Essay on human rights
Okay, so as you might have realised from the quotes in the previous entries I've been writing an essay about human rights. The topic has been whether human rights derive from Western liberal principles, or of they come from basic human principles common to all societies. I can't decide if I'm pleased or not with the essay, although I do like my arguement. The question is if I'm managing to get it across :P Anyway, you can read it below if you want to...
There is no argument against the fact that the human rights we today make up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) has its historical roots in the French Revolution and the Enlightenment period. However, this does not necessarily mean that human rights are not common to all societies. This is what I will argue throughout this essay. I will look at some of the arguments put forward by some critics of universal human rights, especially the argument of sovereignty. I will also look into why the fact that human rights might draw upon Western liberal principles does not make them invalid to other parts of the world. Furthermore, this essay will finish off by looking at the common misconception that human rights are the same as American values.
It is intriguing to see how many non-Western states apply Western arguments as to why the human rights established in the UDHR are not supposed to be universally applicable. One of the most standardised rejections toward human rights is the issue of sovereignty. This is especially the situation in the People’s Republic of China. Xie and Niu are quoted by Donnelly as arguing that “[i]mposing the human rights standard of one’s own country or region on other countries or regions is an infringement upon other countries’ sovereignty.” However, the idea of sovereignty is also a ‘Western invention’ that has been imposed on other countries. Through the Peace Westphalia in 1648 the standard of the nation-state was set up, and sovereignty was one of the characteristics every nation-state was given. Today this is internationally recognised; and as seen often used as a reason to neglect other international principles, such as human rights. If the idea of sovereignty managed to become such a rooted concept throughout the world, why cannot human rights go through the same development? Similar to this, we do not refer to ‘capitalist markets’ as ‘Western’ merely because they have their roots in the Western parts of the world.
Donnelly claims that by looking at the historical account of a social practice “we cannot conclude anything about its appropriate range of applicability." In my opinion this signifies an important view on the universality of human rights. True as it may be that these derive from Western parts of the world, this does not necessarily equal the existence of human rights in every Western state. Which in my opinion helps in diminishing the idea that human rights is based solely on Western liberal principles. One example of this is the human rights violations that the United States (US) undertake every day, and the people around the world that are criticising the US for their actions. What this illustrates is that the problem of human rights violations are as universal as the rights themselves. The rights are not restricted to one geographical area, and neither are the problems of them. The West has had their share of tyrants that have violated human rights. Especially Europe has a dark history. However, when the people became more educated and aware of their rights the European culture was forced to change. Under the pressure of non-governmental organisations and religious and labour groups certain human rights principles were established. Therefore the question arises, if the Western world had to change their culture to fit into the new principles of human rights, why should not the rest of the world have to change their cultures as well?
Another important fact to remember when debating whether human rights derive from Western liberal principles is that there is a difference between the UDHR and American values. Both of these have their roots in the Enlightenment, thus it is evident that they share certain standards. However, one of the many differences is the emphasis that American values put on private property, this is only briefly mentioned in the UDHR. What this demonstrates is that there is a misconception in the world about what human rights are. The implementation of universal human rights is not the same as the spreading of American values. As Donnelly effectively argues: human rights are not implemented and insisted upon by the West, but by the UDHR. Every UN member state has agreed to the UN Charter, and so far no member has rejected or put in a reservation toward the UDHR.
To conclude, I would like to state that I do believe the roots of human rights can be found in the West. To me there is no question about this. However, what I would like to point out is that human rights still derive from basic human principles that are indeed common to all societies. To me there is no valid claim as to why this particular idea should be restricted to a certain part of the world. Different cultures have had no problem adopting similar economical standards, or the concept of sovereignty, why should human rights be any different? Furthermore, it is important to distinguish between the internationally recognised human rights, and the American values that the US is being accused of spreading across the globe. By agreeing to the UN Charter, every member state has agreed to honour the UDHR. The origins of the idea then appears to be almost unimportant; and as Ibrahim Anwar puts it:
"Tyranny and injustice are repugnant to civil society wherever they may occur, and to cite cultural differences or Asian values in order to deflect from ourselves criticism against human rights violations is an affront to our moral sense."
