Human Rights in a Globalized World: Universalism or Relativity

This analysis will not make the case for any human being having their rights stripped from them but rather will consider whether a universal approach to the formulation and application of human rights suits the current global order. Specific consideration will be given to three key arguments, firstly; that being human means that rights are self-evident, meaning universality should be favored, the second; exploring the need for moderate sensitivity to cultural differences, and lastly, arguing that a completely nuanced, case-by-case basis is required to fully create equity amongst all peoples worldwide.

In arguing for universality over relativity, the universality of human life should be considered. Above any characteristic of race, gender identity, religion, or nationality, the characteristics of being human are universal, so the rights they hold should be too. No human life can be weighed against another. In a globalized, cosmopolitan world, outdated traditions that blatantly causes injury and death have no place. Individuals should never be bound by traditions based on their birth's circumstantial geography or religion if they do not wish to be. An adolescent girl raised in Afghanistan, born into a community practicing forced marriage, should be granted the same protections from this, as an adolescent girl for example. If cultural relativity is realized, authoritarian regimes may use the guise of tradition to cover up, or even justify human rights abuses, for example, authoritarian states such as Sudan and Eritrea fail to tackle Female Genital Mutilation, justifying it as an important cultural practice.

According to the view of universalists, the broad, non-prescriptive nature of non-legally binding documents such as the UDHR should also allow space for cultural and religious diversity, allowing space for any practices that do not cause any harm, to continue.

By their very nature, human rights are self-evident, as the status of possessing humanity grants, or should grant, access to them. The universality of human rights simply reflects humanity, and as such are inseparably intertwined.

There is a case for a broader set of human rights, with inbuilt cultural sensitivity. Cultural relativists condemn human rights legislation for possessing masculinist and Western-centric biases, and for privileging one moral code over others, arguing that documents like the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) take a Western-centric approach in their ideals and fail to account for traditional. The Universalism of the UDHR leaves much to be desired in its recognition of diverse practices.

The UDHR contains no specific entitlements to state support or intervention but rather provides the right to be free from specific atrocities or indignities. Therefore, human rights can be applied to every situation, but with the balance between tradition and human rights maintained. This approach allows for universalism to be reimagined to fit a cosmopolitanism world.

However, Raymond Williams argues that culture is extremely complicated, and is ever-changing, (Williams, 1976 Pg. 87). It is difficult for any authority to permit some cultural practices over others. This echoes historical colonialism and racism, which sets out some traditions and religions as superior to others. This creates immense difficulties for the implementation of cultural relativism.

Given that tradition changes, cultural practices that cause pain, suffering, and death should no longer be tenable under modern human rights bills. The danger of allowing cultural relativity is that allowances might be made for these practices, under the guises of sensitivity. In an age with higher levels of religious freedom, and freedom from religion than centuries preceding, it should no longer be justifiable to cling to traditions that violate human rights. It would be reasonable, however, to modernize current declarations to fit a globalized worldview, however, a chord must be struck between tolerance of tradition, versus human rights.

In examining the case against the application of human rights universality, issues of constituency in application and implementation must be considered. This argument calls for a nuanced approach, balancing elements of race, culture, and religion, rather than the blanket implementation of human rights laws, which often ignore cultural dissimilarities. This approach rejects universality, requiring a case-by-case, nuanced approach, to promote consistent uptake, especially given the non-binding nature of major human rights legislation.

Historically, there have been issues with the consistency of application, and intervention. The United Nations often attempts to involve itself in cases of state-sponsored human rights abuse, such as in Somalia in 1960, and in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995.

Criticism of the UN's approach is leveled due to the inconsistency in their intervention. Patterns in interventions show the United Nations involving themselves in situations only where a success story is likely, and atrocities are sometimes overlooked in places where the state is deemed too powerful to challenge, for example, human rights abuses against the LGBTQ community in Chechnya, Russia, in the 2010s. This is particularly significant because Russia is considered one of three major world powers, with the USA and China. This argument believes regimes such as Russia could be more accepting of implementing a human rights approach tailored to their attitudes and customs.

Universalism is fundamental in achieving true equality, and in promoting unalienable access to human rights. Due to the ever-changing complexities of culture, it is simply impossible to implement cultural relativism. Providing every state with a tailored approach would allow for human rights abuses, such as FGM and forced marriage to slip under the radar, in the guise of tradition.

Undeniably, documents such as the UDHR are lacking in provision for our globalized, 21st-century society, and such legislation is consistently accused of being western-centric and biased. However, flaws in the current implementation of universalism do not lend credit to cultural relativity, which provides more opportunities for human rights abuses to go unchecked. Despite sensitivity to tradition and religion being important in the modern age, tradition, if it does not cause harm to human life should be able to balance with comprehensive, universal human rights.