Possibility of a World Where All Peoples Human Rights Are Met - Report Example

Possibility of a World where all People’s Human Rights are met Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Date Possibility of a World where all People’s Human Rights are met In 1948, after the impacts of the World War II, the United Nations developed a human rights framework that was to be used by all member states and nations. The UN’s Universal Declaration on Human Rights is a framework that was developed by the body to ensure that all human beings, irrespective of their gender, race, ethnicity, language, colour, creed, and nationality enjoy the inherent rights as declared in the chapter. The UN stated that by virtue of one being a human, they are entitled to these rights, and no authority whatsoever, has the power to deny or infringe on these fundamental liberties. According to the document, every person has the inalienable rights to equality (OHCHR, 2012). However, many scholars and critics have debated if it is possible for all people in the world, irrespective of the differences, to enjoy these rights, and indeed if it is possible to have a world where all people’s human rights are met. It is evident that the world has witnessed situations and events that have ultimately demonstrated that universal attainment of all fundamental rights and freedoms is not possible (Mensch, 2010). In fact, many experts state that it is a concept that is unrealistically ideal but not possible because of different social, economic, cultural, and political positions (Tharoor, 2000). It is on the basis of this notion that this paper argues that it is not possible to meet all people’s rights in the world. A Classic Philosophical Perspective of Human Rights The foundations of present human rights debate can be traced back to the natural law traditions. Philosophers like Plato developed some of the earliest defences of universal ethical standards or what you would call human rights. Plato separated the good and evil, the just, and an unjust, and the truth and the lie (Douzinas, 2000). Plato posited that a just community occurs when human rationality is linked to nature of the good, found in one’s soul. Plato’s perspective on justice resists customs and traditional views, which stated justice is always in the interest of the stronger player. Aristotle, a student of Plato, advanced the notion of natural law tradition by examining the value of justice and virtue in a political society, especially among the Greek and Roman Stoics (Hayden, 2001). These stoics developed the idea of a universal community of world citizens, implying that people who were alike should be treated alike, and the “unlike” should get different treatment. From this classical perspective, it is clear that the universality of human rights is an ideal concept, much away from the realities. Thomas Aquinas examined and affirmed universal laws and the equality of human beings before God (Douzinas, 2000). Aquinas attempted to link faith and rationality, and viewed human nature as directed by God in doing well and avoiding evil. Aquinas’s theory of natural law enhanced the supremacy of the church, especially the Catholic Church (Levinas, 2008). Therefore, rulers of the medieval order found justification in doing whatever they did, especially misrule, as long as they recognized church’s authority. With influence from Locke and Hobbes, natural law developed into natural rights of an individual, based on human nature as opposed to God’s purpose. Hobbes posits that pre-social man abides in a “state of nature” where he is free to do what he feels like doing, including harming others, because there are no laws in nature and, no right or wrong, and just or unjust (Hobbes,1958). However, for self-preservation, man agrees to form a social contract, and surrenders his unlimited freedoms and rights to a sovereign state. Therefore, an absolute regime comes into place because an individual surrenders their right to resist, and on the understanding that right to security is guaranteed by the state. For John Locke, man has a peaceful nature, and his desire for safety and happiness makes him to form a government, so that everyone is under an obligation to everyone in society and submit to the majority’s determination. For both Locke and Hobbes, the essence of the social contract between man and sovereign state is to escape evil (Hayek, 1978). Therefore, the concept human rights as postulated from the classical philosophical theories remains a paradox, as rights are trapped between the initial hope for a ideal or utopian “perfect or good society” and the reality that such a society does not exist (Hayden, 2001). Achieving a good society or world where all people’s rights are met is a utopia as postulated by these philosophers (Mensch, 2010). In fact, Hobbes and Locke state that anarchy is the ultimate freedom despite its dangers, and thus laws limiting these freedoms must exist. The formulation of such laws implies that a sovereign state must be formed (Mouffe, 2009). Imperatively, any kind of non-anarchical society must contain some oppression, and those oppressions border on the infringement of human rights, so that people can accept the laws and government ruling them. The French and American Revolution and their link to human rights The ideas of Locke, Hobbes, Aquinas, Aristotle, and even Plato were philosophical and no one took the time to develop them into laws. However, it required two well-known revolutions to enshrine the philosophical individual rights into human rights. For instance, during the French Revolution, a declaration concerning human rights was made, proclaiming that “in respect of their rights men are born free and equal.” The declaration went on to state that the purpose of every political formation is to preserve these natural and inalienable rights of man, his property, security, and resist any form of oppression (Hayden, 2001). On its part, the American declaration of Independence in 1776 was emphatic on natural rights, and proclaimed that “all men are created equal and endowed by the creator certain inalienable rights, and among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The independence declaration went on to postulate that in securing these rights, governments are formed among men and derive their just powers from the agreement of those governed (Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, 1776). Imperatively, these declarations claimed universal and inalienable rights, but stated that limitations