Core principle of human rights

The principle of universality is arguably the most defining characteristic of modern human rights. It asserts that human rights are inherent to all human beings, simply because they are human, and are not granted by states or contingent upon nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social status, or any other characteristic. This principle is enshrined in the foundational documents of international human rights law and is considered non-negotiable.

Applicable to all persons, everywhere

The universality principle means that human rights are not limited by geographical location, cultural background, or political system. They apply to every person, in every country, at all times. This has several critical implications:

• Equality: Universality implies that all human beings are equal in their rights. No one has more or fewer human rights than another. This directly challenges historical injustices and discriminatory practices based on perceived differences.
• Non-discrimination: The principle demands that human rights must be enjoyed by everyone without discrimination of any kind. This is a cornerstone of both national constitutions (like the Indian Constitution's Articles 14, 15, 16) and international human rights treaties.
• Global Standard: Universality provides a common standard of conduct for states and other actors worldwide. It means that there is a globally recognised baseline for how individuals should be treated, regardless of where they live. This allows for international scrutiny and advocacy when rights are violated within any state's borders.
• Basis for International Action: The idea that rights are universal provides a moral and legal basis for the international community to address gross human rights violations occurring within individual states, as such violations are considered a matter of concern for all of humanity, not just the internal affair of that state.

Essentially, the universality of human rights means that a right, say the right to freedom from torture or the right to education, is held by a farmer in a village in Bihar just as much as by a software engineer in Bengaluru, a student in London, or a refugee in Syria. Their entitlement to these rights does not change based on their location or circumstances.

Arguments supporting universality

The principle of universality is supported by several philosophical, ethical, and legal arguments that seek to provide a robust foundation for the claim that human rights belong to everyone.

Based on human dignity

As discussed under Ethical Theories, a powerful argument for universality stems from the concept of human dignity. This view posits that human rights derive from the inherent, inalienable worth possessed by every human being. Since dignity is seen as a quality intrinsic to all members of the human species, it follows that the rights necessary to protect and affirm this dignity must also belong equally to all.

• This argument suggests that dignity is not something conferred by society or the state, but is an intrinsic aspect of being human. Therefore, the rights based on this dignity are also inherent and universal.
• Violating human rights is seen as an assault on a person's dignity. Because all humans possess dignity, they universally deserve protection from such violations and entitlements that affirm their worth.
• This perspective provides a strong moral intuition behind universality, appealing to a shared sense of what it means to be human and what minimum treatment is owed to every person.

The preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly links rights to "the inherent dignity... of all members of the human family," highlighting this foundational argument.

International consensus (UDHR)

Another powerful argument for universality is based on the international consensus achieved, particularly through the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948. Although initially a non-binding declaration, the UDHR is widely considered the cornerstone of international human rights law and has gained immense moral and legal authority over time.

• Broad Adoption: The UDHR was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly with 48 states in favour and none against (with 8 abstentions). At the time, these states represented a significant diversity of the world's legal, political, and cultural systems.
• Foundation for Treaties: The UDHR laid the groundwork for numerous legally binding international human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which have been ratified by the vast majority of countries globally, including India. Ratification signifies a state's legal commitment to uphold the rights contained within.
• Customary International Law: Many of the rights articulated in the UDHR are now considered part of customary international law, meaning they are binding on all states regardless of whether they have ratified specific treaties, because they represent a general practice accepted as law.
• Symbolic Power: The UDHR serves as a universal benchmark and a source of inspiration for national constitutions (including influencing elements of the Fundamental Rights chapter in the Indian Constitution) and human rights movements worldwide. Its nearly universal acceptance and influence demonstrate a global agreement on a minimum standard of human dignity and rights.

While debates about cultural relativism versus universality persist, the widespread ratification of human rights treaties and the global acceptance of the UDHR as a common standard provide strong evidence of an international political and legal consensus supporting the idea that human rights are not culturally specific but are indeed universal aspirations and entitlements.

Meaning and Concept

Cultural relativism in the context of human rights is a perspective that challenges the idea of universal, absolute standards of human rights. It argues that human rights norms and standards are not universally applicable in the same way across all cultures and societies. Instead, it asserts that the meaning, validity, and application of human rights should be interpreted and understood within the specific cultural, historical, and social context of a particular community or society.

This view stems from the broader philosophical concept of cultural relativism, which suggests that moral or ethical systems, along with social and cultural norms, are relative to the culture from which they originate. There is no objective, culture-independent standard by which to evaluate the norms of another culture.

Human rights norms should be interpreted in the context of particular cultures and traditions

The core assertion of cultural relativism regarding human rights is that the specific expression, prioritisation, and even the existence of certain rights are deeply intertwined with a society's values, traditions, history, and social structures. Therefore, judging the human rights practices of one culture based on the standards of another is seen as ethnocentric and potentially unfair.

Proponents of this view argue that:

• Different cultures have different conceptions of the individual, community, rights, and responsibilities. For instance, some cultures might place a stronger emphasis on community rights and collective welfare over individual liberties, while others prioritise individual autonomy.
• Certain practices that might appear to violate human rights from an external perspective might be deeply meaningful or functional within their specific cultural context. Examples often cited include traditional justice mechanisms, family structures, or specific social hierarchies.
• The language and framework of human rights, as primarily developed in the West, might not adequately capture or respect the ways in which dignity and well-being are understood and pursued in non-Western traditions.

