ABSTRACT
At the beginning of the world, human beings were not
regarded as having any right at all. But as time went on religious leaders and
political philosophers started professing and postulating that human beings by
nature were endowed with certain inalienable rights because they are human.
Thereafter, human rights though recognized were considered to be issues or
matters of domestic jurisdiction of each state which no other state can
interfere. This situation existed until 1919 when the League
of Nations came into being, but there was not much change on the
status of human rights.
Human rights was recognized as international issue by
1945 on the formation of the United Nations Organisation. In 1948, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated, since then there has
been growing internationalization of human rights globally. But there appear to
be conflict between cultures and human rights as countries in the Eastern
Europe assert that human rights is imposition of western culture on the rest of
the cultures, as such should be rejected. This paper therefore considers the
universality of human rights, bases of universality of human rights as well as
the limits of universality and offer useful recommendations and conclusions for
this universality in human right.
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
OF UNIVERSALITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL STUDIES
AKWA IBOM
STATE POLYTECHNIC
INTRODUCTION:
The term universality in
English connotes the absence of limitations, restrictions, differences or
selection. It further connotes uniformity, comprehensiveness and general
application without discrimination on any grounds or reasons whatsoever. The
word universality is a noun form of the word universal. The term universal is
defined in terms of “relation to the whole or an entirety; pertaining to all
without exception”1. In fact the word universal is said to be a term
“more extensive than ‘general’, which latter may admit of exceptions”2.
The term universal is equally defined as any act or thing that involves all the
people in the world or in a particular group, for instance, universal suffrage
meaning the right of all the people in a country to vote3.
 |
* LL.B, BL., LL.M (Ph.D candidate) Department of Legal
Studies Akwa Ibom State Polytechnic
1.
Black, Henry
Campbell, Black’s Law Dictionary 6th
ed. New York, St. Paul Minn, West Publishing Co. 1990. P.1535.
2.
Ibid.
3.
Hornby, A. S., Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of
Current English 6th ed. New York:
(Oxford University Press, 2000) P.1136.
UNIVERSALITY
IN RELATION TO HUMAN RIGHTS
In relation to Human rights
the term universality means that human rights are natural attributes of human
beings and human rights are possessed by all people, irrespective of their
colour, sex, place of origin, creed, ethnic group, religion or political
opinion. It is submitted here that human rights are everywhere universal to all
human beings. Human rights therefore cannot be seen as valid only in certain
contexts. Their validity is derived from the very source of their existence,
the nature of human beings. The socio-economic-cultural and political
conditions of peoples do not define human rights. It is likewise said that due
to the formal agreement by most states to the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the subsequent human rights instruments, as well as their
fulfillment of certain human rights, there is universal recognition of human
rights.
It is asserted that the
horrors perpetrated by Nazi regime before and during the Second World War
evoked universal opposition to the denial of human rights. The United Nations
Organisation (UNO) was founded in 1945 and its Charter constitutes the most
basic document of today’s international relations. One of the principles of the
Charter is the promotion of respect for and observance of fundamental human
rights without discrimination based on race, sex, language or religion4.
Article 55 provides that the United Nations shall promote “universal respect
for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms” for all without
discrimination. Under Article 56 member states have pledged to take joint and
separate actions to achieve and promote self-determination of human rights.
The General Assembly of the
United Nations Organisation may initiate studies and make recommendations for
the purpose of helping to restore fundamental human rights5, and the
Economic and Social Council has power to
4.
Article 1(3) of
the United Nations Organisation, 1945.
5.
Ibid. Article 13
make similar recommendations to that effect6.
It is worthy to note that the United Nations Charter is not a human rights
document as it does not contain nor enumerate the human rights which the
Charter seeks to protect. These rights are contained in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted in 1948 and it is also in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966 and the Additional
Protocols to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
It is maintained that the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the first comprehensive human rights
instrument to be proclaimed by a universal international organisation7.
It is submitted that because of its moral status and the legal and political
importance it has acquired over the years, the Declaration that ranks with the Magna carta, 1215, the French
Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, 1789, and the American
Declaration of Independence, 1776, as a milestone in the mankind’s struggle for
freedom and human dignity. Its debt to these great historic documents is
unmistakable as it has stated in Article 1 that: “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”. Also
Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: “Everyone
is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and
freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized”.
The Universal Declaration
proclaims two broad categories of rights namely civil and political rights on
the one hand and economic, social and cultural rights on the other. Its
catalogue of civil and political rights includes the right to life, liberty and
security of person, the prohibition of slavery, of torture and cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment, the right not to be subjected to
6.
Ibid. Article 62.
7.
Eide, A., et al
(eds) “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” A Commentary (1992).
arbitrary arrest, detention or exile, the right to a
fair trial in both civil and criminal causes, the presumption of innocence and
the prohibition against the application of ex
post facto laws and penalties. The Declaration recognizes the right to
privacy and the right to own property. It proclaims freedom of speech,
religion, assembly and freedom of movement. The freedom of movement embraces
the right of everyone to live in any country, including his own, and to return
to his country. It also guarantees the rights to seek and to enjoy in other
countries asylum from persecution and the right to a nationality.
Important political rights
are proclaimed in Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
including the individual’s right to take part in the government of his country,
directly or through freely chosen representatives. That provision also declares
that the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government
and requires periodic and genuine elections by universal suffrage. The
catalogue of economic, social and cultural rights proclaimed in the Declaration
starts with the proposition, expressed in Article 22 that:
Everyone, as a member of
society… is entitled to realization, through national effort and international
cooperation and in accordance with the organisation and resources of each
state, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his
dignity and the free development of his personality.
The Declaration also
proclaims the individual’s right to social security, to work, and to protection
against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work and to just and favourable
remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human
dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
The right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours
and periodic holidays with pay is recognized in Article 24. Article 25 of the
Declaration states that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate
for the health and well-being of himself and of his family. It also recognizes
the individual’s right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness,
disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances
beyond his control.
The right to education is
dealt with in Article 26 of the Declaration which provides among other things,
that education shall be free at least in the elementary and fundamental stages.