to these rights must exist through laws passed by democratically elected institutions. The paradox of human rights- that rights are simultaneously liberating and restrictive is loud in these declarations. As posited by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, man is born free, but he stays in chains everywhere (Mensch, 2010). The paradoxical declaration of these rights by the two revolutionaries meant that only governments have the ability to determine those rights and to what extent they should be observed. Following these declarations little interest was developed in natural laws since most of the political discourses restricted conservations on these topics because they feared the memories of the eighteenth century revolutions (Burke, 2014). However, the horrors of the World War II, and the Holocaust, revived the idea of rights. In the post-WWII, legal positivism was high, especially during the Nuremberg Trials, the creation of the United Nations, and the subsequent adoption of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and even the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crime of Genocide. But what followed these promises of universalism was a world where anarchy ruled, with no one to safeguard the universality of these declarations (Moyn, 2010). The newly-created international law on human rights was paradoxical and overtly flawed. As its predecessor, the League of Nations, the United Nations failed to safeguard these universal rights, and had to create a delicate balance on state sovereignty, the great power order, and observations and protection of these fundamental rights (Brown & Ainley, 2009). The genocides witnessed after the Holocaust in the late twentieth century proved that indeed universalism had an opt-out facility when a conflict exists in national states, especially the protection of state interests, albeit political interests. The world witnessed genocide in Cambodia, Vietnam, Biafra, Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Guatemala as a demonstration that the idea of human rights is a utopia that cannot be achieved for all people around the world (Posner, 2014). For instance, the world watched, particularly the United Nations, and big powers like the United States and European Commission, as genocide took away the inherent and inalienable right to life of over one people in a tiny African country called Rwanda. In fact, it took time for nations like France, Belgium, and the United States to fully acknowledge that the crimes committed in Rwanda were genocide. In Europe, states and international community witnessed the ethnic cleansing of the Serbs and Albanians under the misrule of Slobodan Milosevic (Moyn, 2010). The international declaration on human rights reflected the much enthusiasm that had led the revolutionists in both France and the U.S in the eighteenth century to declare human rights for individuals, but also of a state, a contradiction that remains a scar on the international community, particularly the United Nations. The Contemporary World And Human Rights: Do They Work? More recently, the issue of human rights has cropped up in relation to fight against terrorism, especially after the 9/11 attacks on the United States. The concept of human rights goes beyond protection of the inherent and fundamental rights like life, liberty, and expression (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, n.d). Today, rights come from political, social, and economic discourses. Again, the issue of gender rights also arises when discussing human rights. In all these, terror and the war on terror has been used by countries, especially in the west to encourage oppressive laws aimed at treating the “unlike” differently. For instance, how does one justify the prison conditions for war suspects held by the U.S administration on Guantanamo Bay? While the United Nations states that human rights are part of customary international law, no evidence exists to indicate that indeed nations, especially in the war against terror, offer similar facilities to the terror suspects (Freedman, 2014). It follows that philosophical critique of human rights concept were right, since having universal rights is an ideal that is far from reality. Over seven decades since the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the world witnesses grave human rights abuses. The death of people in the Syrian conflict is a human rights violation (Freedman, 2014). The looting of property in Iraq, rapes and amputations in different corners of the conflict-obsessed Africa, and the repression of the dissent and poor-treatment of employees in China and other parts of Asia, are demonstrations that states and their agencies have failed to safeguard these rights. The United Nations remains largely a ceremonial body that cannot intervene in preventing these glaring atrocities. In countries like Mexico, beheadings and disappearances are the order of the day, while America continues with its torture and arbitrary detention of terror suspects on Guantanamo Bay. Additionally, Europe is riddled with racism and xenophobia while the United States continues to battle increased racial tensions, particularly after its last elections (Posner, 2014). In the Arab and Muslim world, the subjugation of women and the oppression of the LGBT cannot be overemphasized. These are demonstrations that the idea of having all people’s rights observed in the world is realistically impossible. The observation of human rights remains a paradox. The paradoxical value goes beyond what is considered good or evil, and no ultimate black or white exist in the application of these rights, only different shades of grey. The concept of human rights emerged as a critique to the oppression that people were facing, and their efforts to create an ideal utopian rights’ world where everyone’s rights are protected. However, these promises, especially in the twentieth century, resulted in polities and genocides (Dirzo et al., 2014). Today, human beings have ceased to believe in a paradise where human rights are protected by states and individuals. Today, the world has witnessed the subjugation of men, women, and children who are starved of the fundamental rights and the eventual extermination on earth. Therefore, these people are excluded from the supposedly inclusive global narrative of human rights because of cultural, social, economic, and political discourses that they cannot control (Tharoor, 2000). Imperatively, human rights can either be good or evil, and the