There is no argument against the fact that the human rights we today make up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) has its historical roots in the French Revolution and the Enlightenment period. However, this does not necessarily mean that human rights are not common to all societies. This is what I will argue throughout this essay. I will look at some of the arguments put forward by some critics of universal human rights, especially the argument of sovereignty. I will also look into why the fact that human rights might draw upon Western liberal principles does not make them invalid to other parts of the world. Furthermore, this essay will finish off by looking at the common misconception that human rights are the same as American values.
It is intriguing to see how many non-Western states apply Western arguments as to why the human rights established in the UDHR are not supposed to be universally applicable. One of the most standardised rejections toward human rights is the issue of sovereignty. This is especially the situation in the People’s Republic of China. Xie and Niu are quoted by Donnelly as arguing that “[i]mposing the human rights standard of one’s own country or region on other countries or regions is an infringement upon other countries’ sovereignty.” However, the idea of sovereignty is also a ‘Western invention’ that has been imposed on other countries. Through the Peace Westphalia in 1648 the standard of the nation-state was set up, and sovereignty was one of the characteristics every nation-state was given. Today this is internationally recognised; and as seen often used as a reason to neglect other international principles, such as human rights. If the idea of sovereignty managed to become such a rooted concept throughout the world, why cannot human rights go through the same development? Similar to this, we do not refer to ‘capitalist markets’ as ‘Western’ merely because they have their roots in the Western parts of the world.
Donnelly claims that by looking at the historical account of a social practice “we cannot conclude anything about its appropriate range of applicability." In my opinion this signifies an important view on the universality of human rights. True as it may be that these derive from Western parts of the world, this does not necessarily equal the existence of human rights in every Western state. Which in my opinion helps in diminishing the idea that human rights is based solely on Western liberal principles. One example of this is the human rights violations that the United States (US) undertake every day, and the people around the world that are criticising the US for their actions. What this illustrates is that the problem of human rights violations are as universal as the rights themselves. The rights are not restricted to one geographical area, and neither are the problems of them. The West has had their share of tyrants that have violated human rights. Especially Europe has a dark history. However, when the people became more educated and aware of their rights the European culture was forced to change. Under the pressure of non-governmental organisations and religious and labour groups certain human rights principles were established. Therefore the question arises, if the Western world had to change their culture to fit into the new principles of human rights, why should not the rest of the world have to change their cultures as well?
Another important fact to remember when debating whether human rights derive from Western liberal principles is that there is a difference between the UDHR and American values. Both of these have their roots in the Enlightenment, thus it is evident that they share certain standards. However, one of the many differences is the emphasis that American values put on private property, this is only briefly mentioned in the UDHR. What this demonstrates is that there is a misconception in the world about what human rights are. The implementation of universal human rights is not the same as the spreading of American values. As Donnelly effectively argues: human rights are not implemented and insisted upon by the West, but by the UDHR. Every UN member state has agreed to the UN Charter, and so far no member has rejected or put in a reservation toward the UDHR.
To conclude, I would like to state that I do believe the roots of human rights can be found in the West. To me there is no question about this. However, what I would like to point out is that human rights still derive from basic human principles that are indeed common to all societies. To me there is no valid claim as to why this particular idea should be restricted to a certain part of the world. Different cultures have had no problem adopting similar economical standards, or the concept of sovereignty, why should human rights be any different? Furthermore, it is important to distinguish between the internationally recognised human rights, and the American values that the US is being accused of spreading across the globe. By agreeing to the UN Charter, every member state has agreed to honour the UDHR. The origins of the idea then appears to be almost unimportant; and as Ibrahim Anwar puts it:
"Tyranny and injustice are repugnant to civil society wherever they may occur, and to cite cultural differences or Asian values in order to deflect from ourselves criticism against human rights violations is an affront to our moral sense."
Kommentarer
Trackback
