The controversial nature of the human rights undermines several arguments on the constitutionally entrenched Bill of Rights regarding their form, valence and content. The spirit of human rights as inherited from the past generations carries scars from the tumultuous past. Going with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, one may assume that human rights are indivisible, inalienable, universal and as shared equally regardless of race, gender, economic background or even nationality. For example, in the cases of political and civil rights, the concretization of these rights required to determine the cases at the level of specificity is usually morally and politically controversial. There is no legal or moral method which can be used to achieve the requisite goal to the choices which are inherent in the jurisprudence of human rights. The popularization of human rights helps in increasing their utility. Even so, the popularization of these rights compromises their moral and political status.
The legal articulation of these rights requires more democratic debate, dialogue and decision making. In many ways, Human Rights Act can facilitate an enduring partnership between parliaments and courts, placing human rights more strongly on the political agenda and creating a proper balance between parliaments and inputs of courts. The increasing consensus on the universality of human rights has received fierce opposition from critics in many parts of the world. Many people have raised questions about whether the idea of human rights is truly a universal concept or a western idea. With the difference in political, cultural and economic realities in the other parts of the world, it is clear that human rights cannot be universal. The values of consumer society, for instance, cannot apply in societies which have nothing to consume. In a simple analogy, talking about universal rights is like saying that both the poor and the rich have the same right to sleep under bridges and fly first class. Arguably, the Declaration ignores the religions, traditions as well as the socio-cultural patterns of other parts of the world.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In a philosophical sense, nothing can be universal since cultural perceptions define all the values and rights. Since there is no universal culture, human rights cannot be universal. Some people argue that the concept of human rights is based on the anthropocentric view predicated on an individualistic view of man as an independent being with a requirement to be free from any state interference. Rene Cassin, one of the drafters of the Universal Declaration related the central tenets of human rights to the temple portfolio. He identified four pillars as the foundation of the declaration; liberty, dignity, equality and brotherhood. The twenty-seven articles of the declaration were then divided on these pillars. The pillars, in turn, supported the roof of the portico which was formed by the sections 28 to 30.
These articles on the portico roof elaborated conditions, which could lead to the realization of these rights within the state and the society. Every pillar represented a historical milestone. The first pillar in the two articles of the declaration represents human dignity which is shared by all humans regardless of the race, religion ethnicity, or sex. The second pillar invokes the generation of the liberal rights which were fought for during the era of enlightenment. In short, the articles of the Declaration correspond to the successive generations and the future of the universal rights. Throughout the history of the world, the human rights reflected in the Declaration continue to generate contradictions on how to promote these rights and who should be endowed with these rights.
Implicit in this is the broad and culturally founded objections. In a number of the Western cultures, people are not similarly accorded their rights as in the West. The opponents of the idea of the universality of human rights argue that the Vedic traditions, responsibilities are more considered than the rights, while in Africa, it is the society that nurtures an individual. The Africans have a complex organization of obligations and communal entitlements wrapped around reciprocity, respect, restraint and responsibility. In many African societies, communal rights are more considered than the individuals' rights and even the political decisions are made through the consensus of groups rather than individual's assertion of rights. The differences in culture have practical implications.
Some people in the developing countries believe that the concept of human rights is not relevant to most of the African societies. The right to political pluralism and the women rights, for instance, cannot be granted given the societal structure and the traditions on which the societies are founded. Some societies believe that they are not able to provide these rights to all the citizens since the whole idea of human rights is an attempt to force the Western values on the African people. Gender rights are a contentious case in point. It is difficult for women rights to be considered as universal in the face of the divergent cultural practices in the world. In many societies, for instance, marriage is considered as an alliance between different lineages while in other societies it is viewed as the contract between two individuals. Subsequently, the honor of women is judged by the way the society expects the women to behave.
Apart from tradition, there is another issue of religion. For many religious critics, the definition of universal human rights, there is nothing which can be considered universal if it is not based on the values of God or sanctioned by various faiths. The critics observe that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights cannot claim such heritage. In the recently celebrated fiftieth anniversary of Universal Declaration, critics from several countries that were colonies in 1948 observed that the provisions of the Declaration reflect the ethnocentric bias of time. Further, they argue that the human rights concept is a cover for interventionism of the Western world in the developing countries affairs and that human rights are a mere instrument of the neocolonialism.
Practically, the argument on human rights seems to be about development and civilization integrity. Many critics argue that the third world nations cannot afford human rights in most instances since the many tasks which bring human rights such as nation building, consolidation of structure and economic growth are still unfinished in these countries. Authoritarianism, therefore, works more efficiently in such countries. Limiting or suspension of human rights is often depicted as a sacrifice of the few to benefit many. The concept of human rights is most often understood and applied by a few westernized minorities in the third world countries. Universality, in this case, would only be for the privileged.
In the real sense, many of the oppositions to the universality of human rights are a manifestation of the struggle between the societal authority and the primacy of an individual. Most of the civil and the political rights support group rights while many of the economic and social rights protect individuals. Thus, the significance of the two sets of rights and the agreements that codify them are interdependent, inseparable nourishing and sustaining each other. The conflict between the individual rights and group rights may not be escapable, but while groups may collectively enjoy their rights, the persons within these groups should also be allowed to exercise their rights in the group
