Topic No. 08 Nature of Human Rights

No one can ever overlook the significance of the basic rights that belong to every human. These rights have been recognized by each and every democratic state and these states have taken prominent steps to make sure a smoother application of these rights. Therefore, while highlighting the significance of basic human rights, “Donnelly J” has expressed his views in his own book “Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice”. He is of the view that these “human rights” are acknowledged throughout the world and are universally implementable, definite, and are inviolable. That's why it is worth noting that these rights are given to everybody, solely due to the fact that they’re human beings.

Universalism

When we are concerned with rights for human beings at the international level, it is to be noted that the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” has been given the status of an internationally recognized agreement. Furthermore, this is to be noted that a highly unbiased explanation of HR has been given by this treaty and the best thing is that it is independent from any sort of religious, cultural, philosophical, and other such affiliation. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning here that these rights have not been derived from the “statutory laws” but instead precede its existence. The inception of these rights is interlinked with the inception of the humans themselves. That is why it is stated that we should take steps to ensure its protection because things that threaten it are in fact a threat to humans as well. The events that came along with the “World War II” gave us a glimpse of why these rights are needed and it was also highlighted by these wars that why we have an international agreement for safeguarding human rights. The discussion that is surrounding “cultural relativism” presents an opposing viewpoint, contending that HR can not be implemented throughout the globe. During the year 1993, the forty fifth commemoration of the “UN Declaration on Human Rights” was celebrated during a conference in “Vienna”. A worth mentioning incident took place during that conference and it was the refusal to acknowledge the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” by the well reputed countries like “Singapore, Malaysia, Cuba, China, and even the SU also known as Russia”. While turning down the declaration 2 reasons were given by these nations collectively. The first reason upon which these countries turned down the declaration was its too much concentration upon the freedom of citizens rather focusing upon the economical and social entitlements. The viewpoint of these nations is valid because it has been observed by various legal scholars as well that the declaration has discussed civil liberties a lot and have not made any prominent discussion regarding the other rights that the human have such as the right to live an honorable life with basic needs of life. Moving on to the second flaw which resulted in the rejection of this declaration by the above listed countries. They rejected it on the basis that HR can’t be applied throughout the world uniformly due it is based upon “history, society, and politics”. Furthermore, this same reason can be observed when we try to draw a comparison of the “Islamic nations” with those in the “Western” side of the world. As an example, we can note that the rights afforded to men in Islamic jurisdictions differ from those granted to women, such as the entitlement to practice “polygamy”. This example is enough to illustrate that this ideology of

”Universal Rights” cannot be upheld. Upon the basis of the above mentioned facts we can say that the rejection of this concept by these states seems to be justifiable. But regardless of all the facts mentioned above, it is worth mentioning that the conference decided to stand by the concept of “Universality of Human Rights”. While giving his viewpoint, it has been stated by “Judge Rosalyn Higgins” that these opposing perspectives have led towards the formation of “1966 covenants, ICCPR and ICESCR”. It is worth mentioning that following the incident of rejection of this concept by various countries it was believed that it will get terminated but the opposite happened as it became the key reason behind various non-human events around the world. In short, the analysis in this essay has been done to explore the notion that the primary discord does not revolve around the clash between “cultural relativism and the universality of human rights”; instead, it lies in the divergence among different interpretations of Universalism. This is due to the fact that “relativist discussions” encompass certain aspects inherent to the concept of “Universalism”.

Culturalism

It is to be noted that while sharing her point of view, it has been stated by “Hannah Arendt” that the human beings have the ability to dominate in other societies but at the same they are also able to adapt to other civilizations and this is such an aspect which might not be ignored. That is why it is stated that the individuals ought to have the capacity to choose from different value systems, given that the enforceability of “inalienability” is demonstrated to be impractical. Moreover, she had been a victim of a lot of criticisms because she has made a point that is excessively non totalitarian and also revolves around individuality. Nonetheless, it can be stated that she has literally gone to the basics of the ideology of HR and this is none other than the people themselves.

