The debate on the universality of human rights
In the year 1948, the United Nations proclaimed and adopted the use of human rights (United Nations 2). The human rights were proclaimed by the General assembly as universal and a common standard set for all nations and their citizens. Through the universal declaration of human rights by the United Nations sought to ensure that all organs of society and every individual were aware and respected them. Having universal human rights meant that people’s freedoms and rights were respected regardless of the country an individual was in. their universality also meant that everyone was considered equal and treated as such regardless of the country they belonged to. Even though the human rights are similar across the world, the assumption that they are universal is somewhat controversial and has sparked a lot of debate among various schools of thought and philosophy.
Declaring the human rights as being universal has a very huge impact on the history of human beings. At the time of inception, the human rights were intended to be a common set of standards for all nations and their citizens. Being universal meant that a people’s rights and freedoms were guaranteed regardless of their sex, race, color, language or political opinion. Up until today, the human rights have continued to safeguard the rights and freedom of individuals across the world in relevance to what was intended when they were initiated (Robinson 46).
Although human rights are implemented in the same way across the world as was intended by the United Nations through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the notion that they are universal is misguided as is shown by the four schools of thought. The Natural School of Thought defines the human rights as rights and freedoms that an individual possesses on the basis of being a human being (Dembour 2). It is therefore the only school that supports the idea that human rights are universal. The credo for the natural school of thought is based on the opinion that the human rights are naturally given to all individuals and their definition is the most common and most recognized across the world. According to the natural school, everyone is entitled to have human rights because they are born human. In the 14th century for example, men were considered to possess natural capabilities when it came to power. This meant that they were naturally entitled to life necessities among which were making a system of laws to govern themselves (Freeman 20). Scholars in this school believe that the human rights are independent of any form of social recognition given to an individual despite that a form of recognition makes them more favorable (Dembour 2).
The deliberative school on the other hand operates on the basis that human rights are political values that societies that are liberal decide to adopt. They defy traditional orthodoxies that have been used to form the basis of human rights and rather draw the conclusion that human rights are based on agreements that people in society make to govern themselves (Dembour 3). They are of the belief that human rights are not universal but have the potential of becoming so over time. Scholars in the deliberative school of thought believe that human rights will become universal only when everyone across the world recognizes and accepts that they are the best legal and political standards to govern society. According to the deliberative school, human rights are currently limited and only capable of governing the political and not the moral or social life of human beings. They also regard the laws stipulated in the constitution as one of the agreed upon ways of expressing and governing human rights (Dembour 3).
Another school that discredits the notion that human rights are universal is the Protest school of thought which is based on the belief that human rights are as a result of the desire to stop injustice. Scholars in this school argue that human rights are intended to protect the claims that are made on behalf or by people who are oppressed, unprivileged and poor in society (Dembour 3). They therefore form a platform that can be used to turn the status quo to favor those who are oppressed in society. Although they do not sell the human rights as being universal, they are in line with the United Nations’ purpose to protect people from injustices, oppression, and discrimination (Dembour 3). The difference in opinion of the human rights being universal occurs in the protest school’s belief that a victory in the fight for human rights does not necessarily mean that all injustices have been overcome. Being universal would mean that all injustices have been defeated and that all human beings are treated equally and their fundamental human rights are respected. However, this is not the case as scholars are aware of situations where the elite are favored in society which is opposite of what universal human rights represent (Dembour 3).
Unlike other schools, the discourse school of thought not only disagrees with the notion that human rights are universal but also refuses to recognize their existence. It is founded on the notion that human rights only exist because people mention them. Scholars in this school argue that believe that human rights are neither given nor do they make up the answer to end suffering in society (Dembour 4). They however acknowledge that the language that surrounds human rights is very powerful and is used to air political issues. They also fear that imposing human rights could be imperialized and propose that the ethics that govern individualistic human rights be limited. Even though they do not acknowledge the existence of human rights, they believe that people’s belief in them has resulted to positive outcomes in society. The scholars however hope that more superior projects will be implemented and practiced to govern people instead of relying on human rights (Dembour 4).
The success of human rights ability to give equal rights and freedoms to all human beings is based on their state of being universal as proposed by the universal declaration of human rights. With such emphasis being placed on their universality, a lot of factors contradict this ideology showing that they are not universal. The reason for them being applied across the world may be as a result of factors like similar political beliefs or decisions by human beings to coexist in a particular way. It is by choice that people observe human rights and not because they are universal. If, for instance, a country was to have different political approaches, they would alter the types of human rights practiced in the country. This would also be the case if people decided to live in a way that could result to some of the human rights being proposed by the united nation being infringed upon. Because of these, and other reasons, the assumption by the UDHR that human rights are universal need to be rectified.
Work cited
Dembour M. (2010) “What are human rights: Four schools of thought” The Johns Hopkins University Press
Freeman M. (2011) “Human rights: An interdisciplinary approach” Polity Press
Robinson M. (1998) “Shame of failure on human rights” Royal Institute of International Affairs
United Nations, (1949) “United Nations universal declaration of human rights 1948”
