International Human Rights, Humanitarian and

Criminal Laws
Learning Unit Two:
Concept: Universalism, Culturalism and Interdependency
and Indivisibility

Ethiopian Civil Service University,

School of Law and Federalism
Department of International Law
Mussie M. (LL.B, LL.M), 2018
 Universalism Vs. Culturalism
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS 1948, Art 1
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act
towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
• The text of the UDHR is an unequivocal endorsement of the
universality of the rights contained therein.
• Nevertheless, an issue which has long plagued academics and
practitioners alike is whether human rights are truly universal.
• Only 56 States were members of the United Nations and thus
party to the creation of the Universal Declaration.
• Membership of the United Nations has since more than
trebled to some 193 States today.
• Africa and Asia (in a pre-decolonisation era) were particularly
underrepresented in strict geographical terms.
 Universalism Vs. Culturalism
• In addition, every person has the right to enjoy or
participate in his/her culture under the ICCPR and ICESCR.
• The right to self-determination is enshrined in both the
ICCPR and the ICESCR, and the principle of non-
intervention is delineated in Article 2(7) of the Charter and
given support by careful actions of the UN Security Council.
• Article 34(5) of the FDRE Constitution, declares that
“This Constitution shall not preclude the adjudication of
disputes relating to personal and family laws in accordance
with religious or customary laws, with the consent of the
parties to the dispute. Particulars shall be determined by law.”
• Article 39(2) of the FDRE Constitution, states that:
“Every Nation, Nationality and People in Ethiopia has the right
to speak, to write and to develop its own language; to express,
to develop and to promote its culture; and to preserve its
history.”
 Universalism Vs. Culturalism
• Do you think art 9(1) of the FDRE Constitution is relevant in this regard? It
does not specify culture.
“The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law, customary practice
or a decision of an organ of state or a public official which contravenes this
Constitution shall be of no effect.”

FDRE 2006 Criminal Code

CHAPTER III
CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST LIFE, PERSON AND HEALTH THROUGH
HARMFUL TRADITIONAL PRACTICES
• Article 561.- Endangering the Lives of Pregnant Women and Children
through Harmful Traditional Practices.
• Article 562.- Causing Bodily Injury to Pregnant Women and Children
Through Harmful Traditional Practices
• Article 565.- Female Circumcision.
• Article 566.- Infibulation of the Female Genitalia.
What do you think the Code has used traditional practice, instead of
cultural practice?
 Universalism Vs. Culturalism
• On June 24, 1947, the Executive Board of the American
Anthropological Association addressed the United Nations’
Committee on Human Rights by issuing a statement warning
that universalism was a dangerous ground on which to assert
human rights, advocating instead for a relativist position that
acknowledged the disparities between different cultures.
“Standards and values are relative to the culture from which they
derive so that any attempt to formulate postulates that grow out
of the beliefs or moral codes of one culture must to that extent
detract from the applicability of any Declaration of Human
Rights to mankind as a whole.“
• Although this viewpoint may have found some expression in
earlier scholarship, the birth of the cultural relativist approach
to human rights is attributed to this statement.
• While the American Anthropological Association later went on
to recant its position, calling the statement “an
embarrassment,” the substance of their position remains a
valid (albeit somewhat controversial) ground for arguing
against a universal theory of human rights
 Universalism Vs. Culturalism
• In general, cultural relativist view universal rights as
insensitive to cultural differences and an instrument of
oppression itself. Some Asian developing states call the
human rights doctrine a new form of western imperialism.
• They argue that human right should be more `culture
relative` rather than universal.
• For example, in states where arranged marriages are
customary, one would expect clause 2 of Article 16
('Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full
consent of the intending spouses') to be routinely
disregarded, while the Iranians who placed a fatwah on
Salman Rushdie clearly felt justified on religious grounds
to ignore Article 19 ('Everyone has the right to freedom of
opinion and expression) (Shanawez, 2005).
