Is the idea of human rights a universal concept?



Yüklə 41,94 Kb.
Pdf görüntüsü
tarix07.11.2017
ölçüsü41,94 Kb.
#8954


23

Is the idea of human rights 

a universal concept?

Laksshini Sundaramoorthy

Abstract

While human rights is not a universal concept, its construction as a form 

of Western cultural imperialism represents an unfounded and inaccurate 

reading of civilisation. The idea of human rights as an entitlement of every 

human being, with an unqualified universal scope, is somewhat unattainable 

as variations in conceptions of justice are inevitable. However, the assertion 

that human rights are imposed by the West and would otherwise hold no 

resonance in non-Western societies, overstates the uniqueness of human rights 

to Western culture. Rather, there is an ‘overlapping consensus’ in that the 

acceptance and recognition of human rights is not complete but partial. While 

its principles cannot possibly be applicable to all state priorities and behaviour, 

the general concept of justice, at a higher level of abstraction, transcends 

cultural boundaries and is not solely confined to Western society. This notion 

is demonstrated through an examination of Islamic culture and Sharia law.

Introduction

In response to this contentious issue, two prominent schools of thought 

have emerged: unilateral universalism and cultural absolutism. Proponents 

of unilateral universalism, most notably Tharoor in ‘Are Human Rights 

Universal?’, concedes that human rights are derived from a shared faith in 



MERICI — VOLUME 2, 2016

24

humanity and cultural considerations become immaterial.

1

 On the other 



end of the spectrum, cultural absolutists like Ibhawoh describe human rights 

as one particular culture being imposed upon the entire world in a form of 

neo-imperialism.

2

 Unlike traditional approaches that consider the absence 



of universality and Western cultural imperialism as interchangeable and 

consequences of one another, this essay will investigate the nuances between 

these two extreme positions. By considering each proposal in isolation of one 

another, the inherent flaws of both arguments will become apparent. This will 

warrant the conceptualisation of an overlapping consensus.

A universal standard

The presumption of universal human rights, in its demanding form, is 

somewhat unachievable as states will inevitably vary in their perception of 

justice. As rights are defined by the value systems adopted by states, the 

absence of a homogenous moral community defeats universalist arguments. 

In other words, the diversity of moral systems means that states will obviously 

designate and place emphasis on different aspects of justice. The mere assertion 

of a universal standard conjures philosophical questions of ‘whether anything 

in our pluri-cultural, multipolar world can be truly universal?’

3

 According to 



Donnelly, theories stemming from such a ‘perverse’ and ‘arrogant’ unilateral 

universalism fail to consider the nature of international diversity.

4

 Therefore, 



the universality of human rights is largely undermined by the variety of moral 

systems in the international sphere.

The cause for such variations can be attributed to certain states prioritising 

collective needs over individual human rights. The concept of human rights is 

founded on inalienable, indivisible rights that are innate to all human beings. 

This presents a host of complexities in communal cultures, where individual 

rights are viewed only as duties that a person has to the group. For example, 

in Chinese Confucianism, individual entitlements are inherently intertwined 

1   Shashi Tharoor. 1999/2000. ‘Are Human Rights Universal?’ World Policy Journal XVI(4) 

Winter.


2   B. Ibhawoh. 2007. Imperialism and Human Rights: Colonial Discourses of Rights and Liberties 

in African History. New York: SUNY Press.

3   Shashi Tharoor, ‘Are Human Rights Universal?’.

4   J. Donnelly. 2007. ‘The Relative Universality of Human Rights.’ Human Rights Quarterly 

29(2): 305.




IS THE IDEA OF HUMAN RIGHTS A UNIVERSAL CONCEPT?

25

with communal duties: ‘I am because we are, and because we are therefore 

I am’.

5

 Moreover, despite violating various human rights, the practice of female 



circumcision in African cultures is an indispensable prerequisite to marriage 

and an estial component of a woman’s traditional role within her community.

6

 

Thus, the individualistic themes embedded in human rights often conflict 



with the communitarian ethic that characterises traditional societies.

Western cultural imperialism

Nonetheless, a lack of universality does not equate human rights to Western 

cultural imperialism. By portraying human rights as unique to Western 

states, cultural absolutists depend upon unsubstantiated claims of ‘clashing 

civilisations’.

7

 This falsely implies that the West alone have arrived at the 



paradigmatic principles contained within the Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights (UDHR) and such ideas fall outside the trajectory of non-Western 

civilisations. Viewing international relations as a binary relationship between 

the West and the non-West incorrectly subsumes all members of society under 

a generalised and inaccurate framework. Sen argues that oversimplifications 

about ‘Western civilisation’, ‘Asian values’, ‘African cultures’ and so on are not 

only unfounded readings of history, but also add to the divisiveness of the 

world.