Article 26 also declares that:
Education shall be directed
to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote
understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious
groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the
maintenance of peace.
Article 27 of the
Declaration deals with cultural rights and states inter-alia, that every human being has the right freely to
participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to
share in scientific advancement and its benefits. The Declaration recognizes
that the rights it proclaims are not absolute. It permits a state to enact laws
limiting the exercise of these rights provided their sole purpose is to secure
due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of
meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare
in a democratic society8.
A government’s authority to
impose such restrictions is further limited by Article 30, which provides that
“nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any state,
group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed
at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms”, proclaimed in the
Declaration. In other words, a government would violate the Declaration if its
reliance on the power to impose lawfully restrictions or limitations on the
exercise of certain human rights was a mere pretext for denying these rights.
8.
Article 29(2) of
the Declaration.
The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 as a
resolution having no force of law has undergone a dramatic transformation and
today few international lawyers would deny that the Declaration is a normative
instrument that creates no legal obligations for the Member States of the
United Nations.
THE BASES OF
UNIVERSALITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The universal character of
human rights is based on the belief that human rights are natural attributes of
human beings. The abstract idea of inherent existence of rights in all human
beings is the key reason why human rights are possessed by all people, and thus
their universality. Human rights therefore cannot be seen as valid only in
certain contexts and invalid in others. The validity of human rights is derived
from the very source of their existence, the nature of human beings. The
socio-economic-cultural and political conditions of peoples do not define human
rights. It is likewise said that due to the formal agreement of most states to
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the subsequent rights
instruments, as well as their fulfillment of certain human rights, there is
universal recognition of human rights.
Advocates of human rights
writers of this school of thought have argued that human rights principles are
found in the doctrines of the world’s religions, thus supporting the view that
human rights are universal. An examination of different cultures would reveal
that human rights concepts do exist in them and Hurights Osaka submitted on this issue that:
Freedom, justice, solidarity
are neither Western nor Eastern values: they are universal. Infact, they stem
from their belief in a superior moral force – God. Loyalty to these values
transcends loyalty to particular ethnic groups, governments or nations9.
9.
Hurights Osaka,
“Human Rights and Cultural Values”. A Literature Review P.4.
Universal human rights
affirmations are expressed in indigenous cultural forms and can be grounded in
values common to the great religious traditions of the world. The Persians have
used the Arabic word Hagg, the Hindi
and Bengali have their Adhikar and
the Sanskrit svetve, the Thais their Sitthi, the Koreans their Kooahri (or Kwolni) and the Filipinos their Karapatan
– all these mean “rights”.
The universal Declaration of
Human Rights does not affirm the institutions westerners often equate with
human rights, such as parliaments or supreme courts, but rather allows for
various cultural norms by simply setting forth those political, social and
economic rights that contribute to the dignity of the individual person10.
Accordingly, Jack Donnelly has said that some human right writers of the
universal school have argued that the human rights concept actually evolved in
the west, but this does not mean that human rights are not universal11.
Senger has equally argued that while the concept of human rights actually
originated in Europe (but not designed to become universal due to exclusion of
women and other non-European races), Universal Human Rights adopted after the
Second World War are as “new to the west as they are for China”, and thus there
has been only fifty years since the two cultural spheres were confronted with
such a universal conception for the first time12.
Some other writers have argued that there exists a
“common culture of modernity” that has engulfed all societies by virtue of the
rise of the concept of global economy. That states, regions, cities and
families patterns of life are all shaped by this culture. Human rights became
part of the world social process, the institutional expression of which is the
international law of human universal standards of human rights13.
10.
Traer, Robert, Faith in Human Rights: Support in Religious
Traditions for a Global Struggle. (Washington D.C. Georgetown University
Press 1991), P.158.
11.
Donnelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights Theory and Practice (New
York: Cornell University Press 1986), P.50.
12.
Harro Von Senger,
“Chinese Culture and Human Rights in Human Rights and Cultural Diversity –
Europe, Arabic – Islamic World, Africa and China, Wolfgang Schmale editor, Keip
Publishing, Goldbach, London, 1993, P. 292.
13.
Hurights Osaka,
“Human Rights and Cultural Values”. A Literature Review P.4.
Regardless however of the
basis of justification for the universality argument, the universality of human
rights must be recognized in the context of the different cultures that
actually exist. Human rights today are essentially universal, requiring only
relatively modest adjustments in the name of cultural diversity.
The Vienna Declaration of
1993 in support of universality of human rights expressly stated thus:
All human rights are
universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international
community must treat human rights in a fair and equal manner on the same
footing and with the same emphasis, while the significance of national and
regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious
backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of states, regardless of
their political, economic and cultural systems to promote and protect all human
rights and fundamental freedoms14.
But Dias identifies three
main sources of attacks on the universality of human rights namely, proponents
of the new world order, developing country governments and leadership of
religious fundamentalism movements and ethnic anarchists. He further explained
that these attacks are sustained for the following reasons:
a)
to justify the denial of human rights to some sections of their people;
b)
to deny new assertions of human rights by excluding groups such as
women and indigenous people;
c)
to negate and destroy cultural pluralism;
d)
to impose disabilities based on culture, religion, ethnicity, etc, upon
minorities15.
14.
Section 5, Part
1.
15.
Hurights Osaka,
“Human Rights and Cultural Values”. A Literature Review P.4, Dias, Clarence.
“The Universality of Human Rights: A Critique” in Lokay an Bulletin, New Delhi, India,
Volume 103, 1993, P.44-45.
The concept of universal
human rights does not disregard the reality of varied cultures in different
societies. The concept of human rights is not static. It relates to all persons
and situations.
As Bielefelt put it thus:
The universality of human
rights does not mean the global imposition of a particular set of western
values, but instead, aims at the universal recognition of pluralism and
difference – different religions, cultures, political convictions, ways of life
in so far as such difference expresses unfathomable potential of human
existence and the dignity of the persons. To be sure, pluralism and difference
apply also to the concept of human rights which itself remains open and must be
open to different and conflicting interpretations in our pluralistic and
multi-cultural political world. Without the recognition of such difference
within the human rights debate, the discourse would amount to cultural
imperialism. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the very idea of human rights
precludes some political practices, such as oppression of dissidents,
discrimination against minorities slavery and apartheid16.
