This essay discusses that careful analysis of Islamic law as manifested in the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights would tend to reveal that it is impossible to invoke human rights principles under a system where what is given primacy is the stability of the state, the maintenance of culture and tradition and the binding force of religion. In the United States, for instance, though we see wanton violations of due process and human rights committed by the Bush administration, the grand majesty of the law may at least be invoked to seek redress and to call policies wrong or reprehensible. This paper makes a conclusion that with that said, there are still positive changes to look forward to. The mere fact that the CDHR was entered into by the Islamic states means that there is at least recognition of the need to adhere to a basic human rights framework and that states may no longer act with impunity and expect no censure from the international community. Certainly, there should also be moves to actively pursue human rights offenders and punish human rights violations – whether large or small scale. There is a great ethical and moral imperative to exhume the past if only to serve as lessons for the future. In addition, through vigilance and continuous lobbying and sowing the seeds through human rights education, we make it possible to envision a future where human rights are protected, diversity is celebrated and every individual is allowed to blossom to his or her fullest potential. ...
The converse of that, of course, is that far too many leaders justify brazen acts of oppression and injustice as a cultural norm and should thus fall outside the scrutiny of the international community. How indeed does one balance these competing interests
The concept of human rights is by no means of recent vintage. It is used primarily to define relationships between the citizens and the State, by constituting a check on the awesome power of the State and by enabling human beings to flourish to their fullest potential free from oppression, strife, hunger and discrimination. A thriving and robust democracy, it is often said, can only be achieved when basic human rights are preserved. Cherished principles like press freedom, religious freedom, diversity and pluralism are indispensable requirements of a democratic society. It is difficult, if not altogether impossible, to argue against the validity of these principles.
The various conflicts and revolutions in the world have shaped the concept of human rights as we know it. In the last two hundred and fifty years, we see the clamor for human rights as the clamor of a world and of the various peoples inside it for equality and freedom. Starting with the French and American revolutions towards the latter part of the eighteenth century, it is this very notion of human rights that has led colonized states and revolutionary movements to assert their voices and fight for their freedoms against oppressive and despotic governments - from the Tiananmen Square uprising in China to the struggle of the East Timorese against Indonesian occupation.
When the United Nations was created in 1948 by a world still reeling from the ravages of the Second World War and intent on healing the wounds