 Universalism Vs. Culturalism
• According to the scholars the universality of human rights can
be challenged by cultural relativists on three different levels
(Donnelly, 1989).
• The first level is the substance of the list of human rights to be
protected. The thesis of cultural relativism holds that different
societies have different perceptions of right and wrong, so
human rights substances should also be different.
• The second level where cultural differences may challenge the
universality of the human rights doctrine is the interpretation
of specific rights. According to cultural relativists interpretation
of human rights is also relevant with cultural perspectives.
• Thirdly, there may be differences of form in how human rights
are implemented in different cultures. Differences in
institutional implementation cannot be used as justification for
lack of protection of universal human rights.
 What is Culture?
Taken from Xiaorong Li 2006 Ethics, Human Rights and Culture:
Beyond Relativism and Universalism. Palgrave: New York. [p. 9-
30]
• A culture is an inherited body of informal knowledge
embodied in traditions, transmitted through social learning in
a community, and incorporated in practices.
• Accordingly, a moral culture is such a body of morally relevant
knowledge. To know a culture is to know the informal codes
of conduct. To be its member is to belong to those who know
the codes and to be known as somebody who knows the
codes.
• While this concept reflects a broad consensus among
contemporary schools of cultural thought, it has evolved from
bitter disputes among cultural theorists, including cultural
anthropologists and sociologists, in the last half century.
 What is Culture?
• The contemporary school visions culture as open and
influenced from outside; if it has any borders at all,
these are porous and fluid; it changes over time, often
drastically; it is internal heterogeneous and dynamic;
and it is its people, not culture itself, who are the
agents capable of action and innovation.
• Whereas, the classic school visions culture as a
bounded entity; it is largely homogeneous, holistic,
systematically structured, and time-insensitive; and it
determines the destiny of the population and the ways
in which they think, feel, judge and behave, culture as
entities with impermeable borders, as internally
cohesive and static. Besides, it considers persons in
different cultures as incapable of communicating with
each other and comparing their views.
 What is Culture?
• According to the contemporary school, ‘culture’ is neither
an island nor even an ‘archipelago,’ images depicting ‘a
more or less chimerical pre-modern tribal world.’
• Rather, ‘culture’ is ‘historically produced, globally
interconnected, internally contested, and marked with
ambiguous boundaries of identity and practice’; a
‘culture’ is often a hybrid, a product of ‘creolization’ of
views and practices. People create and use ‘culture’ when
they try to adapt to changing social conditions. (Jackson,
1995, p. 19)
• Culture is the tool for communication and validation of
actions. Culture may consist of ancient, local, as well as
new and globally portable norms, ideals, perspectives,
and views. Culture need not be associated with ‘roots,’
with the past.
 What is Culture?
• Nevertheless, according to the author (Xiaorong Li),
The consensus view of culture is able to accommodate
some of the seemingly incongruent insights of the
classic and contemporary schools, including:
• First, culture is a more definitive and concrete form – a
body of informal knowledge, socially transmitted and
learned ideas, wisdoms, or experiences—than the
contemporary school seems to be willing.
• It does not consider visions privately intuited, ideas
solitarily contemplated, and attitudes not publicly
expressed as being ‘cultural,’ as the classic school
seems to imply.
 What is Culture?
• Second, culture is a body of knowledge that is historically
inherited over generations, rather than any newly minted ideas,
not yet tested across generations, which the contemporary view
may admit into ‘culture’ while it stresses fluidity and change.
This specification fits better with our intuitions about culture.
• Third, it further narrows culture to a body of knowledge that is
incorporated in practices – embodied in customs, expressed in
symbols, implemented by institutions, or codified in rules – and
turned into lived experiences. This body of knowledge is not
limited to knowledge transmitted and circulated through books
or classrooms.
• Forth, indeed, in culture, people interconnected in a
collaborative entity– community – are identified as actors who
conduct the learning and creatively develop the knowledge,
whereas authorities and elites are not the exclusive interpreters
of culture.
