Universal and Global Human Rights Example for Free

In Todays day in 2014 the world is becoming ever more increasingly culturally diverse which may bring a problem for Human Rights being Universal Globally. It is crucial to define Universal Human Rights theoretically speaking and the conceptions on Human Rights being Universal and inalienable (Donnelly, 2003). Arguments in the international realms are more often connected too western philosophies and many philosophers state that Human Rights are natural and politics play no part as Human Rights are pre-political and are not changeable and that they should not be affected by culture or politics. (Langlois, 2009) Human Rights are fundamental right and should be granted to every human and these values should be accepted and enforced by all states Worldwide. Donnelly says that Human Rights are, The basis in establishing the contemporary consensus on internationally recognised human rights. (Donnelly, 2003.) Human Rights becoming Universal was first thought to be accepted in 1945 after the second world war, this was when the words Human Rights were first used by the United Nations, it was then publically emphasized that Human Rights should be available and granted to all Humans without any irrational differences. During the third United Nations meeting in 1948 this is when the Universal Declaration for Human Rights was first established and approved. On the initial preface of the declaration itself it identified itself to be based on respect for another person’s life and that this respect was a Fundamental Free Right Due To Every Individual , and that Every Person Should Have Rights , Dignity and to be Granted Fair Justice. Once the Universal Declaration for Human Rights was approved then began the Legislation of the Human Rights Law and the Practice of the Universalism and its Establishment around the world. Although since cultures are on the increase this may suggest that it could be argued that a Universal approach to Human Rights may not even actually exist in today’s day! It would appear that there is a higher chance of a Global Culture occurring as opposed to a Universal Approach to Human Rights and the Acceptance of the Convention on Human Rights. Cultural Relativism itself is the reason that we may be far away from achieving and being United Universally where Human Rights is concerned, since there is a huge amount of culture, religions, ethnicity’s and cultural traditions that exist today which may in fact conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights . States that want to apply Cultural Relativism in order to protect and stand up for their own beliefs, practices, morals and traditions with in their own systems with in their own states and adhere to their own laws. Due to this it would indicate that Globally we are more Culturally Relative as opposed to being United Universally on Human Rights and its Legislations. This poses a significant threat too International Law, Human Rights and its Effectiveness. A direct result of this, potentially states are unlikely to comply with the international standards of Human Rights and they will continue to enforce their own practices and traditions which may include; – Abuse, Torture, biased judicial system and even Death at the hands of the State. This amounts to a total disregard of Humans and their Fundamental Rights and also Completely Violates the Legislation under the Human Rights Convention’s. The perception of Human Rights being Relative as opposed to it being as International a legal imperative would be left to the States own discretion.

For example if some states choose to not follow and totally disregard and refuse to comply with Human Rights and Not Unite on Human Rights being Universal, this means States will Continue to Enforce their own practices and traditions and have a disregard for any treaty on Human Rights . States will then be free to enforce its own standards of Human Rights, if they decide if a Human is Even entitled to any rights at all in their opinion in Some States. Standards and laws will be extremely different to the international standards, Especially Western Standards, and Laws and many people will continue to be Mistreated, Abused and Killed Unfairly. United Nations are States which recognise, adhere, apply and promote Human Rights in its country’s and they recognise the Rights of Humans and the need for it to be applied Worldwide for the Protection of Every Single Human Being. One of the Main purposed of the Human Rights Charter is that Human Rights are not a privileged in fact they are a Fundamental Right of every single human being and all the states who are in agreement emphasize this fact and implement it. In an issue of, A global agenda by Charles Norch, he highlights that the universal declaration on human rights, represents a broader consensus on human dignity than does any single culture or tradition.(C, Norch). This statement in fact maybe true although not all States who are a part of the United Nations actually act when clear violations and crimes against humanity are openly inflicted in front of their eyes for years on end, some countries in fact turn a blind eye it may seem to Cultural Differences and when trying to determine if to intervene or not they decide depending upon how worth while it may be to them. For example in Libya during the uprising it was not long before the United Nations intervened since Libya is a country which is full of oil this maybe a coincidence but it could also be a fact that states were more interested in the oil and money as apposed the Human Rights violations and horrendous War Crimes being committed by the State to its own people. On the other hand there is still a Civil War ongoing in Syria where chemical weapons were even identified to have been used on civilians by the government , they were identified by investigations done by the united nations workers themselves yet they have not intervened against the state and the atrocity’s that are being committed to the men, women and innocent children , this may be a different story if Syria was a county sitting on oil and the nations had something to gain by interceding on behalf of the people if human rights was in fact their main priority? Since there is a lack of state intervention this leaves certain states and country’s no choice other than to depend upon their own internal solutions. Although there are dictatorships which exist this fact is undeniable and this clearly identify the fact that human rights are by no means Universal, Dictators continue Without Intervention of United Nations and the west and continue to use a Pick and Choose Policy of who they want to give rights too and often think of Human life as Cheap, this leaves the Dictators with the Powers to Restrict Rights of whom they choose and consequently leaving the citizens to take matters into their own hands and rebel against their oppressive rulers, often resulting in massacres on a huge scale, often whilst many states in the west just sit back and watch. The human Rights and its Legality’s on an International Scale can be said to be quite a Contradiction and Ambiguous. International Human Rights Laws are also quite Inadequate at providing a general level of understanding in a certain sense since, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) Declares that in Article 2; – No Distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdiction or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.(HRA) In theory this should grant Some Legality’s to States that are prepared to enforce Human Rights and intervene against those who are oppressive and who don’t grant Fundamental Human Rights to its citizens who are entitled to those rights. There is a problem however with certain contradictions in Article 55 of the United Nations Charter for example. In this Article it States the Importance of, Self-Determination; this is attributed to States having the ability to manage their own Political Affairs under their own Jurisdiction. This could give the answer an the justification to how States decide to what extent they are prepared to implement Human Rights and in fact pick and choose which of the human rights they are prepared to give their citizens. If this Legislation is to remain then Ultimately the likelihood of Human Rights being Fully Universal are next to none, it would be near Impossible to Enforce and Maintain without States willing to Adhere to the Legislations, and for this reason until there is Clarification with in the Statutes and there are guidelines which imposes how States behave and their adherence and the insurance of the Implementation of the Human Rights Legislations then until this has been resolved their will continue to be no true Universalism of Human Rights on a Global Scale. The question of if Human Rights are Universal is down the way in which States Interact and Relate to each other.

