Suchergebnisse

One of the issues constantly discussed in the context of human rights is their assessment as universal or relative. International human rights norms are universal, which corresponds to the nature of human rights. The process of universalization of human rights began after the second world war with the creation of the United Nations, whose Charter declared its determination to reaffirm faith in the fundamental rights of the individual, in the equality of men and women and in the equality of nations large and small. These intentions of the organization were confirmed by the adoption of universal documents: the International Bill of Human Rights, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the International Covenants on Human Rights, opened for signature on December 16, 1966, and other acts. However, the problem lies in the fact that human rights recognized at the international level as universal and enshrined in international instruments, which must be respected by all and everywhere, lose the signs and qualities of universality under the influence of various socio-cultural, national traditions and customs, religious and other factors, and acquire the meaning or status of relative ones.

Should African and Muslim-majority countries be obliged to protect LGBT rights or do such rights violate their cultures? Should Western-based corporations be held liable if their security guards injure union activists in another part of the world, or should such decisions be settled under local or domestic law? In this passionately argued book renowned human rights scholar Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann vigorously defends the universality of human rights, arguing that the entire range of rights is necessary for all individuals everywhere regardless of sex, colour, ethnicity, sexuality or religion. Above all, she defends civil and political rights, such as the rights not to be tortured and the rights to vote, which are often so taken for granted as to be entirely neglected. Howard-Hassmann grounds her defense of universality in her conception of human dignity, which she maintains must include personal autonomy, equality, respect, recognition, and material security. Only social democracies, she contends, can be considered fully rights-protective states. Other political systems, including communism, or minimally liberal or libertarian states, are not rights-protective. Taking issue with scholars who argue that human rights are "Western," quasi-imperialist impositions on states in the global South, and risk undermining community and social obligation, Howard-Hassmann explains how human rights support communities and can only be preserved if states and individuals observe their duties to protect them.

Cultural relativism, a doctrine that holds that at least some of the variations in the validity of a moral rule or right are determined by the predominant culture, ranges along a continuum from weak to strong to radical. It is opposed to radical universalism, which attests to a culture's irrelevancy in determining the universal validity of rules & rights. Arguments against the two radical extremes are presented, & support is given to the weak cultural relativist position, with specific reference to the International Human Rights Covenants & a review of the twenty-eight Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Modern examples pertaining to Third World countries are highlighted. Reconciliation between the positions of relativism & universalism is reached through the conclusion that there is "a fundamental universality of basic human rights, tempered by a recognition of the possible need for limited cultural variations." K. Hyatt.

The universality of human rights has been a fiercely contested issue throughout their history. This article contributes to scholarly engagements with the universality of human rights by proposing a re-engagement with this concept in a way that is compatible with the aims of radical politics. Instead of a static attribute or characteristic of rights this article proposes that universality can be thought of as, drawing from Judith Butler, an ongoing process of universalisation. Universality accordingly emerges as a site of powerful contest between competing ideas of what human rights should mean, do or say, and universal concepts are continually reworked through political activity. This leads to a differing conception of rights politics than traditional liberal approaches but, moreover, challenges such approaches. This understanding of universality allows human rights to come into view as potentially of use in interrupting liberal regimes and, crucially, opens possibilities to reclaim the radical in rights.