8

 Therefore, considering human rights as Western imperialism assumes 

a cultural dichotomy that simply does not exist.

The absence of clashing civilisations is a result of ‘cross-cultural fertilisation’, 

where human rights ideals are not localised to specific geographic regions or 

societies. The intellectual movements associated with the West have multiple 

and diverse foundations as cultures are not ‘sealed boxes but a fertile jungle 

of different sources’.

9

 For instance, although often accredited to an outcome 



of Western liberalism, the language of freedom is a key tenet of Buddhism 

5    J. Young Lee. 1984. Marginality: The Key to Multicultural Theory. Minneapolis: Fortress 

Press, p. 31.

6   G. Gallo, P. Hodges and M.F. Vivani. 2006. Bodily integrity and the politics of Circumcision

New York: Springer Publishing.

7   S.P. Huntington. 1961. The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order

New York: Simon & Schuster, p. 1.

8   A. Sen. 1998. Universal TruthsHarvard International Law Review. Massachusetts: Harvard 

University Press.

9   M. Midgely. 1981. Trying out one’s new sword. New York: Palgrave McMillan, p. 2.




MERICI — VOLUME 2, 2016

26

and  can, by extension, be seen to originate in South-East Asia. Similarly, 

a plethora of contemporary Indian literature has represented the Hindu caste 

hierarchy as a multidimensional system of human rights.

10

 The enduring 



(not universal) relevance of human rights to non-Western states is exemplified 

by Donnelly, who proposes that even if a value or practice emerged in place A, 

it  is a dubious philosophical claim to assume its complete inapplicability 

to place B.

11

 As a result, human rights should not be viewed as Western 



imperialism because doing so would deny recognition of its multicultural 

sources.


Overlapping consensus

The overlapping consensus is an alternative and more moderate explanation 

that lies between these two extreme standpoints. The term, coined by John 

Rawls in his development of political liberalism, can be viewed as the 

‘political and philosophical equivalent of the Venn diagram framework’.

12

 



It illustrates how supporters of conflicting normative doctrines can somehow 

agree on particular ideas or arguments. The commonality of values doesn’t 

imply universality but rather a coincidental overlap. Hence, the concept of 

overlapping consensus provides a platform for which the competing claims 

of universalism and cultural relativism can be reconciled.

Applying this theory to human rights reveals the obvious discrepancies, 

as  well  as the similarities, between the two opposing schools of thought. 

On  one hand, the universal standard of human rights is unattainable as 

different states will inevitably adopt different moral systems. On the other 

hand, the interpretation of human rights as a product of Western imperialism 

is implausible because the idea did not originate from any exclusive Western 

cultural roots. The space in which these two competing conjectures converge, 

or the point of intersection on the Venn diagram, is the political conception 

of justice underpinning human rights. That is, although this conception 

of justice produces different meanings for different states, the recognition of 

a need to achieve justice is pervasive throughout the world and is not bound 

10   J. Donnelly, ‘The Relative Universality of Human Rights’, p. 295. 

11   Ibid.

12 

 

G. Forster and A. Bradley. 2014. John Rawls and Christian Social Engagement: Justice 



as Unfairness. Maryland: Lexington Books, p. 20.


IS THE IDEA OF HUMAN RIGHTS A UNIVERSAL CONCEPT?

27

to a particular culture. Thus, the overlapping consensus captures the often 

neglected ‘grey area’ of human rights and moves beyond a dichotomous 

presentation of the issue.

Case study: Islamic culture and Sharia law

Islamic culture represents an alternative value system that is, to some extent, 

incompatible with human rights. For instance, the penalties available under 

Sharia criminal law are considered cruel and clearly contravene Article 5 of the 

UDHR. According to Islamic culture, these inhumane punishments, such as 

flogging and the amputation of limbs, are viewed as a necessary component of 

social order. Another point of conflict between human rights and Sharia law is 

that the rights of women are restricted to traditional duties owed to the family 

rather than being individualistic in nature. This is exemplified by Abu Huraira 

(a companion to the Prophet Muhammad), who stated that a woman’s duties, 

and thereby her rights are confined to the ‘care of her young ones and the 

protection of her husband’s property’.

13

 Hence, Islamic culture diverges from 



human rights and simultaneously disproves the presumption of universalism.

