This essay asks us whether universal human rights law needs to be understood within local contexts in order to be effective. Simply put the answer is no. In fact, the opposite is true. Local context, culture to be more specific, needs to be understood in respect of universal human rights law. Gone are the days of isolated societies acting with impunity under their own laws subject to no scrutiny. Today’s world is one where borders are porous, people are connected via television and the Internet, and nations are increasingly held accountable for the way they treat their citizens. State sovereignty no longer reigns supreme over the rights and dignity of the individual. Universal human rights by its very definition imply rights that are applicable to everyone everywhere, hence the term ‘universal.’ As the authors point out in International Human Rights in Context, “[s]imply put, the partisans of universality claim that international human rights…are and must be the same everywhere” (Steiner 517). The right is universal or it isn’t – there is no gray area. When the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 it declared in no uncertain terms that “the inherent dignity and…equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family [are] the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” (UDHR preamble). According to the United Nations “[t]oday, all United Nations member States have ratified at least one of the nine core international human rights treaties, and 80 percent have ratified four or more, giving concrete expression to the universality of the UDHR and international human rights” (UN.org). It is the opinion of the United Nations and by extension the international community that the rights enumerated in the UDHR are in force universally. We can no longer allow non-member states to ignore what the international community has agreed is applicable to all human beings. Any abrogation of these inherent rights by a state, member or not, must be justified to the international community. The burden of proof no longer lies with the individual to claim his rights but to the state to justify to the world why he is not entitled to them. The key to universal human rights is educating individuals to the fact that they have rights.
…show more content…
Whether states agree or disagree is of little importance if the individual does not know he has rights. This is where cultural context comes into play but not as an excuse to deny rights but as the means to finding the best way to educate people about their rights. If the state is unwilling or unable to educate its population then the international community must step in to take the lead. Jennifer Corrin touches on the topic of education in her article “Cultural Relativism vs. Universalism: The South Pacific Reality” when she sums up by saying “[e]ducation…plays an important role in ensuring human rights protections have practical force” (Arnold 122). Although Corrin is referring specifically to people in the Solomon Islands when she says “many people…remain ignorant of their rights” we know this is the case in Africa and Asia too. But just because one is ignorant does not mean the right does not exist (Arnold 122). The globalization of our world and intermingling of cultures within nation states has further weakened the claim of culture over universalism. Cultures no longer exist in pure homogenous enclaves; they have spread out beyond their original borders and have become parts of multicultural societies, the United States is a perfect example. A cultural community of African immigrants who are now citizens of the United States for instance, cannot claim a cultural right to perform female genital mutilation on the members of their cultural community. They can argue and advocate for the right but it is their culture’s burden to convince the universal culture of the United States that a woman’s right to control her own body should be subject to their views. The point is that culture must be understood by how it is in agreement with universally agreed upon human rights. If the cultural practice does not comply with the internationally agreed upon human rights of the individual then it is not a cultural practice worth respecting. Some cultural practices are, as they say,
Whether states agree or disagree is of little importance if the individual does not know he has rights. This is where cultural context comes into play but not as an excuse to deny rights but as the means to finding the best way to educate people about their rights. If the state is unwilling or unable to educate its population then the international community must step in to take the lead. Jennifer Corrin touches on the topic of education in her article “Cultural Relativism vs. Universalism: The South Pacific Reality” when she sums up by saying “[e]ducation…plays an important role in ensuring human rights protections have practical force” (Arnold 122). Although Corrin is referring specifically to people in the Solomon Islands when she says “many people…remain ignorant of their rights” we know this is the case in Africa and Asia too. But just because one is ignorant does not mean the right does not exist (Arnold 122). The globalization of our world and intermingling of cultures within nation states has further weakened the claim of culture over universalism. Cultures no longer exist in pure homogenous enclaves; they have spread out beyond their original borders and have become parts of multicultural societies, the United States is a perfect example. A cultural community of African immigrants who are now citizens of the United States for instance, cannot claim a cultural right to perform female genital mutilation on the members of their cultural community. They can argue and advocate for the right but it is their culture’s burden to convince the universal culture of the United States that a woman’s right to control her own body should be subject to their views. The point is that culture must be understood by how it is in agreement with universally agreed upon human rights. If the cultural practice does not comply with the internationally agreed upon human rights of the individual then it is not a cultural practice worth respecting. Some cultural practices are, as they say,