attempt to attain equality in the rights narrative creates inequality through concealing lack of tolerance for the “unlike.” However, for proponents, the value paradox does not imply that human rights do not envision the existence of conflicts, especially between state laws and the inherent liberties arising from the natural state of man. They state that the protection of these rights is a fundamental aspect of the formation of states and regimes, yet these regimes fail to protect the rights of the people that they derive powers from. Proponents believe that the universal application of these rights may be hindered by cultural, social, and political discourses; it remains the responsibility of the state to provide necessary protection to the individuals (Lettinga & van Troost, 2014). The proponents criticize the philosophical perspective that nothing can be universal, and that rights and values are defined and limited by existing cultural perspectives. It follows that because the world has no universal culture, universal human rights cannot be achieved. As philosopher postulate, the concept of human rights is founded on humanistic view of the world where man considers himself as born free and the need for a state not to interfere in his affairs (Kao, 2011). However, such view is not only inconsistent with inherent cultural attributes of a community, but formed on the notion that one can only enjoy these rights at an individual level, even if it means harming others. Some conservative populations, especially those in the east and much of Africa, believe that that the concept of human rights is largely a Western ideology that cannot find place in their intricate traditions, right from their need to form governments and families (Hafner-Burton, 2013). They believe that their cultures should define these inherent and inalienable rights (Ignatieff, 2001). For some of these communities, duties are more important than rights. Among these communities, group rights as opposed to individual rights, are emphasized; a situation that defeats the notion of human rights and their universality. Conclusion It suffices to note that the possibility of having a universal application of human rights remains largely idealistic and impossible because of cultural, political, social, and economic persuasions in different parts of the world. Philosophers offered the initial application of rights, particularly, individual rights, which developed and evolved to form the fundamental universal rights as stated by the United Nations. However, the world has never lived to apply these rights, and their universality remains a subject of debate, criticism, and scholarly work. The position of this essay is that it is not possible to have a world where all people’s rights are met. References Brown, C. and Kirsten, A. (2009), Understanding International Relations, 4th edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Burke, S. (2014) ‘What an era of global protests says about the effectiveness of human rights as a language to achieve social change’, Sur. International Journal of Human Rights 11(20), pp. 27-33. Dirzo, R., H.S. Young, M. Galetti & G. Ceballos (2014) ‘Defaunation in the anthropocene’, Science vol.345, no.6195, pp. 401-406. Douzinas, C. (2000), The End of Human Rights. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing. Declaration of Independence of the United States of America (1776), reprinted in Hayden, P. (ed.) (2001), The Philosophy of Human Rights. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House. French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), reprinted in Hayden, P. (ed.) (2001), The Philosophy of Human Rights. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House. Freedman, R. (2014). “The lack of basic human rights around the world: a harrowing reality,” Independent. Accessed on March 23, 2017, from http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/the-lack-of-basic-human-rights-around-the-world-a-harrowing-reality-9913644.html Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2013). Making human rights a reality, Princeton: Princeton University Press Hayek, F. (1978). New studies in philosophy, politics, economics, and the history of ideas, London: Routledge Hayden, P. (ed.) (2001), The Philosophy of Human Rights. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House. Hobbes, T. (1958), Leviathan: Parts One and Two. New York: The Liberal Arts Press. Ignatieff, M. (2001). Human rights as politics and idolatry, Princeton (NJ/Oxford): Princeton University Press. Kao, G. (2011), Grounding Human Rights in a Pluralist World. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Lettinga, D. & L. van Troost (eds) (2014). Debating The endtimes of human rights: Activism and institutions in a neo-Westphalian world, Amsterdam: Amnesty International Netherlands. Levinas, E. (2008), Of God Who Comes To Mind. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Mensch, J.R. (2010). “A Theory of Human Rights,” Open Democracy. Accessed on March 23, 2017, from https://www.opendemocracy.net/james-r-mensch/theory-of-human-rights Mouffe, C. (2009). The democratic paradox, London: Verso Moyn, S (2010). The last Utopia. Human rights in history, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Mutua, M. (1996) ‘The ideology of human rights’, Virginia Journal of International Law, vol.36, pp. 589-658 Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (2015), Secret negotiations on trade treaties, a threat to human rights - UN expert, 23 April. Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15883&LangID=E. Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (2012). ‘Human Rights Indicators: Measurement and Implementation’, OHCHR Occasional Paper 6, HR/PUB/12/5. New York: OHCHR. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (n.d). “Human Rights, Terrorism and Counter-terrorism.” Accessed on March 23, 2017, from http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet32EN.pdf Posner, E. (2014).The twilight of human rights law, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Posner, E. (2014). “The case against human rights,” The Guardian. Accessed on March, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-against-human-rights Tharoor, S. (2000). “Are Human Rights Universal?” World Policy Journal-Word Policy, vol.XVI, no.4. Rubenstein, L. (2004) ‘How international human rights organizations can advance economic, social and cultural Rights: A response to Kenneth Roth, Human Rights Quarterly, vol.26, no.4, pp. 845- 865. Read More