of Man and of Citizen 1789 - refers to the "natural and inalienable rights of man" and that "men are born free and equal in rights". (Note the term ‘man' is used in the sense of all human beings or ‘mankind'.)
The same sentiment was expressed almost 160 years later in the Preamble to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights which refers to: "the inherent dignity and ... the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world".

The human rights contained in both of these instruments, and the many others that share their aspirations, are considered essential to the respect of every human being's dignity.

The ‘universality of human rights' is a concept. This concept says that human rights belong to all human beings and are fundamental to every type of society. In this way, everyone has the same basic human rights. Individuals may exercise different rights, or exercise the same rights differently, depending on which group they belong to within society. Different groups include women, children, or those of a certain race, ethnicity or religion. Even if the form or content of human rights changes over time, the concept of their universality remains true.

Some argue that the concept of universality is culturally constructed. Human rights are viewed as representing the particular belief systems of some cultures and societies rather than those of all cultures and societies. This is the so-called ‘cultural relativist' argument, the very rationale of which is to deny claims of universality. Accordingly, in their modern form, human rights are considered a Western construct of limited application to non-Western nations. (AKA the "West versus the Rest" debate).

One of the reasons why this clashing of opinion exists within America is that supporters of the cultural relativist argument believe the notion of universality to be promising more than it can deliver. Universalists disagree, pointing out that in fact the notion has definite limits.

The universality of human rights does not directly state, however, that the rights of every human being are the same for everyone, all of the time and in every circumstance. In fact, this would be impossible to achieve. Individual human rights do not exist in isolation of each other. In fact, they are inextricably linked together. Sometimes they complement one another and at other times, there is tension between them. The potential for rights to conflict is often present. For example, the rights to freedom of expression or a fair trial may clash with the right to privacy; the right to cultural or religious practice may clash with the right not to be discriminated against on certain grounds; and the rights to a healthy environment, to an education, to health care or to welfare benefits may be in competition with each other over the same limited resources.

In practice, compromises are made and balances are struck to enable individual rights to operate in context with one another. For example, as Americans we are free to say whatever we like, though generally we respect the rights of others, and won't defame someone, or invade their privacy to obtain information for public consumption. We can practice any religion of our choice, but we cannot use faith as an excuse to unfairly discriminate against others at work or in any other public forum. In the distribution of public resources, the environment may be favoured over expansions in health care, or the other way around. Welfare benefits might be enhanced at the expense of educational institutions, or the other way around. At times, all of these rights will lose out in the pursuit of some other policy goal.

The precise definition of human rights seems to be constantly changing. However, it should never develop into a formal or semi-formal hierarchy of rights, as this would jeopardize the concept of universality. Consider, for example, the perceived distinction between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights.

It is argued that civil and political rights are ‘negative' rights or freedoms, as they generally require states not to interfere in the affairs of their citizens (eg. privacy, freedom of expression, thought and religion, freedom of movement and assembly, and freedom from torture, arbitrary arrest and discrimination). Economic, social and cultural rights, on the other hand, are considered ‘positive' rights - in that they require States actively to implement measures to secure these rights (eg. right to a clean environment, and rights to education, health, and welfare).

It is argued that the protection of civil and political rights is not as demanding of public resources as is the protection of economic, social and cultural rights. It is further argued that the latter set of rights rely on political decisions rather than on principle, and as such, are less liable to implementation and more difficult to enforce through a legal justice system. In this way, economic, social and cultural rights are distinguished from civil and political rights and are deemed ‘second order' human rights or not human rights at all by several international organizations.

Many reject such an ‘artificial distinction' between these rights because it suggests that some human rights are more important than are others. At the international level, the United Nations and other international organisations, have consistently emphasised the equal status of these two sets of rights.

The inconsistency between the international and (some) domestic levels is a matter of concern for international law and international relations. The force of international human rights norm-setting is significantly diluted if countries believe that they are able to say one thing in Geneva but who's actions at home speak a different gospel.

Add a Review for this free essay

Name: Rate: Select 10 (Good) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (Bad)

Comments Characters Left
Verify:*

Sticky Note Text....