Human rights represent certain set norms that are set to safeguard all human beings across the globe against incidents of any type of abuse be it political related, infringement of the law, and those of social ascent. Following the recognition of the ultimate importance of human right, the General Assembly of the United Nations came up with a document that seek to officially denote the recognition of human rights as a universal affair. The UDHR resolution meant that it was to be used even in national courts to ensure issues that were human rights related were keenly followed. Following the declaration, criticism has continually rocked the applicability of the resolutions universally across all the nations. Opposers to the declaration cite several issues that they believe hinder its applicability as a universal law as this paper will discuss below.
There has been a lot of argument based on philosophical knowledge that it is almost next to impossible to find a universally acceptable stand. Kennedy states in his article that their argument is based on the understanding that human rights and the values upheld by a people are as a result of cultural inclinations and hence with the numerous different cultures that exist in the world today, finding a commonly acceptable ground is unattainable. Individuals for this view assert that there exist no particular universally agreed upon culture which only sounds right to therefore declare that consequently there can’t be any human rights that can be accepted across the globe. Examples in disparities in the cultures are best presented by the fact that the African cultures have a system where the group takes the first priority as opposed to the individual’s rights being prioritized. Some rights outlined in the 1948 Declaration are said to be irrelevant in some societies like the third world nations. Examples of these are women’s rights, right to paid leaves among others. In some societies for instance, women have very limited rights and this has always been the tradition (105).
Another point of criticism to the declaration of human rights as universal is an argument on the diversity of the religions. The world today consists of a variety of religions spread across the globe and each of which brings with it clearly spelt out guidelines concerning the judgment on the followers based on the spelt out doctrines of the specific religion. For this reason, several religious allied groups have declared their denial fro the universal human rights. The Islamic nations for example have taken issues with the declaration saying it is not representative of the Muslims. For example, Iranians through their UN representative denounced the universal human rights issue branding it Judeo-Christian driven and therefore practicing it in full would mean violating the Islamic law at some point. They instead advocate for a system where the right are regulated in reference to the Islamic Shari’ah.
A third point of criticism for the universal human rights is expressed by those who are of the view that the supporters of the same have hidden motive of vested interest. The claims are that there are leaders who are running their countries authoritatively and are actually in support of doing away with the traditional manner of dealing with the human rights as dictated by their culture, especially if eliminating the cultural tradition favors their personal interests. An example here was the establishment of the colonial rule and introduction of westernized culture. The colonialists especially in Africa knew precisely that the more successful they were in trying to suppress the traditional cultural beliefs among the natives; the better it would be for them to advance their agendas. Those opposed to the universal human rights believe that each culture is dynamic and this call for the appropriate change in accordance to the influence of the internal as well as the external forces. They also argue that this transition should occur naturally and not crafted as in the case of application of the universal human rights laws. “If made out, these consequences would, of course, need to be weighed against the good achieved to see whether either the broad human rights movement or any particular initiative undertaken in its name was more part of the problem than the solution.” (Kennedy 107)
In conclusion, the constant resistance that has continued to face the universal human rights declaration of 1948 is a clear show that despite the efforts to have universal human rights, there are still diversities that stand in the way of even application of the law as it violates what the people already stand for. If the human rights are to be made acceptable universally, it will take a lot of efforts in trying to harmonize the different views held by the diverse peoples of the world.
Works Cited
Kennedy, David.” The International Human Rights Movement: Part of the Problem?” Harvard Human Rights Journal 15.1 (2002): 102-125.