The principle of
universality of human rights is also founded on the notion that all human
rights apply uniformity and with equal force throughout the world. It thus
opposes the doctrine of the so-called relativity of human rights, which
maintains that in the application of human rights in concrete situations
allowance should be made for particularities that attend to cultural, ethnic or
religious varieties.
The principle of the
universality thus addresses the assumption that distinct cultural traditions or
religious tenets provide justification for the denial to individual members of
a group of certain basic human rights. It censures “adaptations” of human
rights to suit non-libertarian practices founded on customs within indigenous,
ethnic or religious communities.
16.
Hurights Osaka
P.4, Heiner Bielefeldt, “Muslim Voices in the Human Rights Debates”. Human
Rights Quarterly, John
Hopkins Baltimore
University Press,
November, 1995, P.594.
THE ETHNICS OF
COMMON HUMANITY OF MANKIND
Some human rights thinkers
and activists express the view that the principle of universalism embodied in
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are given authority by deeply rooted
traditions of universalism and tolerance in different cultures and religions
from around the world. It is often argued that these traditions reflect
centuries of diverse cultural practices, religious beliefs, philosophical
reasoning and reflection on the nature of the human condition. Throughout human
history, rules of behaviour have emerged that govern how people should treat
one another, and in response to religious beliefs and ethical convictions,
individuals and groups from diverse cultures and backgrounds have emphasized
the importance of universalism and tolerance as the basis for peaceful
co-existence. The importance of universal principles – the recognition that all
people share a common humanity, that all individuals everywhere ought to be
treated with equal respect and that individuals have negative and positive
obligations to respect the dignity of others. This in fact has emerged as a
fundamental and re-occurring element of philosophical reasoning, ethical
conviction and religious belief. Arguably, these traditions provide solid
cross-cultural foundations for the idea of human rights. This idea was
reflected in a recent statement made by the immediate past United Nations
Secretary-General Kofi Annan that suggested that ideals of tolerance and mercy
have always and in all cultures been ideals of government rule and human
behaviour. According to Annan:
Human rights are the
expression of those traditions of tolerance in all cultures that are the basis
of peace and progress… Human rights are universal not only because their roots
exist in all cultures and traditions… The principles enshrined in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights are deeply rooted in the history of humankind. They
can be found in the teachings of all the world’s great cultural and religious
traditions17.
17.
Annan, Kofi,
Universal Declaration of Human Rights Illuminates Global Pluralism and
Diversity: Statement by Secretary-General Kofe Annan on the Fiftieth Anniversary
Year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. All Human Rights for all: 10th
December, 1997, the University of Tehran, Iran.
Amnesty International has
also expressed the view that the idea of human rights is given authority by
different ethical and religious traditions from around the world. The demands
of human rights movement are grounded ultimately, in the conviction that every
human being has an intrinsic value. Over the centuries, this conviction has
been given considerable authority from many sources – the dominant beliefs of
many diverse cultures, the major world philosophies, and more recently,
International declarations and laws18.
In supporting this
statement, Amnesty International cites expressions of an idea that will
describe the notion of ethic of common humanity from around the world. For
instance:
i)
Brahamanism: “Do naught unto others
which would cause you pain if done to you”. The
Mahabharata.
ii)
Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways
that you yourself would find hurtful”. Udana-Varga
5, 18.
iii)
Christianity: “Always treat others as you
would like them to treat you”. New Testament. Mathew 7:12.
iv)
Islam: “No one of you is a
believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself”. Sunnah.
v)
Confucianism: “Do not unto others that
you would not have them do unto you”. Analects, xv 23.
vi)
Judaism: “What is hateful to you; do
not to your fellowmen”. The Talmud, Shabbat,
31a.
vii)
Taoism: “Regard your neighbour’s
gain as your own gain, and your neighbour’s loss as your own loss” T’ai Shang Kan Ying P’ien.
viii)
Zoroastrianism: “That nature alone is good
which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself”. Dadistani-dinik, 94:5.19
18.
Amnesty
International (1992) Handbook. London
P.10-11.
19.
Ibid.
Despite the great diversity
of religious, cultural and ethical belief and practice, similar expressions of
the idea of the ethic of common humanity have been identified in different
practices, religions and philosophies in different cultures and countries, and
going back to history. The ethic is sometimes referred to as the “Golden Rule”
– a “summary principle” that recognizes that all people share a common humanity
and that the intrinsic value and dignity of all individuals everywhere ought to
be respected and protected. In its negative form, this ethic rules put away
double standards and aspires to uniformity and consistency in ethical practice,
and recognizes that all individuals ought to be treated, with respect for their
dignity, with equality and consistency of treatment.
This principle provides an
element of protection for others with whom the individual has no direct links,
including others who are different, and others who are distant. In this way,
the ethic of common humanity aspires to establish interpersonal obligations
beyond a person’s immediate connections or loyalties to individuals, families
and groups. In its positive form, the ethic of common humanity establishes
positive obligations of assistance and aid. Many people from diverse parts of
the world argue that expressions of the ethic of common humanity reflect a
shared commitment to these ideals, and are adopting these ideas as the basis
for the construction of modern theories of human rights.
COMMONNESS OF
CERTAIN RIGHTS ACROSS CULTURES
The Sudanese scholar
Abdullah An-Na’im has developed a framework for thinking about the
cross-cultural foundations of human rights that builds on the propositions that
human cultures are:
i)
identifiable and distinguishable from each other;
ii)
are characterized by their own internal diversity; and propensity to
change and mutual influence.
In An-Na’im’s view, these
characteristics can be used to promote normative consensus within and among
cultures through processes of cultural transformation20. In
particular, An-Na’im has advanced the idea of an hermeneutical approach to
cross-cultural and inter-faith dialogue. This is an approach that recognizes
that religions are interpreted and re-interpreted and can be subject to change.
The famous author puts it that: “Religious traditions are hermeneutical processes:
they do develop, change and sometimes-improve in response to circumstances and
in dialogue with their context”21.
