Henry Graff Blog 4

 Henry Graff 

International Politics

Blog 4

The universality of all human rights is seemingly an impossible goal, and might be undesirable. As a result of the intrinsic moral foundations, human rights will always spark controversy. In theory, one might idealize a standard global system of human rights, establishing a baseline for moral judgment in said state or institution. However, the versatility of rights and their implications, coupled with differing societal and cultural norms, makes this very challenging. Some rights geared to modern social issues, such as the rights to internet access or clean and sustainable environments, are good examples of this issue. Not in question until relatively recent years, such rights are justified by continual human development to argue that human rights “must start at the source of social problems” relative to their time period (McGaughey). Thus, the integration of access to knowledge, clean environments/climate, and economic equality into universal rights might seem fair. Regardless, due to a number of societal aspects (cultural, moral, religious, etc.), rights are often difficult to contextualize from an outside perspective, as “cultural contexts determine the ways in which rights are interpreted, used, or abused” (Le 205). Although they “must be constantly updated to keep pace with modern times,” this would likely only enlarge the gap between varied levels of government, institutions, and economies in any given country (McGaughey).

The piece Are Human Rights Universal or Culturally Relative? demonstrates this as “East Asian policy makers argue that the right to development takes precedence over other rights, and is the most culturally appropriate way to advance all human rights in their countries” (Le 204). As alluded to above, not all cultures fundamentally thrive on Western principles, and it isn't simple enough to call them humanitarian. This plays into the conflict between two opposing opinions on human rights, universalism and cultural relativism. On one hand, universalists argue that human rights should be legally enforced and completely independent of any circumstantial aspects. To them, certain things are deemed human rights and others are not. As McGaughey points out from the UDHR, “everyone has the right… to share in scientific advancement and its benefits” (McGaughey). On the other hand, cultural relativists argue that human rights are subject to change, in terms of cultural and societal norms, institutional setup, and governmental structure. They believe universalism and the UDHR are flawed in their lack of reflecting ordinary people, emphasis on Western aligning cultural values and ideals, as well as the urge for nations to reject foreign influences (Le).

One middle ground proposed in the piece states that “universal human rights are flexible enough to allow differences in terms of emphasis and means of implementation,” but does not “permit any basic right to be eliminated or subordinated” (Le 209). Unfortunately, it is an incredibly daunting task to enact such a system, especially with the global state of foreign relations, and the already numbered human rights issues across the world. The process of deciding on and categorizing rights by priority would present an enormous challenge, as supported by the differences in societal layouts in the modern world. Lastly, newly proposed rights, such as free internet, and any that will follow, would only perpetuate the contested discourse. 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/21st-century-human-rights-are-technological-environmental-and-co-operative/