 What is Culture?
• In this regard, one can differentiate culture from certain
hierarchical religions that forbid worshipers to
communicate directly with God or have their own
interpretations of God’s will.
• This initial concept is thus more balanced. It transcends
some of the long disputes among cultural theorists.
• For instance, it conceives cultures not as merely
observable or external social entities or physical
objects, nor as merely internal, interpretive mental
states of affairs.
• One example of identifying culture with interpretive
states of affairs is Richard Rorty’s reference to ‘culture’
as acquired tastes or ‘sentimentality,’ (Rorty, 1993).
 What is Culture?
• Finally, Xiaorong Li uses a working concept of culture:
“A culture is a body of informal knowledge that is
historically inherited and transformed, embodied and
contested in traditions, incorporated and innovated in
practices, and transmitted and altered through social
learning in a community of evolving and porous
boundaries.” (Li, 2006: 18)
• From the working concept of culture it is possible thus
to develop a working concept for a cultural community.
“A ‘cultural community’ is a paradoxical social context – a
socially organized population group, a group of shared
identity, or a society, within which a body of inform
knowledge is socially transmitted and contested.” (Ibid,
19)
 What is Culture?
What is Tradition?
• The working concept suggests that culture manifests itself in
the form of tradition and that tradition gives a shape to
culture.
• The working concept entails that ‘cultural tradition’ is the
embodiment of the historically inherited and transformed,
socially transmitted, practically incorporated, and contested
informal knowledge.
• The substance of a tradition consists in rules or principles,
customs, symbols (language), rituals, habits, and practices.
This notion of ‘tradition’ emphasizes that members revise and
recreate the embodiment of informal knowledge, though they
inherit it with some continuity from the past, as they acquire
new experiences under changing conditions of life.
• Tradition thus contains clashing views and diverse
perspectives.
 What is Culture?
• General principles may be incompatible with specific rules
(for example, consider ‘all are God’s children and Living
with Cultural Paradoxes loved by him’ and ‘Young girls must
be subjected to genital cutting – in spite of the pain and
health consequences’).
• In addition, interpretations of principles or rules may clash.
Members of the same tradition, who are taught the same
principles and rules, who lived under similar circumstances,
through roughly the same historical events (war, revolution,
recession, or prosperity), however, do not always agree
about the validity or applicability of these principles and
rules.
• Their judgments are likely to differ about what one ought to
do in a given situation. Consequently, it is insufficient to
invoke cultural tradition to justify enforcing any practice, as
in the claim, ‘It is our tradition.
 What is Culture?
• Philosophers generally employ two notions of ‘tradition’:
one narrow, the other broad. The working concept of
‘culture’ favors the latter.
• The narrow view recognizes only intellectual or spiritual
discourses, in which the learnt elite deliberates and disputes
norms, rules, or standards.
• The broad view sees tradition as reflected knowledge that is
continuously reinterpreted, recreated, and enacted.
• In this view, tradition is not merely an intellectual discourse
or its products. It is also practice and practiced rules or lived
ideas.
• The narrow view, focusing on religious texts or philosophical
theories as the substance of a tradition, is inadequate to
capture what has actually become embodied – accepted and
motivating – in the form of custom, practice, or convention.
 What is Culture?
• A person taught in the Kantian or utilitarian theoretical
traditions, or well-versed in Confucian or Christian texts, may
not have internalized the ideas and may not be motivated to act
accordingly.
• Conversely, those who have the appropriate beliefs and practice
the customs may be unaware of these theories or texts.
• This discrepancy leads us to the broad view of tradition, which
recognizes that cultural traditions have something to do with
dispositions cultivated through social learning and experiences,
and with lived ideas.
• Social learning, through which informal knowledge is
transmitted and contested, thus involves more than
understanding and reflection.
• It involves practicing acquired knowledge and internalizing the
teaching through experiences into habits, dispositions, and skills.