Working within this
framework, An-Na’im has rejected the traditional emphasis of liberal political
theory, arguing that it is neither possible nor desirable to identify a set of
neutrally formulated human rights. For An-Na’im, the central issue is not the
possibility of abstract or absolute neutrality from any religious, cultural or
ideological regime, but rather how to reconcile commitments to diverse
normative regimes with a commitment to a concept and set of universal human
rights. Given the facts of cultural and religious diversity, can human rights
be interpreted and justified from within religious traditions, such that they
are supported, rather than undermined as the “common core” of a universal
morality. In considering this question, An-Na’im suggests that cross-cultural
dialogue can promote universality at a theoretical or conceptual level by
highlighting moral and philosophical commonalities of human cultures and
experiences. The learned author opined as follows:
The Golden Rule of treating
others as one would wish to be treated by them – which is found in some
formulation or another in all the major cultural traditions of the world-can be
presented as a universal moral foundation of human rights norms. This principle
of reciprocity could provide universal rationale for human rights as those
rights which
20.
An-Na’im, A.A.
“Cultural Transformation and Normative Consensus on the Best Interests of the
Child”. The Best Interest of the Child:
Reconciling Culture and Human Rights”. P. Alston, Oxford: (Oxford University Press 1994) P.63.
21.
An-Na’im, A.A. et
al, Preface. Human Rights and Religious
Values: An uneasy Relationship. (Michigan;
Eerdmas Publishing Co. 1995) P.vii.
one would claim for himself
or herself, and must be founded on mutual respect and sensitivity to the
integrity of other cultures, especially in view of colonial and post-colonial
power relations between the North and South22.
An-Na’im, went further to
suggest that though some religious value systems including orthodox perceptions
of Judaism, Christianity and Islam – tend to deny women equality with men.
Consequently, the enforcement of equality for women by the state could infringe
the right of certain Jewish, Protestant, Roman Catholic and Islamic communities
to religious freedom. But all the same there are certain rights that are common
to some cultures in the world as demonstrated in the golden rule enunciated by
An-Na’im.
For instance human rights
thinkers and activists have responded by challenging the impression of a
monolithic Islam and highlighted the heterogeneity and diversity of Islamic
thought, practices and religious interpretations and suggest that societies
with large Muslim populations cannot be represented by a single homogenous
system of values. For example, Halliday notes that there are over fifty Muslim
states in the world – with a variety of legal and political systems – and that
there is no single body – political or religious – that speaks for the Muslim
world as a whole. In contrast to Christianity, the Muslim religion is highly
fragmented and operates without even a purported theological and legal central
authority. Hence in Halliday’s view:
While many aspire or claim
to speak in the name of all Muslims, none do. There is, for example, a world of
difference between the position of Saudi Arabia, on the one hand, with its
promotion of a conservative Islamic code of rights, and that of Tunisia, which
has been in the forefront of the battle for universal rights and when even
proposed at the pre-Vienna ‘African’ conference a denunciation of the threat to
human rights posed by religious fundamentalism. In
22.
See Note 20 Supra
at 68.
confronting the claims made
by governments, individual writers or organisations, one has to take account of
their specific context and not assume that they speak for one ‘Islamic’ world
or tradition, or that theirs is the only possible or legitimate interpretation
of the religion. We are dealing with a diversity of views and interpretations,
not a single body of thought23.
It is gratifying to note
that despite these differences in the traditions, practices and interpretations
of Islamic code; there is deep rooted nature of traditions of tolerance,
rights, equality and social justice within the Islamic world. This is
highlighted by Lauren in the famous “Charter of Cyrus” elaborated by “Cyrus the
Great” in the Persian Empire more than two
thousand years ago. This Charter recognized certain rights of liberty and
security, freedom of movement and religious belief, inspiring the Sultan
Farrukh Hablul Matin to write that: “For he, it was who, with supreme insight,
launched an Empire based not on physical might but on the vision of a family of
nations, linked by bands of humanity, truth and right”24.
In this context, Lauren
focused attention on the work of Al-Farabi, an Islamic philosopher of the tenth
century, who wrote in his book, “The Outlook of the People of the City of
Virtue”, a vision of a Moral Society in which all individuals were endowed with
rights and lived in love and charity with their neighbours25.
Similarly, the UN Secretary General has highlighted the relevance of Islamic
traditions of equity and mercy to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
noting that Imam Ali, the fourth Khalifa after Prophet Mohammed, instructed the
Governor of Egypt to rule with mercy and tolerance towards all his subjects. He
stated thus:
23.
Halliday, F., Islam and the Myth of Confrontation:
Religion and Politics in the Middle East (London: I. B. Tauris, 1996) P.142-143.
24.
Lauren, P. G. The Evolution of International Human Rights:
Visions Seen. (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press 1998) P.11.
25.
Ibid. P.11.
…Let the dearest of your
treasuries be the treasury of righteous action… Infuse your heart with mercy,
love and kindness for your subjects. Be not in the face of them a voracious
animal, counting them as easy prey, for they are of two kinds: either they are
your brothers in religion or your equals in creation”26.
Annan also highlighted the
work of Sa’adi, the thirteenth century Persian poet, who offered a moving
tribute to the values of tolerance and equality among all peoples and nations.
He stated thus:
The children of Adam are
limbs of one another. And in their creation come from one substance. When the
world gives pain to one another, the other members find no rest. Thou who are
indifferent to the sufferings of others do not deserve to be called a man27.
It is important to recognize
that Islam is a highly rights focused religion and certain Islamic precepts and
principles place a great emphasis on reform and rights to protect the interests
and well-being of vulnerable, oppressed and needy groups. Arguably, these
precepts and principles comprise important antecedents of the modern idea of
human rights and when analyzed in their historical context, these precepts and
principles can provide foundations for modern ideas about human rights. For
example, more than 1400 years ago, Qur’anic injunctions emphasized the
importance of human diversity, tolerance and respect for human rights,
condemned, limited and regulated the practice of slavery, protected the
interests of vulnerable children including orphans and girls, recognized rights
that limited the harsh consequences of discrimination against women, and
introduced reforms to ensure better provision for the poor.
It is observed that in some Muslim countries women
still suffer by denying them certain human rights. In fact, the idea of a
separate Islamic
26.