However, while Sharia law does divert from human rights, Islamic culture has 

consistently promoted the idea of justice and is not entirely detached from 

liberalist thinking often associated with the West. Paralleling the ‘right to 

life’ enshrined in the UDHR, the Quran upholds the sanctity of human life 

as it is considered a divine bestowal on humanity that should be secured by 

all means.

14

 Moreover, the Islamic concept of Adl reflects themes expressed 



within human rights doctrines as it stipulates ‘fairness in everything a person 

does’.


15

 The freedom of religion is also protected through a number of Quranic 

passages, which clearly state that the responsibility of Prophet Muhammad is 

to communicate the message of God and not to compel anyone to believe: 

‘those  who follow the Jewish and the Christians and the Sabians … shall 

(have) no fear, nor shall they grieve’.

16

 Furthermore, verse 24:27 of the Quran 



recognises privacy as a human right and outlines rules that safeguard an 

13 


 

M. Al Bukhari. 854. Sahih al-Bukhari, n/a, 278.

14   I. Ali. 632. The Quran, Mashhad, Iran.

15   H. Beilefeldt. 2000. ‘“Western” versus “Islamic” Human Rights Conceptions?: A Critique 

of Cultural Essentialism in the Discussion on Human Rights.’Political Theory 28(1): 117.

16   Ali 632, verse 2:62.




MERICI — VOLUME 2, 2016

28

individual’s home life from undue intrusion.

17

 Therefore, as evidenced from 



the above examples, Sharia law is not completely dislocated from human 

rights ideals. 

By applying the concept of overlapping consensus to Sharia law, the relative 

acceptance of human rights in Islamic states can be explained. Sharia law 

diverges from human rights in that responsibilities to the community 

supersede the human rights innate to individuals. However, Islamic culture 

has also promoted values consistent with the UDHR, such as freedom, fairness 

and tolerance. Instead, there is an overlapping consensus: while the ideals 

promoted by Islamic culture do not completely align with those contained 

in human rights, there is a broader conception of ‘divine justice’ in which 

morality is sanctioned by the Quran and other religious traditions. As a result, 

the theory of overlapping consensus accounts for the incomplete but partial 

recognition of human rights in Islamic states.

Conclusion

After examining the key aspects of this debate and analysing the role of human 

rights in Islamic culture, it is evident that the idea of human rights is neither 

universal nor does it represent Western cultural imperialism. The assumption 

of universalism is undermined by certain states prioritising collective needs 

over individual rights. However, cross-cultural fertilisation means that human 

rights also fail to represent Western cultural imperialism as the ideals are 

applicable to non-Western states as well. Instead, there is an overlapping 

consensus where the political conception of justice, whatever that conception 

may be, is internationally recognised.

References

Al Bukhari, M. 854, Sahih al-Bukhari, n/a.

Ali, I. 632. The Quran, Mashhad Iran.

17   Ibid.



IS THE IDEA OF HUMAN RIGHTS A UNIVERSAL CONCEPT?

29

Beilefeldt, H. 2000. ‘“Western” versus “Islamic” Human Rights Conceptions?: 

A Critique of Cultural Essentialism in the Discussion on Human 

Rights.’Political Theory 28(1). doi.org/10.1177/0090591700028001005.

Donnelly, J. 2007. ‘The Relative Universality of Human Rights.’ Human 

Rights Quarterly 29(2): 281–306.

Forster, G. and A. Bradley 2014. John Rawls and Christian Social Engagement: 



Justice as Unfairness. Maryland: Lexington Books.

Gallo, G., P. Hodges and M.F. Vivani 2006. Bodily integrity and the politics 



of Circumcision. New York: Springer Publishing.

Huntington, S.P. 1961. The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World 



Order. New York: Simon & Schuster. 

Ibhawoh, B. 2007. Imperialism and Human Rights: Colonial Discourses of Rights 



and Liberties in African History. New York: SUNY Press.

Lee, J. Young 1984. Marginality: The Key to Multicultural Theory. Minneapolis: 

Fortress Press. 

Midgely, M. 1981. Trying out one’s new sword. New York: Palgrave McMillan. 

Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press. 

Sen, A. 1998. Universal Truths:  Harvard International Law Review

Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 

Tharoor, S. 1999/2000. ‘Are Human Rights Universal?’ World Policy Journal 

XVI(4) Winter.



This text is taken from Merici, Volume 2, 2016, edited by Matthew Rogers, 

published 2017 by ANU eView, The Australian National University, 



Canberra, Australia.

Yüklə 41,94 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©www.genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə