Jos Raymenants, intern at UNRIC, Benelux desk in Brussels
The latest report published by Human Rights Watch states that the initiative for holding discussions on human rights issues is no longer the sole prerogative of western capitals such as Washington or Brussels. Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs Karel De Gucht responds in the Belgian newspaper ‘De Standaard’ that the most activist states are the so-called ‘spoilers’: under the disguise of principles such as sovereignty, non-interventionism and southern solidarity they attack the core of human rights. He believes the contradiction can be framed in a broader discussion between ‘sovereigns’ and ‘multilateralism.’ The former don’t tolerate any interference in their internal affairs and regard sovereignty as the most important feature of relations between states. The latter promote a vision on international relations that calls for more interference, supervision and if necessary action on the part of the international community. Furthermore, the Minister argues that the most fundamental and most vulnerable element of human rights is at stake: their universality.
The assumption that human rights are universal is indeed more and more contested. Non-western countries in particular often have a different perspective on human rights. One can distinguish three important dissident voices: Asia, Africa and Islam. The Asian and African points of view with regard to the universality of human rights have quite a lot in common. While the western world focuses first and foremost on civil and political rights, Asia and Africa emphasize economic development. Since today’s world is still characterised by major economic imbalances it may not come as a surprise that a lot of developing countries prioritize development as an issue. Another point of divergence is the role communal rights play in Asian and African cultures instead of the individualist tendency in the western world. Individual rights are generally regarded as inferior to the interests of the whole community.
The Islamic view on human rights is quite heterogeneous and also differs in some important respects from the western approach. A conservative strand rejects the western notion of human rights mainly because of the non-religious basis of it. Conservatives argue that religious works such as the Koran, the Sunni and the Shari’-a offer sufficient protection. Religious conservatives have created their own human rights texts on the basis of those Islamic sources. It is obvious that these instruments may not contradict the religious sources and are not legally enforceable. Muslim scientists on the other hand believe that current human rights standards are not fundamentally in contradiction with the laws of the Shari’-a. In this regard they argue that the laws of the Shari’-a should be understood in accordance with a 21st century historical perspective. Although the conservative perspective is still dominant in most Muslim societies, the internal debate on the place of human rights in Islam has not yet been decided.
The former illustrates that cultures and societies understand human rights in diverging ways. They do not only give different meanings to the concept of human rights but they also emphasize different issues. But does this mean that human rights are not universal? I don’t think so. I would argue that each individual does possess some inalienable rights irrespective of their ethnic, social and cultural background. Nevertheless, I do recognize that the universality of human rights is in essence a concept of the Western world. That’s why I believe that human rights should be applied with more flexibility, depending on the specific cultural context and taking into account local rules, customs and traditions. Additional human rights instruments could play a role in this regard by complementing and fine-tuning more traditional instruments. A good example is the African Charter that reflects the African perspective on human rights issues. This approach could balance the western ethno-centric view on human rights.
This doesn’t mean that the flexibility approach has no limits. Some human rights standards are so fundamental to the lives of human beings that they do not allow for any flexibility. Furthermore, governments should not use the flexibility approach as a pretext to justify human rights violations on their territories. Neither should they hide behind principles of international law - such as national sovereignty and non-interference – to counter criticism of the international community with regard to their human rights record. Instead, governments should always be held accountable for their actions.
Finally, I believe a more flexible approach is also in line with the spirit of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights which has been in existence for more than 60 years: to create a framework of rights that each human being can support and which offers sufficient protection to everyone who needs it. In my view this approach could be the way that leads towards a more general acceptance of the universality of human rights throughout the entire world. ■
The latest report published by Human Rights Watch states that the initiative for holding discussions on human rights issues is no longer the sole prerogative of western capitals such as Washington or Brussels. Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs Karel De Gucht responds in the Belgian newspaper ‘De Standaard’ that the most activist states are the so-called ‘spoilers’: under the disguise of principles such as sovereignty, non-interventionism and southern solidarity they attack the core of human rights. He believes the contradiction can be framed in a broader discussion between ‘sovereigns’ and ‘multilateralism.’ The former don’t tolerate any interference in their internal affairs and regard sovereignty as the most important feature of relations between states. The latter promote a vision on international relations that calls for more interference, supervision and if necessary action on the part of the international community. Furthermore, the Minister argues that the most fundamental and most vulnerable element of human rights is at stake: their universality.
The assumption that human rights are universal is indeed more and more contested. Non-western countries in particular often have a different perspective on human rights. One can distinguish three important dissident voices: Asia, Africa and Islam. The Asian and African points of view with regard to the universality of human rights have quite a lot in common. While the western world focuses first and foremost on civil and political rights, Asia and Africa emphasize economic development. Since today’s world is still characterised by major economic imbalances it may not come as a surprise that a lot of developing countries prioritize development as an issue. Another point of divergence is the role communal rights play in Asian and African cultures instead of the individualist tendency in the western world. Individual rights are generally regarded as inferior to the interests of the whole community.
The Islamic view on human rights is quite heterogeneous and also differs in some important respects from the western approach. A conservative strand rejects the western notion of human rights mainly because of the non-religious basis of it. Conservatives argue that religious works such as the Koran, the Sunni and the Shari’-a offer sufficient protection. Religious conservatives have created their own human rights texts on the basis of those Islamic sources. It is obvious that these instruments may not contradict the religious sources and are not legally enforceable. Muslim scientists on the other hand believe that current human rights standards are not fundamentally in contradiction with the laws of the Shari’-a. In this regard they argue that the laws of the Shari’-a should be understood in accordance with a 21st century historical perspective. Although the conservative perspective is still dominant in most Muslim societies, the internal debate on the place of human rights in Islam has not yet been decided.
The former illustrates that cultures and societies understand human rights in diverging ways. They do not only give different meanings to the concept of human rights but they also emphasize different issues. But does this mean that human rights are not universal? I don’t think so. I would argue that each individual does possess some inalienable rights irrespective of their ethnic, social and cultural background. Nevertheless, I do recognize that the universality of human rights is in essence a concept of the Western world. That’s why I believe that human rights should be applied with more flexibility, depending on the specific cultural context and taking into account local rules, customs and traditions. Additional human rights instruments could play a role in this regard by complementing and fine-tuning more traditional instruments. A good example is the African Charter that reflects the African perspective on human rights issues. This approach could balance the western ethno-centric view on human rights.
This doesn’t mean that the flexibility approach has no limits. Some human rights standards are so fundamental to the lives of human beings that they do not allow for any flexibility. Furthermore, governments should not use the flexibility approach as a pretext to justify human rights violations on their territories. Neither should they hide behind principles of international law - such as national sovereignty and non-interference – to counter criticism of the international community with regard to their human rights record. Instead, governments should always be held accountable for their actions.
Finally, I believe a more flexible approach is also in line with the spirit of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights which has been in existence for more than 60 years: to create a framework of rights that each human being can support and which offers sufficient protection to everyone who needs it. In my view this approach could be the way that leads towards a more general acceptance of the universality of human rights throughout the entire world. ■
0 comment(s) to... “Are human rights universal?”
0 comments:
Post a Comment