Annan, Kofi,
“Universal Declaration of Human Rights Illuminates Global Pluralism and
Diversity”: Statement by Secreatary-General Kofi Annan on the Fiftieth
Anniversary Year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 10th
December, 1997, the University of Tehran,
Iran.
27.
Ibid.
concept of the human rights of women has been
promoted by movements for Islamization and fundamentalist movements in Muslim
countries. Yet these difficulties and complexities should not be allowed to
obscure the fact that millions of Muslims from all over the world rely on these
deep rooted Islamic traditions of tolerance, freedom, equity and rights as a
foundation for criticizing the violation of human rights. Hence, in response to
the deteriorating human rights situation in the Sudan in 1997, an Imam stressed
that Islam does not accept oppression and confiscation of the rights of the
people and suppression of the freedom of expression28.
In Iran, a
distinguished cleric and religious leader, the Late Ayatollah Taleghani, reasoned
that the religion of Islam does not deprive people of their rights to protect,
criticize, protest, discuss and debate. The famous religious leader stated
thus:
The most dangerous of all
forms of oppression are laws and restrictions forcibly imposed on people in the
name of religion. This is what the Monks, through collaboration with the ruling
classes, did with all the people in the name of religion. This is the most
dangerous of all impositions, because that which is not from God is thrust upon
the people to enslave and suppress them and prevent them from evolving,
depriving them of the right to protest, criticize and be free. These very
chains and shackles are the ones which the Prophet Mohammed came to destroy.
Islam is an invitation to peace and freedom. Let us keep aside opportunism,
group interests, forcible imposition of ideas and, God forbid, dictatorships
under the cover of religion. Let us raise our voices with the toiling,
oppressed, the deprived masses. Islam as we know it, the Islam which originates
from the Qur’an and the traditions of prophet, does not restrict freedom. Any
group that wants to restrict people’s freedom, the freedom to criticize,
protest, discuss and debate, does not comprehend Islam29.
28.
Mayer, A. E., Islam and Human Rights: Tradition and
Politics 3rd ed. (Oxford, Westview Press, 1999), P.25.
29.
Ibid.
It is sometimes proposed
that East Asian countries including China,
Japan, Korea, Taiwan,
Hong Kong, Singapore
and Vietnam
share a common Confucian culture. The precepts that are thought to be
representative of this culture are often encapsulated in the term “Asian
values”. A second proposition that Confucian culture and “Asian values”
constitute an obstacle to the full implementation of international standards in
the field of human rights has also come to the fore in recent years, and was
particularly influential in the negotiations at the World Conference on Human
Rights. These international events have unleashed an unprecedented debate
within East Asian societies about the nature and scope of so-called “Asian
values” and their compatibility with ideas about human rights. Many Asian NGOs
during the Vienna
process contested the representation of Confucianism in terms of values that
are opposed to modern human rights standards, and the representation of
Confucian culture in terms of a monolithic set of “Asian values” has been
challenged. Many authors have suggested that East Asia
is a diverse region, with heterogeneous cultures and traditions, many of which
are consistent with, and provide a foundation for, modern ideas about human
rights. For example, Leys argues that imperial Confucianism only extolled those
statements from the master that prescribed submission to the established
authorities, whereas more essential notions were conveniently ignored – such as
the precepts of social justice, political dissent, and the moral duty for
intellectuals to criticize the ruler (even at the risk of their lives) when he
was abusing his power, or when he oppressed the people30.
There are three main
injunctions issued by Confucius which reflects on the emphasis on the ideas of
universalism and tolerance as a basis for general morality. These are:
i)
Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire;
ii)
Love your fellowmen as yourself;
30.
Leys, S. “Introduction.
The Analects of Confucius. Translation and Notes” by S. Leys. (London, W.W. Norton. 1997), P.xvi.
iii)
Tell the master the truth even if it offends him31.
From the above Confucius
Analects stated above certain human rights are deducible particularly the right
to freedom of expression and this right is also recognized in Islam.
ANTECEDENTS OF
CERTAIN RIGHTS IN CHINA
It is important to emphasis
here that Chinese human rights thinkers have challenged the view that there is
a fundamental incompatibility between socialism and human rights. It is
variously argued that a range of political priorities and goals – such as
political stability and order, economic growth, development, poverty reduction,
the achievement of basic needs and the fulfillment of economic and social
rights should take priority over the implementation of political and civil
rights.
However, in Chinese culture
there are certain rights traditions of old that are still observed today. These
are:
i)
LAW ABOVE POWER: Never alter a law to suit the whims of a ruler; law is
superior to the ruler”31a.
ii)
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND JUSTICE AS A BASIS FOR HARMONY AND UNITY: What
makes society possible? Individual rights. What makes individual rights
tenable? Justice. Therefore when justice and rights are adjusted, there is
harmony. Where there is harmony, there is unity31b.
iii)
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND WELL-BEING AS A BASIS FOR CORPORATE LIFE: The
consequence of individual life without mutual aid is poverty; the consequence
of corporate life without
31.
Sen., A. K., “Human
Rights and Asian Values”. The New Republic 33 July, 14-21, 1997.
31a. Ibid,
Kuan-tzu, on Legislation, 4th
to 3rd Century B.C. China:
(UNESCO, 1969, 122).
31b. Ibid,
Hsun-tzu, The Ways of Kings, 3rd
Century B.C. China:
(UNESCO, 1969, 522)
recognition of individual
rights is strife. Poverty means anxiety; strife spells misfortune. In order to
relieve anxiety and eradicate strife, nothing is as effective as the
institution of corporate life based on a clear recognition of individual rights31c.
In China, Karl Max emphasized the
importance of freedom of expression and the press when he stated thus:
A free press is the eye of
the spirit of the people, ever and everywhere open, the confidence incarnate
which a people has in itself, the bond of words that links the individual to
the state and to the world, the culture personified which transforms material
struggles into spiritual struggles, and turns the crude and the concrete into
the deal. It is the confession without reservations of a people to itself… It
is the spiritual mirror in which a people sees itself and self knowledge is the
first prerequisite for wisdom. It is the light of the public mind that can be
carried to the humblest dwelling more cheaply than gas can be laid on. It is
universal, omnipresent, all-knowing. It is the ideal world constantly springing
from the real world and flowing back to it, always enriched in spirit, in order
to bring fresh life to it32.
