The universal human rights concept and its roots in Western political thought

Résumé du document

Commitment to the idea of cultural relativism is usually seen as precluding the acceptance of the idea of universal human rights. But is relativism against universalism a false dichotomy? Can we construct a "differentiated universalism" or a "non-ethnocentric universalism"? The doctrine of cultural relativism is based on the existence of different cultures which have produced different values. In this acceptance, universality of human rights does not exist, and this theory is nothing but a myth created by the West as a mean of pressure against the other States. Yet, a characteristic part of the claim that there are such things as human rights has been that they are universal, and that they are not subject to change over time, since they express the essential nature of human beings. One will focus on the controversy which exists between those who advocate for human rights relativism and those who support the idea of a universality of the latter, by trying to weigh each argument.

Extraits

[...] "The Social Construction of International Human Rights" in Human Rights in Global Politics, edited by Tim Dunne and Nicholas J. Wheeler. Cambridge University Press - Dunne Tim and Nichola J. Wheeler, "Blair's Britain : a force for good in the world in Ethics and Foreign Policy, edited by Margot Light and Karen E. Smith - Foot Rosemary, Right Beyond Borders ; The Global Community and the Struggle over Human Rights in China. Oxford University press - Forsythe, David P. Human Rights in International Relations. [...]

[...] This notion is used in Asia, and particularly in China, to associate universal human rights with western imperialism. Human rights would be a pretext to interfere in the affairs of other states. Nonetheless, the UN claim that states are legitimate only if they respect human rights, and without this legitimacy, they are not allowed to speak about state sovereignty. Secondly the argument of the priority of economic development is very often claimed. Through centuries elites denounced and refused political rights, which would be subversive and obstructive for economic development. [...]

[...] Michael Freeman says besides: the concept of human rights, therefore, is legally international, philosophically universal and historically western In fact, the human rights doctrine has its roots in western political thought and the international law included human rights concern all human beings. The ideological origin knew a process of extension until the practice all around the world where international treaties are ratified. Some people claims human rights is an expression of the domination from West over the rest of the world as Asia, but they oppose the modernity of West to the traditions of Asia and deny something very important: the historical point of view learn us that existed and exist still today contestations against power and authority in Asia, and that western had despotic, authoritarian and hierarchic regime in the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries. [...]

[...] They claimed human rights could be an attempt of Asian culture. The concept of human rights would be universally applicable provided to this condition of adaptability. This seems to be right in theory but wrong in practice. If general concepts have to be interpreted in particular circumstances, the problem is that it can be a cover for human rights violations. And the UN don't want to endorse oppression if this declaration tries to disguise them. Everybody knows this reality. If Bangkok declaration reflects resistance by many Asian elites of human rights, we can't deny this also happened in the West. [...]

[...] The universal human rights concept has its roots in Western political thought, so can we say that it applies to all human beings? The UN were founded just after the horrors of the Second World War because of the Nazi-regime, but also in response to the economic and social difficulties just after the Depression. This need of security by law is explained by a particular tradition in Europe where in the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries dominated despotic governments. Political but also economic securities were asked by the poorest people through organizations such as trade unions and socialism. [...]