 What is Culture?
• According to MacIntyre, tradition, involves reflective
practices. A tradition is reflective and has room for self-
critique for it is ‘sustained and advanced by its own
internal arguments and conflicts.’
• The ‘narratives’ of different traditions might be context-
specific, yet not in principle mutually incomprehensible or
incomparable. If an actor participates in multiple
traditions, one can make his action ‘intelligible,’ it seems,
by referring to or placing it within a number of different
narrative histories.
• Tradition does not determine actions. Actors actively
participate in creating and redefining tradition. Such
participation allows an innovative role for individuals and
leaves room for individual autonomy. These views are
essentially compatible with the account of culture as
paradoxical social phenomenon.
 Modern Cultural Relativist Viewpoints
• The doctrine of cultural relativism has been expressed and defined
in many different ways.
• For some, it holds that some moral rules and social institutions
“cannot be legitimately criticized by outsiders.”
• For others, the heart of the relativist position is that nothing is
good and nothing is bad for every human being, and what is good
or bad for a particular human being is always relative to something
about him or her or about his or her context or situation.
• Still others assert that “there is no absolute truth, be it ethical,
moral, or cultural, and there is no meaningful way to judge
different cultures because all judgments are ethnocentric.”
• Finally, cultural relativism is said to be “the position according to
which local cultural traditions properly determine the existence
and scope of civil and political rights enjoyed by individuals in a
given society.”
 Universalism Vs. Cultural Relativism
• In recent decades, a widely contested debate over the universality of
human rights has emerged.
• Rights are certainly not universally-applied today, with oppression,
torture and various atrocities committed in many parts of the world.
• It is important to first define the theoretical basis of ‘universal’ human
rights. Universal conceptions argue human rights are inalienable, self-
evident and applicable to all human beings (Donnelly, 2003, 10).
• These arguments are often linked to origins in Western philosophy
and natural law, developed from philosophers such as John Locke
(Langlois, 2009, 12).
• Many scholars maintain that human rights are ‘pre-political’, thus
unchangeable and unaffected by cultural or political variation.
• Donnelly identifies the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the
basis in establishing the “contemporary consensus on internationally
recognised human rights” (2003, 22).
• Human rights hold universal values which should be adopted by states
worldwide.
 Universalism Vs. Cultural Relativism
• A common challenge to this view is the concept of cultural
relativism. What the West may consider universal norms in
human rights are not applicable in other cultures. Human
rights are argued to have developed from Western culture
and thus they are inappropriate in application to other
cultures (Langlois, 2009, 19).
• It has been argued that only Western philosophy places such
importance on the individual (O’Byrne, 2003, 42). Claims
based on universal human rights are therefore at risk of being
a “weapon of cultural hegemony” (Ibid).
• The most clear embodiment of this challenge are Asian
values, where following the incredible economic success of a
number of East/South-East Asian states, leaders and
academics pointed to an alternative, more authoritative
standard of rights, stemming from Asian conservative cultural
values (Freeman, 2008, 363).
• Western origins of human rights and the incompatibility of its
imposition are argued to prove human rights should not and
cannot be universally applicable.
 Universalism Vs. Cultural Relativism
• There are arguments that economic development must
precede human rights, believing that human rights are too
expensive and too risky for poor countries (Freeman, 2008,
359).
• In poor states – particularly with ethnic divisions – human
rights can “subvert social order and thus hinder
development” (Ibid).
• Advocates of this view again cite Asian ‘Tiger’ economies
where strong economic growth is credited to authoritative
rule (Ayittey, 2011, 18).
• This is a clear argument suggesting human rights should not
be made universal, as many states are not ready.
• A serious obstacle for universal human rights is the claim that
it is a new form of imperialism, or as Rengger describes, “a
mask for Western interests” (2011, 1173).
• During the Cold War, the West dismissed human rights,
supporting ‘friendly’ regimes notorious for abuses, such as
Mobutu and Moi (Adar, 1998, 35).
