Lesson 2: Some Theory
The 2 sessions in this Lesson are rather theoretical, affording insight into the notion of rights and how they fit into the international system.
Session 2.1 – Theoretical Considerations
Universalism versus Relativism
Universalism-relativism debate is an issue that probably will never really go away and hence demands immediate attention and explanation. Universalism means that human rights are universal to all individuals, no matter where they reside or what religion they ascribe to or even to what group they belong. What is imperative for a universalist is that human rights apply to all individuals equally throughput the world.
By contrast, a relativist asserts that human rights are, as the term implies, relative to the situation of the individual asserting such rights. That is, one must account for the cultural, social, and even religious background of individuals prior to recognizing the existence of a human right. The person’s religion for example might conflict with a universal human right (say if equality) to the extent that upholding a human right of equality would lead to the evisceration of the religious principle. Similarly, many groups are bound together in a fashion that is contrary basic to human rights, such as indigenous groups where a hierarchical structure and division of labor exists between women and men.
Thus, while not saying that human rights never apply, a relativist applies the importance of culture or social formation as a pre-condition to interpreting and applying human rights. The result of course is different applications of human rights in different societies. The crux of the debate relates to whether human rights truly are meant to serve as universal standards, or is it to place human rights considerations within the international sphere? If the latter, then it is conceivable that a relative system of human rights could evolve, with an understanding that certain rights might not apply to a given state (say where religion serves a defining social role). If however the intention is to create a universal system applicable to all individuals everywhere (as it seems from various documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948) then one can truly assert human rights for all individuals in all societies.
Part of the problem that this debate brings to the fore is the assertion that human rights derived from a Western-oriented conception of society. Thus, a liberal democratic framework coupled with a capitalist system blends very well with human rights. Economies are developed and society is stable enough to be able to address the issues raised by human rights, especially when the system is based on principles of equality and non-discrimination as grounds for driving the economy forward. By contrast, a newly emerging state or one where religion plays a central defining role, where inherent social distinctions exist, will not necessarily be able (or even desire) to uphold all human rights norms.
Part of the issue relates to the manner by which the state is structured and the relationship between the state and the individuals therein. In a society where the individual is the central player or the focus of protection, described as an atomist approach, the concept of human rights will be welcomed. In a more group-oriented society, referred to as a communitarian society, the notion of the individual is generally captured by a specific group or groups that represent the interests of all group members. This is not to say that the latter communitarian society can never uphold human rights, but it does make for a different emphasis on what is important to that society and how the society even conceives of its individuals and their capacities for rights.
It is possible to ameliorate these two contrasting approaches as a means of addressing this tension (although not removing the universalist-relativist debate in its entirety). For example, the application of human rights can take place in a group context as well or the emphasis of rights protection and application can lie with different forms (or types) of rights as the focal point (both of which are discussed in later sections). One can distinguish between the acknowledgment of rights in a universal sense, and the application of rights in a relative manner where the social and cultural factors are accounted for and properly considered. The point is that the human rights system desires to protect individual rights while also recognizing the existence and importance of societies and cultures that cannot be swept aside if human rights re to have any influence importance throughout the world.
Another important theoretical aspect is a proper understanding of human rights,specifically their underlying meaning and sources from which they derived (to mention but a few of the factors that go into the makeup of the international human rights system).
What do human rights imply and what is their purpose?
Human rights can serve as a form of entitlement for an individual, such that a person is entitled to a variety of protections from the state. For example, the notions of welfare, labor, housing, education, medical support all fall under the guise of an entitlement to a right. A human right also can take the firm of a claim against the state. That is, one may make the claim to a right to free expression. It need not be an entitlement as such (like requiring the state to build free speech centers) but when one desires to exercise such a right, the state need not deny the right. Thus, the individual is making the claim for certain rights. Another form of right is a as an immunity against the state. The typical example would be the right to life. The individual is immune from state action that violates a human right to life, like an arbitrary deprivation of life. Of course, these types of right fall into another, such that one also may make the claim to a life on behalf of a fetus, for example. Yet, these categories assist in understanding the implication of a right.
An additional important aspect is the source of international human rights. From where did they come and what is the implication of their source? As you can imagine, many sources can be identified. Referring to but a few, one is the notion of natural rights. The understanding is that individuals maintain certain rights simply by virtue of their status as human beings. Natural rights dictate that all individuals have such rights. The key problem is identifying such rights, given the elusive nature of natural rights. Linking with the universalist-relativist debate of above, many societies and cultures have different conceptions of natural rights.
Another source is religion. Thus, one might refer to religious principles and values as grounds for asserting the development of a human right. The problem historically with this approach has been that the rights are created solely for the benefit of the believers. If one is outside the purview of the religion, the rights might not exist at all. Hence, even great humanists like St. Thomas Aquinas had a difficult time according status to non-believers (even if upholding basic notions of morality dictated by the Scriptures).
Another important source derives from the concept of what is called positivism. Here the reference is to the legal system itself to determine the source of human rights. What is codified and upheld in the legal system is key. Anything external to that is not recognized. Part of the danger of positivism however, aside for relying on the development of laws, is the creation of discriminatory or exclusionary laws. There is no guarantee that the law itself will adhere to human rights, and certainly not in any international sense.
READING: Steiner and Alston, 167-176, 192-218