Within the last Century State Interaction and relationships have changed tremendously especially with regards to economics, culture ,religion , immigration and of course justice! It is then inevitable that the conception of human rights would of course be effected by this. Globalisation and its Huge growth has of course caused a huge amount of problems Internationally and has called for Global Solutions to resolve them. The transition from issues being Internal being dealt with by each State Individually has now become and International issue in the International arena which has effected states immensely and the fact that they have in fact less control over their own Countries, States and its Citizens.

States are no longer free to make their own decisions on how to operate their country and how they deal with its citizens. Currency is another huge issue states are not able to change their currency without their being an International Uproar and especially where the sale of oil is concerned, since oil is often the main reason behind War and Conflicts and Western Intervention into States. National Government Organisations (NGO’s) has had Substantial effect on the accessibility of Human Rights Internationally. NGO’s are a very beneficial way of holding States and the Perpetrators to account without actually Damaging the State itself and which would be more beneficial and effective as opposed to state intervention which could Damage the International Order. This could have a positive effect as Globalisation continues to intensify, in theory Human Rights should therefor increase and become more effective, an also make Human Rights become more Universal. Internal Relations and Human Rights be given allow Tremendously on International Relationships. For example this can be identified by Latin American and its Human Rights Violations. Many Philosophers continue to disagree with one another and remain divided as to what Extent Human Rights are Universal and if they are even Universal at all.

Many opinions are stated depending upon justice being granted and also people taking responsibility for their actions. International Relationships currently display the fact that Unfortunately we are quite far away from Human Rights being Universal or that Human Rights will become Universal any time soon. Since accessibility is Restricted by some states and Limited to certain Nations and other states just choose to with-draw Completely. These divisions Internationally and International Relations being decided in this way should raise the Importance to the International Community and they should realise the Importance and address the problems that currently exist today Globally if there is ever to be a Chance of Human Rights becoming Universal. A way in which this could be done is in two ways the International Community must put forward an obligation upon states to Accept Humanitarian Intervention which would then effectivly emplace a certain amount of pressure to states to adhere to the Legislations and not give States any room to act under any Internal Ulterior Agendas or Motives as Human Rights Legislation would have the Dominant powers, this would then mean Human Rights would have the Main Precedence. This can already be seen to becoming more accepted by states as the Importance of National Governmental Organisations increases and the more widely acceptability with in the International Arena and since these NGO’s are highlighting and focusing on trying to establish that Human Rights be Implemented Universally. The Second approach could be rather than Alienating certain states for Non-Adherence Internal Relations Must Accept their Responsibility and the need to Promote Human Rights on a Global Scale and Understand that Relationships and States Interactions play Significant part of Human Rights and the fact that Human Rights must be a part of that Relationship and is needed to be effective and to be United with each other as opposed to country’s working against each other and shunning one another in the International arena. If states continue to ignore the need of Human Rights and continue to undermine the need for human rights being implemented this will continue to have a significant effect on Human Rights ever becoming Universal. It can be said that America is quite the dominant political example and protrudes itself to be the idealistic perfect example of human rights and personal freedom however not too long ago America had huge issues with races and gender discrimination not to forget the slavery. Bibliography NEUMAYER, E. 2005. Do International Human Rights Treaties Improve Respect for Human Rights?.The Journal of Conflict Resolution CARDENAS, S. 2011.Human Rights in Latin America: A Politics of Terror and Hope. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press DONNELLY, J. 2002.Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.[online]. [Accessed: 21stOctober 2011]. Available from World Wide Web: https://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html; The Charter of the United Nations, 1945.[online]. [Accessed 21stOctober 2011]. Available from World Wide Web:https://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter9.shtml;

Cite this page