 Universalism Vs. Cultural Relativism
• Real concern for human rights emerged only “occasionally”
(Adar, 1998, 34). Samir Amin identifies the human rights
agenda as shallow rhetoric disguising the promotion of US
interests (2004, 78).
• The human rights discussion surrounding the 2003 invasion
of Iraq has justified the fear that human rights are a tool of
neo-imperialism, particularly as the US has not promoted
human rights in Kuwait despite years of presence there
(Amin, 2004, 77).
• The US rejects criticism regarding questionable domestic
policies on the grounds that it is “their way” (Franck, 2001).
• Third-World states accordingly argue ‘rights’ are used to
undermine their sovereignty according to the whims of the
West.
 Universalism Vs. Cultural Relativism
• Western double standards and “narrow-minded and ham-
handed” (Donnelly, 2003, 99) policies have been a key
reason for cultural relativist and imperialist arguments
persisting.
• Western aid to authoritarian states has consolidated their
hold on power (Coyne & Ryan, 2009, 27).
• These factors have culminated in reducing the West’s
capacity to promote human rights.
• Ayittey believes charges of imperialism have prevented
the West from criticising authoritarian states (2005, 422).
• African governments have become adept at suckering in
the West to play “diplomatic ping-pong” (Ibid), cultural
and anti-imperialist arguments provide effective cover.
 Universalism Vs. Cultural Relativism
Critique of These Positions
• These arguments are often made by minority/elite groups,
unrepresentative of the populations they supposedly represent.
• The political use of these arguments has deterred international
and domestic criticism of atrocious abuses of human rights.
• New Tactics show there is often a lack of political will to enact
human rights (2010), not because rights are unsuitable for
populations, but are “politically unacceptable to the rulers”
(Mahmud, 1993, 495).
• Amartya Sen argues promises and claims by authoritative
leaders are given too much respect (1999, 147).
• Leaders may manipulate discussion of human rights, adopting
self-serving positions to prevent changes to the status quo.
 Universalism Vs. Cultural Relativism
Critique of These Positions
• Scholars argue the appeal to cultural relativist arguments such
as Asian values is an “ideological attempt to justify
authoritarian government” (Freeman, 2008, 363).
• Sen argues that Asian (authoritarian) values appear to stem
“almost exclusively” (1999, 246) from those in power, stating,
“to see Asian history in terms of a narrow category of
authoritarian values does little justice to the rich varieties of
thought in Asian intellectual traditions” (Sen, 1999, 248).
• Cultural relativist arguments consistently under-represent
women, supposed spokespersons of ‘culture’ ensure that
women are persistently under-represented (Phillips, 2001, 13),
falsely presenting a culture of “male dominance” (2001, 14).
• This shows us that cultural relativist arguments are often a
shallow tool used to impede the application of human rights.
 Universalism Vs. Cultural Relativism
Critique of These Positions
• Unrepresentative manipulation of human rights arguments
can be clearly seen in anti-imperialist rhetoric.
• In Zimbabwe, this argument is made constantly to deflect
criticism from repressive domestic policies, hiding brutal
oppression “behind the language of anti-imperialism”
(Phimister & Raftopolous, 2004, 387).
• This rhetoric garnered support from African states, “in a
misplaced sense of Pan-Africanist solidarity” (Phimister &
Raftopolous, 2004, 399), clouding criticism of human rights
abuses (Coyne & Ryan, 2009, 27).
• The brutality, corruption and “utter ruination” (Pham,
2008, 132) under Mugabe’s regime makes it difficult to
respect the legitimacy of his anti-imperialist argument.
 Universalism Vs. Cultural Relativism
Critique of These Positions
• Evolution: One of the principle objections to cultural relativism is
that it depends on a static conception of culture that belies the
results of modern research in evolutionary psychology,
neuroscience, socio-biology, and psychiatry.
