Debate on ‘universal’ versus ‘value specific’ rights and its implications

Insistence on universality of the contents of human rights and their being applicable to all, irrespective of social, cultural and religious context, has led to controversy. Firstly, the evolution of human rights in terms of content has led to the debate on values and culture specific rights versus universal rights. Secondly, there may be contradiction between first and the second generation rights or between these two and the third generation rights. Thirdly, gender bias of assumptions of human rights has also been pointed out by the feminist activists.

The universality of human rights has been questioned or has come in controversy on different counts. Some of the rights incorporated in the Universal Declaration, for example, ‘freedom to change and practice the religion of one’s choice’ [Article 18] generated controversy. Some countries such as Saudi Arabia objected to this particular provision on the ground that this contravened not only the national law of Saudi Arabia but also the tenet of Islam.⁸⁴ Though it can be argued that religion being a matter of conscience and faith and also given the multi-religious nature of contemporary societies, the right incorporated in the Universal Declaration appears reasonable. However, operation of this right has been a matter of controversy in India also. A section of people have argued that ‘freedom to change and practise the religion of one’s choice’ has led to ‘forcible’ and ‘manipulative’ instances of religious conversions. This issue has at times led to communal tensions in India. Certain human rights, which appear universal, may at times be a matter of controversy and tension in societies.

A second argument deals with disjunction between universal standards and culturally specific values that determines rights. Cultural relativism has been invoked to support the argument of rights based on specific values. There have been criticisms of universalistic claims of human rights that have Western liberal imprint against the cultural particularity of rights and the values of other societies. Of particular interest is the emphasis on ‘Asian values’, as against the universality claim of ‘Western values’. Some of the Asian countries in particular Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore in early 1990s put forward what Clayton and Tomlinson says, ‘cultural challenge to human rights’. They argue that ‘international human rights law should not necessarily be applied to them because it was Western and did not conform to Asian culture …’⁸⁵ China has also voiced such concerns. It has been argued that Western notion of human rights are excessively individualists and insist on rights as opposed to family values of Asian societies which also account for duties. Further, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia regarded the West as ‘decadent’ and has cited the trend reflected in gay rights as unacceptable.⁸⁶ The Bangkok Declaration, 1993 of regional meeting of Asian ministers as run up to the World Conference on Human Rights at Vienna reflected the concern implied in the Asian values debate.

Human rights, as an instrument, have also been part of a negotiating position in the World Trade Organization. Many Asian countries have felt that the Western industrial countries have used or are using human rights as a mechanism to work against the trade leverage that many Asian countries enjoy otherwise. For example, the stick of ‘non-trade barriers’ such as alleged use of child labour can be cited for putting restriction on imports from many Asian countries.

Non-governmental groups in 1984 adopted the Declaration of Principles of Indigenous Rights at Panama at the World Council of Indigenous Peoples. The Declaration advocates preservation of traditions, customs, institutions and practices of indigenous peoples. Chris Brown has pointed out that many of these contradict the contemporary liberal norms. In fact, African Charter, 1981 cited above implies that rights of one people would be different from the rights of other people, thereby challenging the universality claim of human rights.

Feminist critique has also emerged as one of the strongest critique of human rights debates. First generation of rights, in the nature of civil and political rights, focused on freedom of speech, assembly, vote, etc. and assumed that these rights are for active citizenship. But recall when women got voting right in many countries; in England, women were granted right to vote only at the end of the First World War.