ANTECEDENTS OF
CERTAIN RIGHTS IN BUDDHIST TRADITIONS
Buddhism has many
deep-rooted traditions of compassion, benevolence, universalism, tolerance and
freedom. These traditions are applied as the basis of individual action, for
inter-personal relations, and in public ethics. Many Buddhists believe that the
ideals of the “righteous king” were reflected in the life, principles and
actions of the great Emperor Ashoka, who ruled a huge Indian Empire in the
third century B.C.. Ashoka witnessed the violence and carnage that resulted
from battle between his own armies, and those of the king of Kalinga (Orissa),
with horror and remorse. Convinced that the human cost of
31c. Ibid,
Hsun-tzu, 3rd Century B.C.
China:
(UNESCO, 1969, 303).
32.
Marx, Karl,
Debates on the Freedom of the Press, Rheinische Zeitung, 1842: (UNESCO, 1969,
239).
violence and war are too high, and determined to
learn the lesson of human history, and to ensure that the tragedies of war and
violence would not occur again, the Great Ashoka renounced all violence and
war. He converted to Buddhism, and set out to expand his influence not through
annexation and force, but through “righteousness rule” – based on the idea of dharma, or right conduct. He developed
new principles of public ethics and civil morality reflecting the values of
compassion, tolerance, benevolence, and impartiality in an attempt to
inaugurate a new era of justice and peace. He introduced new standards relating
to the need for the tolerance of diversity, the obligations of leaders to the
ruled, the administration of justice and concern with the responsibility for, the
fulfillment of basic needs. These principles and standards which are now
exemplified in the various human rights recognized world over were declared in
stone inscriptions across the Empire. Although Ashoka was a benevolent ruler,
rather than a democrat, or an advocate of human rights in the modern sense, his
elaborations and practical applications of these new principles and standards
are the bases of his reputation as a great leader and state-man, and Ashoka’s
idea of right conduct is often ranked alongside democracy as one of the great
ideas in human history33.
ANTECEDENTS OF
CERTAIN RIGHTS IN AFRICAN TRADITIONS
Human Rights activists and
thinkers have challenged the view that the modern idea of human rights is alien
to traditional African values and practices and irrelevant to African needs and
priorities. As Kofi Annan has remarked:
I am aware of the fact that
some view the concept of human rights as a luxury of the rich countries for
which Africa is not ready. I know that others treat it as an imposition if not
plot by the industrialized west. I find these thoughts truly demeaning of the
bearing for human dignity that presides in every African heart34.
33.
Sen., A. K.
“Human Rights and Asian Values”. The New Republic 33 July, 14 and 21, 1997.
34.
Annan, Kofi,
Address to the OAU Assembly of Heads of State, Harare, 2 June, 1997.
In this context some Human
Rights activists have identified the presence of many human rights values in
traditional African societies. For instance, the Akkan traditions. The term
Akkan refers to a group of related languages found in West Africa and to the
people who speak them, living predominantly in Ghana
and parts of Cote d’lvoire, Wiredu suggests
that:
Akkan thought recognized the
right of a new born to be nursed and educated, the right of an adult to a plot
of land from the ancestral holdings, the right of any well-defined unit of
political organisation to self-government, the right of all to have a say in
the enstoolment or destoolment of their Chiefs or their elders and to participate
in the shaping of governmental policies, the right of all to freedom of thought
and expression in all matters, political, religious and metaphysical, the right
of everybody to trial before punishment, the right of person to remain at any
locality or to leave, and so on35.
Deng argues that certain
human rights values can be identified in the traditions and practices of the
Dinka of Southern Sudan which are also found in other cultures. In his view,
there is no doubt that some notions of human rights are defined and observed by
the Dinka as part of their total value system36. While it is true
that traditional Dinka society was highly stratified and characterized by
inequalities, notions of human rights and human dignity nevertheless formed an
integral part of Dinka value systems in terms of both the overriding goals for
life and ideals for relationships between people. Deng suggests that these
deeply – rooted values could be of practical application today, providing a
basis for cross-cultural communication in Sudan, and enriching the process of
universalization in the promotion of human rights.
35.
Wiredu, K, “An
Akkan Perspective. Human Rights in Africa:
Cross-Cultural Perspectives”. A.A. An-Na’im and F. M. Deng, Washington, D.C.
Brookings Institution, 1990, P.257.
36.
Deng, F., “Human
Rights Among the Dinka, Human Rights in Africa:
Cross-Cultural Perspectives”. A.A. An-Na’im and F. M. Deng. Washington, D.C.,
Brookings Institution 1990, P. 271.
Others have emphasized that
the ideas of the fulfillment of basic needs and distributive justice are
deep-rooted in many African societies and traditions, and these ideas are often
cited as antecedents of modern theories of economic and social rights. For
example, Kazenambo suggests that in some cultures in Namibia, land was distributed to
families for use on the basis of need. While recognizing that societies were
stratified – not only by age and sex, but also into castes of nobles, freemen
and slaves and that a certain proportion surplus food was given to the Chief,
Kazenambo notes that the Chief’s control over surplus food was a “stewardship”
on behalf of the group. Food was distributed for ritual occasions or stored for
periods of poor harvest in the future, and Kazenambo expresses the view that
mechanisms of this type reflected the principle (if not always the practice)
that each individual was guaranteed adequate land for his or her sustenance37.
COMMON
ANCESTRY OF MAN AND DIGNITY OF HUMAN PERSON
The idea of creation of
mankind is similar in the history of major religions of the world. For instance
in Christian religion, it was the decision of the Almighty God and the host of
His heavenly bodies to make man in their own image38. In the
Christian belief Adam and Eve are said to be the progenitor of mankind from
whom all human beings be it black or white, male or female, rich or poor
originated. All human beings are made up of blood, flesh and bone. There is
therefore no distinction among or between them. They all bleed red if their
blood vessel is punctured. Human beings, the world over therefore have common
ancestry and origin with Adam and Eve as their original parents. This
37.