Individuality

There have been various legal scholars throughout history who have tried various times to analyze the unbiasedness, movability, and nature of the “natural rights”. A few names from the long list of these scholars are “John Locke, Mason, and Lilburn”. Their attempts have not been fruitless as they have helped the upcoming legal critics and authors in understanding the “idea of inalienability” by giving them an outline of the “what humans are in human rights”. The discussion in the essay is aimed at highlighting the stronger and weaker points of the legal authors and critics in the current age. The first argument that we are mentioning here states that individuals must not only make a prominent contribution to their own welfare but also to the community they are living in, “at large” independently in order to be entitled to specific rights. The ideology as per which it is stated that the individuals who are going through mental disorders or are in some critical conditions should have similar rights like the normal has been criticized globally. Moreover, it should be noted that the concept of what is considered "inhuman", as of now, be assessed through cognitive analysis rather than solely relying on “biological distinctions”, like the application of “brute animal strength, human capabilities, or

gender-based dichotomies”. When we are dealing with scenarios, in majority of the cases the ones who are suffering lose their “individuality” for the fundamental rights and this has also highlighted the way “ transferability of rights works in practice”. The perspective given by “Hannah Arendt” has clearly stated that the most important right that a person should have is “the right to have rights”. It is an undeniable fact that the masterpiece suggested by “Hannah Arendt” has literally become the most appropriate ideology for “inalienability” following the unfortunate event of “Holocaust”. The arguments given by her actually originated from witnessing the refugees being deprived of their rights due to the fact that they were lacking an independent nation of their own, showing how the rights nowadays are dependent upon the existence of a sovereign national entity. While expressing his views on this situation, “Jacques Rancier” has said that the right to have rights can never be taken away from a person just because that person doesn’t have any state to call his home. Furthermore, in his words, the people can never be stripped of their political nature as they inherently have them from birth. This is,till now, one of the most strict statements that someone has used regarding the suggestions given by “Hannah Arendt”.

However, in order to ensure that everyone gets their rights it has been suggested by the “indivisibility rule” that in order to make sure that the “Human Rights Framework” works in the right way it is very crucial that the rights of all nature should be applied all together. When concerned with the infringements it is to be noted that the term "indivisibility" posits that the “complete realization and enforcement of one human right are contingent upon the full realization and enforcement of all others”. Those people who support the “principle of indivisibility” are of the view that without this rule there exists no chance that “Human Rights” can be implemented smoothly without it. It is to be noted that sometimes the governments might also become involved in unfair preference for the rights if they aren’t regarded as “indivisible” and applied simultaneously. That is why, in order to protect and defend “human rights”, the “indivisibility principle” has become an undeniable requirement. The main focus of this discussion upon the “indivisibility principle” is concentrated entirely upon the concerns related to the “hierarchy of human rights and partial realization of a few rights”. There have been a number of suggestions proposed by “Nickel” who are totally against the ideology of “Indivisibility”. This can be explained by this instance, it is an undeniable fact that the inside of a vehicle along with the “suspension system” installed in it, don't need each other, as the vehicle remains functional and capable of fulfilling its purpose even if one component is absent. Even though there might exist interdependence among the two parts mentioned earlier, they aren’t inherently inseparable. In the same vehicle, the genuine connection exists among the “steering wheel and steering linkage” due to the fact that both of these parts work for the same cause. It is highly needed to form a comparable differentiation regarding the “human rights”. Moreover, it isn't needed for the “relevance” of all the rights to recognize them fully. It is to be noted that in case this assertion becomes valid and “indivisibility principle” is indeed applicable, then it would result

“time and resources”. It has been noted that whenever actions of this nature are undertaken, they are not automatically considered flagrant infringement of “indivisibility”.

Eastern and Western

Now to conclude this we can say that this isn’t a justifiable act to enforce the “western values” upon individuals who are good without it. That is why it is stated that instead of making a general standard for rights and then implementing it throughout the world, it is suggested that the “human rights” should be considered at the individual level. In this way, it will be able to address the problems that the people face in a better way. Furthermore, it has been said by a legal author “Amartya Sen” that the basis for rights for any person should be his/her genuine capabilities. It is to be noted that for any person residing in a “Third World country” and doesn’t have access to the fundamental necessities for life e.g. food and home, might not prefer the “right to cast a vote”. It has been considered impractical to consistently impose the “Western values” on everybody while not taking into account their personal circumstances. Some of the most prominent legal authors and critics such as “Jack Donnelly and Allen Gilbert” have employed this same argument when expressing their rejection for all the suggestions proposed during the “Vienna conference”.