Human rights legislation Essay

The issue of implementing a widely pass judgment sympathetic Rights insurance policy has become a serious hurdle in fresh years for m all non occidental nations alike(p) China Iran and Africa. Over the past coupling of decades many nations in Asia Africa and the middle eastern United States have found themselves embroiled in homo rights violation controversies and have been at the receiving end of Western based check for these policies.(D. Bell 1996), Some have ofttimes faced severe financial penalties and boycotts from the Western world which has effected their economic organic evolution these controversies have given birth to a new philosophical w alone on world-wideist stance on human rights versus the relativist stance. The contention centres on the precept of whether the westerly based human right theories preserve be implemented in cultur exclusivelyy diverse nations at a oecumenic level. The Universalist supposition of sympathetic Rights is predominantly d erived from Western philosophy and places tremendous splendour on the rights of an separate.This theory has its roots in Greek philosophy, principles of Christianity and the philosophical musings of European insight thinkers. (D. Bell 1999), The world-wideist approach to charitable Rights propagates that certain basic human rights argon inherent to safeguard the cosmea of all(prenominal) human and sack be set by using either religion nature or reason This theory holds the percept that all individuals should be minded(p) certain rights by the very chastity of their humanity and that these rights can non be conditioned by gender or national or ethnic origin.(Donnelly 1999) The Universalist theory alike propagates that these rights exist universally across all diversities of finishing race and religion and can not be subordinated to other soul or an institution ( Cultural relativism on the other hand is based on the notion that on that point should not be the prevalenc e of an adherence to specific design standards by which a person or a nation be judged.The debate between universalism and relativism was an old one moreover its extension to the realm of ethnic relativism is comparatively new and was influenced by the work of ethnical anthropologists who demonstrated that all different purifications atomic number 18 equally worthy and work up their admit views regarding the rights of an individual.. Theories propagating culture relativism holds the view that there is no universal meaning to a incorrupt value and that these values are influenced by culture. The theories also establish that there are profound differences between western legitimate theories and cultures and those of Africa, Asia, India and Islam.(E. Charney 1999 ) Theoretically speaking, the debate between universalism and culture fluctuates on a spectrum varying from extreme aspects of universalism that propagates strict adherence to certain standards and prow aspects of relativism which holds culture to be the sole author of judging the validity of a clean value. This debate first came to the limelight in the arena of world politics in 1993 during a UN Conference on gentleman Rights held in Vienna. It was in this conference that a delegation led by China, Syria and Iran officially challenged the universality of Human Rights.These countries put send some essential causes for their discontentment with the predominant practice of adopting universality to Human Rights. This include the central percept that universal theories of Human Rights were not universal at all in their scope and were based on concepts and theories of Western morality. (T. Franck 2001 pg 91), They argued further that these human rights theories should not therefore be imposed as norms on non-western societies in fire of those societies historic and economic development and in disregard of their cultural differences and perceptions of what is right and wrong.Furthermore they held that such(prenominal) imposition of ones own understanding and cultural interpretation of human rights on another culture without understanding the values of that culture is entirely unjust and reflects an imperialist attitude. The debate between these ii perspectives examines the inherent effectualitys and weaknesses of some(prenominal) stances towards human rights.However when looking at the merits and de-merits of these two approaches it is essential to stay apart from a philosophical discussion of the inalienable value of each perspective and contract on the practical translation of these two stances and how each of them are used in modern day practice. The greatest strength of universalism is that it institutes a fundamental system of rights that guarantees the testimonial of individuals basic exemptions from any judicature policies that might seek to fasten this to propagate their own doctrines.Most of the testis legislation on human rights propagates the exist ence of negative rights which seek to limit the racket of government in the lives of individuals and guarantee that an individual has certain basic freedoms that the government cannot infringe upon. Comm unless defined these include the freedom to maintain ones privacy, freedom to speak freely without ear of persecution, freedom to hold exercise phantasmal tones , freedom to hold and patronize to opinions that may be political in nature and finally the freedom to brother with anybody that the individual desires to.Any government policy which seeks to infringe on these beliefs can be deemed unconstitutional and can be revoked by law. (D. Bell 1999), Perhaps the biggest weakness of universalism is that it is root and stems from Western belief and practice and work best with political system that are fashioned on western models of majority rule and capitalism. ( An-Naim, 1991 pg 22) There is no disputing the fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is tailored and cust omized by western nations. It included the representation of only four African nations (An Naim 2001 pg 88).The majority of the drafts of the firmness of purpose are written in English. In fact all the legislation on Human Rights including internationalistic quantity of Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and semipolitical Rights heavily derives their content from the work of European Enlightenment philosophers namely Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. The belief that there are certain freedoms which the government cannot and shouldnt interfere with underlies the political system of many modern western countries. It has been the underlying belief of the US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights as well as the french Constitution.Since the majority of Human rights legislation shares comparison with the believes propagated in the founding principles of many western democracies many believe that there is a close interdependency between instituting universal human right concepts and maintaining Western models of democracy. (M. Winston 2000) This has caterpillar tread to the widespread Western ethnocentrism when it comes to the application of Human rights principles in countries which harbour different systems of government based on different religious beliefs