• “Many reject relativism in favour of an evolutionary analysis by
observing that societies do indeed change their customs by
developing more humane habits in conjunction with the growth
of their economic, technological, and scientific capabilities.
• Related to the ever-changing nature of culture is the fact of
transcultural influences, especially in a globalizing world.
• Further, many argue that the concept of ‘culture’ itself is not
monistic, and that intercultural dialogue is not only possible, but
in many cases is more accessible than intra-cultural dialogue.
 Universalism Vs. Cultural Relativism
Critique of These Positions
• Asian resistance to universalism is perhaps best summarized
by Singapore’s Foreign Minister Won Kang Sen’s statement at
the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1993:
“universal recognition of the ideal of human rights can be
harmful if universalism is used to deny or mask the reality of
diversity.”
• So-called “Asian values” emphasize order over equality,
discipline over liberty, cooperation over independence, and
duties over rights.
• The civil and political rights that are at the core of Western
human rights norms are fundamentally alien in many of the
long-established traditions of Asian cultures, which tend to
emphasize social and cultural rights instead.
• Rather than arising from an individual’s sacred human nature,
rights are contingent upon performance of duties or are
worded as an express grant by the state, similar to the
socialist conception of rights outlined above.
 Universalism Vs. Cultural Relativism
Critique of These Positions
• The “Asian values” argument lost much of its credibility
following the Asian Economic Crisis of the late 1990s,
when it became clear that hewing to a particularly
“Asian” set of policies did not in fact have a beneficial
impact on economic growth and development in the
region.
• Interestingly, little has been heard of ‘Asian values’ since
the 1998 financial crisis in the region, an understandable
political retreat given that a principal rationale for
repression – for maintaining ‘social order’ and the denial
of individual liberties – was the East Asian countries’
success in bringing about development and prosperity.
 Universalism Vs. Cultural Relativism
Alternative Basis for Universal Human Rights
• It is clear shallow arguments appealing to culture and sovereignty, as
well as Western clumsiness and hypocrisy, have shielded human rights
abuses from scrutiny.
• Donnelly argues both ‘radical’ cultural relativism and ‘radical’
universalism are misguided (1984, 403).
• Radical cultural relativism gives too much potential for abuse, with
those in power able to dictate what determines ‘culture’ to hide
abuses of power (Freeman, 2011, 120).
• Radical universalism is also a weak notion, dismissing culture entirely
(Donnelly, 1984, 403).
• Cultural differences and the right to self-determination must be taken
into account for human rights to be applicable (Mutua, 2008, 34),
otherwise they will be irrelevant or rejected as imperialism (Ibid).
• Truly universal human rights require a theoretical basis which does not
embrace ‘radical’ perspectives.
 Universalism Vs. Cultural Relativism
Alternative Basis for Universal Human Rights
• For human rights to be universal, it is crucial for them to be
compatible with cultural differences.
• Universal human rights should not constitute a ‘fixed’ approach
(Rengger, 2011, 1173); rights and community (culture) can and
should “mutually constitute one another” (Ibid).
• Freeman argues there is no necessary incompatibility between
communal values and individual rights (2011, 120).
• Globalisation has been key in generating a multi-culturalisation
of human rights, making it a “truly universal project” (Mutua,
2007, 4).
• The human rights movement has been able to re-focus attention
onto social and economic rights, giving it more legitimacy in the
Third-World (Ibid).
• It is crucial for human rights to gain legitimacy by incorporating
cross-cultural perspectives.
 Universalism Vs. Cultural Relativism
Alternative Basis for Universal Human Rights
• Dershowitz argues that existing theories of human rights do
not aptly explain the wide-ranging promotion of rights seen
today (In: Ramcharan, 2008, 16).
• The basis of rights need not have cultural or philosophical
origins, but instead be a response to common injustices
humanity has seen (Ramcharan, 2008, 17).