Kazenambo, K.
“The Right to Development. The Southern African Human Rights Reader. Towards
Creating a Sustainable Culture of Human Rights, B.F. Bankie, C. Marias and J.
T. Namiseb. Windhoek, Namibia, Gamsberg, Macmillan, 1998,
P.118.
38.
Genesis 1:26-28.
Here God said “And now we will make human beings; they will be like us and
resemble us. They will have power over fish, the birds, and all animals,
domestic and wild, large and small. So God created human beings, making them to
be like himself. He created them male and female and bless them.
Christian belief of common ancestry of mankind is
not strikingly different from the beliefs of other major religions. This
general belief is demonstrated in various myths and beliefs of other religions
where human beings are regarded as brothers, sisters, neighbours or friends.
That no harm should be done by one against the other as that would mean doing
such harm to oneself.
In Islam, Moslems regard one
another as brothers, but regard non-Moslems as infidels and less than human
beings. In Qur’an both male and female human beings are equal without any
distinction. There are verses in the Qur’an that support the normative equality
bestowed by God on both men and women, and the best attribute of mankind is
established by righteousness, rather than gender. This is demonstrated in a
popular portion in the Quoran as follows:
We created you male and
female and gave you nations and tribes so you may know one another. Indeed, the
most noble of you from Allah’s perspective is whoever is the most righteous39.
In Islam both men and women
are equal since they were so created male and female; as such both are endowed
with human dignity and rights. The Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC)
Declaration on Human Rights states thus:
Woman is equal to man in
human dignity and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her
own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name
and lineage40.
So human beings from
inception are regarded as equal and endowed with human dignity and other
inalienable rights for self-development. But the horrors perpetrated by Nazi
regime before and during the Second World War where human beings were subjected
to indignities, torture, brutality and bestiality
39.
Qur’an 49:13.
40.
Article 5 of the
QIC Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.
evoked universal opposition to the denial of human
rights and dignity to human person. The United Nations Organisation (UNO) was
founded in 1945 and its Charter constitutes the most basic document of today’s
international relations. One of the principles of the UN Charter is the
promotion of respect for and observance of fundamental human rights without
discrimination based on race, sex, language or religion41. In 1948,
the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation adopted the document
termed “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. The preamble of this
international document clearly recognized the dignity and equality of man and
that these rights are inalienable to all members of mankind as human family and
as the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights in its Article 1 states thus:
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.
This 1948 Declaration has
universal application to all individuals in all countries. This important
document went further to enumerate the rights which includes the right to the
dignity of human person. For instance Section 34 of the 1999 Constitution of
the Federal Republic of Nigeria states that:
Every individual is entitled
to respect for the dignity of his person and accordingly;
a)
No person shall be subjected to torture, or inhuman or degrading
treatment;
b)
No person shall be held in slavery or servitude and;
c)
No person shall be required to perform forced labour or compulsory
labour.
41.
Aricle (3).
In practical terms, torture
and inhuman or degrading treatment take many forms and no person should be made
to feel less than a human being. For instance, a greater percentage of Africans
are living in abject poverty in the midst of plenty where the few leaders are
enjoying, most people are denied access to justice while some do not know how
to go about to seek for justice. Women are relegated to the background through
the manipulation of culture and religion. Women are therefore subjected to all
forms of humiliating and degrading treatment. In some places adults are still
subjected to corporal punishment, and death sentence on convicted criminals are
done either by public execution or hanging on the neck rather than more humane
methods of electrocution or lethal gas which are currently available. Public
execution which was introduced by our colonial masters and retained by the
military should never be allowed. An individual’s last moments on earth –
criminal or not should not be deliberately made a public spectacle subject to
morbid curiosity and ribald comments of society that sanction it42.
It is therefore asserted that human rights are meant to be universal standards,
coupled with the inherent dignity that protect it based on common vision of all
mankind. And without sufficient knowledge of common ancestry of mankind,
dignity of human being cannot suffice as the ultimate goal of human rights43.
THE LIMITS OF
UNIVERSALITY
Unfortunately, the very
motivations and benefits of human rights pose direct challenges to their
existence. Human rights are universal since they are said to belong to all
humans in every society. Human rights are also supposed to be inalienable;
because they flow from and protect human existence, they cannot be taken away
without endangering the value of that existence. However,
42.
Jadesola,
Professor, “A Search for Decency and Human Dignity” Text of Paper Delivered at
the Annual NBA Conference, Abuja 2004.
43.
Donnelly, Jack, Universal Human Rights in Theory and
Practice. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989), P.17.
these universal and inalienable qualities of human
rights are disputable in both their conception and operation.
To some extent, the
universality of human rights depends upon their genesis. Moral standards, such
as human rights, can come into being in two manners. They may simply be
invented by people, or they may only need to be revealed to, or discovered by,
humans. If human rights are simply an invention, then it is rather difficult to
argue that every society and government should be bound by something they
disagree with. If human rights have some existence independent of human creation,
however, then it is easier to assert their universality. But such independent
moral standards may arise in only two ways: if they are created by God, or if
they are inherent in the nature of humankind or human society. Unfortunately,
both these routes pose substantive pitfalls. No divine origin for universal
human rights would be acceptable, nor is it often advanced, since there is no
one God that is recognized universally; just because Christians or Moslems
claim that their divinity has ordained and proscribed certain treatment of
humans does not provide the legitimacy needed for that moral code to bind
devotees of another religion.
The alternative origin that
could justify universally would be the acceptance of human rights as natural
rights that anyone could deduce from the nature of humankind or human society.
However, an atheistic critique of divine moral standards is just as telling
when applied to rights derived from human nature. The God or human nature that
is said to be the source of human rights may be nothing more than an invention
of the human mind, an invention that may vary according to whoever is
reflecting on the issue. A less stringent argument is still just as damning.
Even if one accepts that there is a God or a core human nature, there is no
definitive way to sort out differing visions that people have of God or human
nature. The universal authority of any particular view is initially endorsed
only by the adherents of that view. Nevertheless, it is possible for human
rights to have their genesis in religion or the prerequisites of human society.