For example, in some contexts in India, traditional dispute resolution mechanisms like the 'Panchayat' might be preferred over formal court systems, raising questions about how rights like due process are understood and implemented within these cultural frameworks. Similarly, discussions around community rights versus individual property rights in the context of tribal lands highlight the tension between universal rights frameworks and specific cultural contexts.

Cultural relativists contend that for human rights to be truly accepted and effective globally, they must be flexible enough to accommodate diverse cultural interpretations and applications, rather than imposing a single, rigid standard.

Arguments supporting cultural relativism

The cultural relativist perspective on human rights is supported by several arguments, primarily rooted in acknowledging global diversity and critiquing the historical origins of the dominant human rights framework.

Respect for diversity

A primary argument for cultural relativism is the need to respect the vast diversity of human cultures, traditions, and values that exist around the world. Cultures have developed unique ways of life, social organisation, and moral frameworks over centuries, shaped by their specific histories, environments, and beliefs. Imposing a single set of human rights standards, derived from a particular cultural background, is seen as disrespectful of this diversity.

This argument suggests that:

• Each culture is inherently valuable and possesses its own integrity.
• Judging another culture's practices based on one's own cultural norms (ethnocentrism) is intellectually flawed and morally suspect.
• Attempts to enforce universal human rights without regard for cultural context can be perceived as a form of cultural imperialism, undermining local traditions and self-determination.

Cultural relativists argue that focusing solely on universalism risks overlooking or devaluing the ways different societies understand concepts like justice, fairness, community welfare, and individual well-being within their own cultural logic. For example, while freedom of expression is a universal right, its permissible limits might be understood differently in societies that place a very high value on social harmony and respect for elders or religious sentiments compared to those that prioritise individual dissent more strongly.

Critique of Western imposition

Another significant argument supporting cultural relativism is the critique that the dominant international human rights framework is largely a product of Western philosophical and historical traditions and represents an imposition of Western values on non-Western societies. The concepts of individual autonomy, liberal freedoms, and specific legal structures embedded in key human rights documents are seen by critics as originating from Enlightenment thought and post-WWII Western political concerns.

This critique highlights:

• Historical Origins: Key milestones in the development of rights concepts (like the Magna Carta, the American Declaration of Independence, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man) arose from specific European and North American historical struggles.
• Philosophical Basis: The emphasis on individual rights is often linked to Western liberal philosophy, potentially downplaying communal rights or duties which might be more central in many Asian, African, or Latin American cultures.
• Power Dynamics: The international human rights movement and institutions are often dominated by Western states and organisations, leading to concerns that the interpretation and enforcement of rights can serve the political or economic interests of powerful nations.
• Selective Application: Critics point to instances where Western states might selectively apply human rights standards based on their foreign policy interests, further supporting the idea that the framework is not a neutral, universal standard but a tool potentially subject to political manipulation.

From this perspective, promoting universal human rights without acknowledging and addressing their specific historical and cultural origins risks appearing as a new form of colonialism, replacing direct political control with the imposition of cultural and legal norms. They argue for the need to indigenise human rights or develop alternative frameworks that are more resonant with local values and traditions.

Debate and Reconciliation

The tension between the universality of human rights and the arguments for cultural relativism is one of the most enduring and complex debates in the field. While some view them as fundamentally opposed, others seek ways to reconcile these perspectives to create a more nuanced and effective approach to human rights globally.

Balancing universality with cultural context

Finding a balance involves acknowledging the validity of certain universal human rights standards while also recognising the importance of cultural context in their interpretation and implementation. This is not about saying "anything goes" in the name of culture, but rather understanding how universal principles can be applied sensitively and effectively in diverse settings.

Approaches to reconciling universality and cultural relativism include:

• Identifying a Universal Core: Many argue that while the *application* of rights might vary, there is a non-negotiable core of fundamental human rights (often linked to physical integrity and basic dignity, such as freedom from torture, slavery, arbitrary killing, genocide) that must be universally respected, regardless of cultural claims. These are often considered non-derogable rights.
• Distinguishing Principles from Practices: It's possible to uphold the universal principle (e.g., the right to a fair trial) while allowing for variations in specific practices or institutions that deliver that right, provided they meet minimum standards of fairness and justice within the cultural context.
• Culture as Dynamic: Cultures are not static; they evolve. Furthermore, within any culture, there are often diverse viewpoints and internal disagreements about traditional practices, especially concerning the rights of women, children, or minorities. Appeals to "culture" should not be used by dominant groups or states to suppress internal dissent or perpetuate harmful practices.
• Dialogue and Participation: The process of defining and implementing human rights should involve inclusive dialogue across cultures and meaningful participation from within the communities concerned. This helps ensure that human rights resonate locally and are not seen as external impositions.
• The Vienna Declaration (1993): The World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna explicitly addressed this tension. While reaffirming the "universal nature of these rights and freedoms," the Vienna Declaration also acknowledged that "while the significance of national and regional peculiarities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms." This formulation represents a widely accepted attempt at balancing universality and context.

In practice, navigating this balance is crucial. For example, addressing the issue of child marriage in some cultural contexts in India requires upholding the universal right of the child to protection and education (challenging the practice) while also engaging with community leaders, religious scholars, and families within their cultural framework to bring about change, rather than simply imposing bans from outside.

Ultimately, reconciling universality and cultural relativism involves a commitment to a common standard of human dignity while being open to understanding the diverse ways in which that dignity can be affirmed and protected across the rich tapestry of global cultures. It requires continuous dialogue, critical self-reflection, and a focus on combating practices that cause genuine harm, regardless of cultural justification.