• Ramcharan believes Dershowitz’s argument shows
“humanity’s collective experience with injustice constitutes a
fruitful foundation on which to build a theory of rights” (Ibid).
• O’Byrne describes a modified Kantianism, with rights based
on fundamental dignity “inherent in human beings, without
distinction or exception” (2003, 42).
• All cultures have common histories of injustices, demands for
human rights from oppressed populations often drive reform
(Mahmud, 1993, 495).
• When the basis of rights is presented in these terms, it is
fundamentally clear that they should be universally applied.
 Universalism Vs. Cultural Relativism
How Human Rights Can Be Universal?
• This forms a strong case for the universality of human rights,
certain key factors could ensure this conception can be
applied universally.
• An existing basis in international law provides legitimacy to
the human rights movement and a tool to hold governments
to account.
• The UDHR was formed with major influence from Non-
Western states (Glendon, 2003, 38), giving it legitimacy as a
universally-applicable document.
• This has allowed the UDHR to achieve “wide acceptance
among diverse cultures” (Glendon, 2003, 27). The creation of
the International Criminal Court is a major development in
human rights law, being able to independently investigate and
charge individuals for serious human rights violations
(Cassese, 1999, 161).
• By ratifying the Rome Statute, states accept the Court’s
jurisdiction, thus showing moral and legal acceptance of the
ICC’s ideals (Plessis, 2008, 11).
 Universalism Vs. Cultural Relativism
How Human Rights Can Be Universal?
• The legitimacy of the Court is grounded in its formulation by
states and NGOs from every region, which Plessis believes
shows “the existence of a social system built on universal
respect for the idea of human rights” (2002, 115).
• The Court enjoys grass-roots support in Africa, where it is
most active (Human Rights Watch, 2011).
• International agreements are a universal source of human
rights standards, empowering civil society.
• The international community, and specifically the West, can
play a far more positive role in ensuring human rights are
respected.
• The ending of the Cold War has removed “many impediments
to more effective international human rights policies
(Donnelly, 2003, 172), leading to numerous democratisations
in Africa (Miguel, 2011).
• The West has played a more positive role in holding
governments to account (Bujra, 2002, 37). Western
embassies, UN agencies and NGOs play a significant role in
monitoring human rights abuses (Ibid).
 Universalism Vs. Cultural Relativism
How Human Rights Can Be Universal?
• Ayittey believes that the renewed push for human rights
worldwide has, “[served] notice to tyrants that they can no
longer butcher their people and hide it from the international
community” (2005, 413).
• Bujra shows that authoritarian governments appear more
constrained following enhanced foreign oversight (2002, 44).
The international community can play a strong role in holding
governments to account, providing legitimacy to domestic
campaigns for human rights.
• Civil society has played a crucial role in pushing for human
rights worldwide. Civil society represents a legitimate conduit
for human rights.
• Mahmud argues rights are better respected if they came from
populations, not isolated leaders or foreign imposition (1993,
497). Following the Cold War, civil society has grown stronger
and played a more influential role (Mutua, 2007, 4).
 Universalism Vs. Cultural Relativism
How Human Rights Can Be Universal?
• Ayittey identifies the development of the ‘Cheetah
generation’, a critical and reformist civil society, supporting
accountability and human rights (2011, 236).
• Ghana is an example where civil society has put human rights
on the agenda (Ayittey, 2011, 259).
• Civil society’s scrutinising role has increased in influence;
following election violence in Kenya, civil society pushed for a
constitution grounded in human rights in 2010 (Greste, 2010):
activist John Githongo stated, “the Kenyan people have
imposed a constitution upon their rulers” (Royal African
Society, 2010).
• Civil society represents the most legitimate and effective
route for human rights to be universally realised.
• In sum, conceptions of human rights based on collective
histories of humanities’ injustices make a strong case for the
value of universal human rights, particularly in light of
damaging manipulation to mainstream human rights theory.