Even if human rights start within a specific religious or societal tradition,
they could acquire universality as other people come to agree. It is also
possible for human rights to become globally recognized because several
different approaches may reach the same conclusion. For instance, atheistic
natural rights theorists, Christians and Muslims, may all eventually agree for
quite different reasons on a number of ways in which people should be treated;
these then can form the basis of human rights standards. However, the different
paths to that agreement only lead to an agreement on the benefits, not
necessarily on their origin, justification, or application. The differences
become important when one moves from a focus on the benefits identified as
“human rights” to their practical operation; there is a great difference between
a duty-based and claim-based fulfillment of the benefits.
Another set of problems
arise if human rights are creations, pure and simple, of the human intellect.
Human rights standards could be created in a variety of ways. In one method, a
gradual growth of consensus builds around norms of behaviour that eventually
acquire an obligatory character. It may be difficult to trace the
epistemological origins of this consensus, but the end result is a broad base
of agreement that human beings should be treated in certain ways. In another
method, there may be a conscious attempt to create binding rules of behaviour
in a more contractarian manner. A certain group of individuals or state
government may lead the development of international agreements on human rights.
And, as more states join in these agreements, the more and legal force of the
international accords becomes stronger and stronger. Essentially this is the
course that has been followed in the development of the human rights documents
created by the United Nations and other regional international organisations.
In both these approaches to
the creation of human rights, the motivation may be principled or
consequentialist. If principled, human rights are necessary because they
reflect certain moral standards of how humans should be treated. If
consequentialist, human rights are needed because their standards may prevent
the awful repercussions of having no limits on the manner in which governments
or groups may treat other human beings.
Beyond the genesis of human
rights, wherever they come from, lies a fundamental challenge to their
universality, regardless of their origin. With any inception of human rights,
one is faced with having to acquire acceptance of their authority. There is a
problem in that not everyone will share the same motivation or inspiration for
human rights. Not everyone will agree that everything asserted as a human right
is indeed one. At a very basic level, the proclamation and acceptance of human
rights norms inherently involves majoritarian morality. Human rights are agreed
to exist because a majority says they do exist. Specific goods and benefits are
treated as human rights because a majority says they do. But, what of the
minorities who object to the concept of universal human rights, or disagree
with the particular entitlements to be included in lists of human rights? Why
should they be bound by what others believe? What happens when a minority
sincerely believes that some benefit being deliberately denied them by the
majority is a matter that they view as a human right? In many specific human
rights contexts, a problem of moral majoritarianism assumes central importance.
With either an invented or
natural genesis, human rights are meant to protect some aspect of humanity.
Human rights may be those entitlements that we have by virtue of being human,
but there are real difficulties in determining which attributes of human life
require protection under human rights standards.
Basic human traits are
determined by both physical attributes and the activities undertaken by a
human. The most obvious physical qualities encompass gender, race, size, shape,
and health-including disabilities. Among human activities, one can distinguish
between those necessary for sustaining life and those which fill that life. The
requirements for sustaining life include; nourishment, shelter, clothing, and
sleep. Proper health care is needed for human life to be sustained in the long
term. And the human species can only survive with procreation. But most humans
do not merely exist; they fill their lives with myriad activities. Perhaps the
most important activity is that which is usually referred to in order to
distinguish humans from all other animals: humans have a creative imagination
that provides higher forms of thought that lead to intellectual inquiry and
spirituality. Humans also communicate constantly the results of their thinking.
Physical movement from one place to another is another continuous activity of
all but the most disabled humans. Human beings are in essence very social
animals and much of our activities take place through associating with other
humans. In some instances, this association is the special intimacy of kinship
or close friendships. In others, humans act gregariously with acquaintances and
many prefer strangers.
The consequences of this
gregariousness furnish the underlying problems of establishing universality in
the human attributes described above. Most humans live within readily
identifiable social units, such as family, tribal, or national groups, that
fundamentally shape the manner in which an individual’s most basic
characteristics are manifested. These social groupings determine what languages
one learns to speak, the style of dress, acceptable food, religion, form of
communication and etiquette, sense of physical beauty and ugliness, the kind of
shelter, and the notion of division of roles within one’s social groupings.
These are not simply superficial differences. While some individuals willingly
adopt new life styles, many believe that their lives can only be satisfying by
maintaining their traditional ways. For some, indeed, styles of dress, food and
behaviour are inextricably linked to deep religious beliefs. One group’s
delicacies or even staples may be quite unacceptable to others. There may be
just disdain or revulsion, such as the reaction of many people to eating raw
fish, or there may be a strong, religious offence taken to certain foods, such
as offering pork to Moslems or beef to Hindus. Thus, many profound differences
emerge among human beings that are the product of where they were born and with
whom they grew up. While one could identify various qualities of human life
that are universal, there is tremendous variation in the manner in which those
qualities are realized.
These acquired societal
values pose difficulties when they define, or even conflict with, the basic
attributes of human life. Individual societies develop particular conceptions
of what constitutes a dignified life, the essential needs of humans, as well as
the relationship between individuals and their community. Particularly complex
issues arise when there is a clash between conflicting spiritual and temporal
values within or between societies. These difficulties come to the forefront
when one tries to ascertain whether global standards can be set by human rights
on the treatment that must be given to all human beings.
CONCLUSION
It is observed that there
are strong objections to the manner in which human rights have been
conceptualized. Many lists of human rights read like specifications for liberal
democracy. A variety of traditional societies can be found in the world that
operate harmoniously, but are not based on equality let alone universal
suffrage. The question then arises; whether the ‘human rights’ advocated today
are really civil rights that pertain to a particular liberal conception of
society? To a large extent, the resolution of this issue depends upon the
ultimate goal of human rights. If human rights are really surrogate liberalisms,
then it will be next to impossible to argue their inherent authority over
competing political values. In order for human rights to enjoy universal
legitimacy they must have a basis that survives charges of ideological
imperialism. Human rights must have a universally acceptable basis in order for
there to be any substantial measure of compliance. And the present state of
human rights as demonstrated in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action,
1993 has brought to the fore the fact that human rights is universal even in
the midst of certain religious, cultural and historical variations.