• It is clear civil society will play a fundamental role in
promoting and protecting human rights. If the international
community maintains a positive, critical role and domestic
pushes for human rights are legitimised by international law,
human rights have the potential to be universal.
 Summary of Jack Donelley’s Arguments
I. Strong Universalism/Weak Cultural Relativism –
• Rejects one argument for the basis of universality- that all
cultures, religious traditions and philosophies can be shown to
espouse some version of human rights.
• E.g. In Islam, most things viewed as signs of deference to human
rights, such as the obligation to tell the truth or not to kill, in fact,
pertain to duties or obligations of rulers rather than to the
entitlements of the ruled.
• E.g. In most African traditions, “rights” are by virtue of age, sex,
lineage, achievement and so on, and not by virtue of one's
humanity.
• Arguments claiming that to be universal, a framework must
contain critical elements that are "African," "Latin American,"
Asian" and so on, are as unacceptable as arguments that assert
something is correct or valid because it is “Western.”
 Summary of Jack Donelley’s Arguments
Regarding cultural relativist arguments, Donnelly claims that
they:
• Falsely assume a "thriving indigenous cultural tradition and
community" that is justified in defending itself against outside
interference (including imposition of universal human rights).
• Invoke idealised images of tribes, villages and benevolent
social systems, which are very much the exception instead of
the rule.
• In reality, the modern state, the global economy and Western
values have long since permeated most parts of the globe,
North and South, first and third world:
• Danger of being mislead by cultural relativist claims from
"repressive regimes whose practices have… only the most
tenuous connection to the indigenous culture"
• E.g. many post-colonial re-introductions of traditional courts
and "villagization" programmes in Africa, in the name of
returning to an authentic culture, have entailed practices such
as disappearances, arbitrary arrest and torture.
 Summary of Jack Donelley’s Arguments
• Radical Cultural Relativism - "culture is the sole source of the
validity of a moral right" and the "the mere fact that one is a
human being is irrelevant to one's moral status."
• It is not a prevalent view, as– most states accept the validity
of most human rights standards --> a kind of “universal
consensus”.)
• Radical Universalism is the position that "culture is irrelevant
to the validity of moral rights."
• Donnelly is on the universalist end of the spectrum – a "weak
cultural relativist" or "strong universalist " -- recognizes "a
comprehensive set of prima facie universal human rights” but
allows strictly limited local variations.
• Human rights are based on "man's moral nature" -- linked to
human nature, which in turn is also "somewhat culturally
relative" ---> pemits/requires allowances for “cross-cultural
variations in human rights" observance.
• But, variation in interpretation and form, NOT substance. E.g.
the right to participate government conceded in principle
while varying "interpretations" may allow for non-electoral
participation or limited suffrage.
 Indivisibility and Interdependence Or A
Hierarchy of Rights?
• Assuming human rights are all universally applicable, are they all
equally applicable, or is there an overt or covert hierarchy?
• Are some rights more important than others?
• People suffering in the aftermath of a catastrophic natural
emergency will most likely prioritise clean water and food over the
right to vote in democratic elections.
• Political prisoners may value freedom of expression over liberty.
Indeed, some people value freedom of religion above the right to
life.
• Can such conflicting views be reconciled with universality of rights?
VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION 1993, para 5
• All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and
interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally
in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same
emphasis.
 Indivisibility and Interdependence Or A
Hierarchy of Rights?
• The most significant categorisation of rights is that between civil
and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. A third
major category of rights has emerged too—group rights (or
collective rights).
A Cold War Product?—Two Categories Of Rights
• Civil and Political rights—capitalist states: Western states
emphasise on civil and political rights.
• Social, economic and cultural rights—socialist states: Theories
such as communism and Marxism emphasised many elements of
economic and social rights.
• In practice, countries make priority according to their historical
precedence and their future vision? Example, Rwanda—Genocide
and poverty—National identity and development, Ethiopia—
National questions and poverty—Group rights and development,
Eritrea—ethnic and religious issues—National identity.