A Western model of human rights?“Our single most important challenge is therefore to help establish

a social order in which the freedom of the individual will truly mean

the freedom of the individual. We must construct that people-

centred society of freedom in such a manner that it guarantees the

political liberties and the human rights of all our citizens.”

Nelson Mandela

Introduction

The question on universality of human rights re-emerged during the

20th century with the UN Declaration of Human rights on the belief

that the basic values and principles underlying the concept of

human rights are of a universal nature. After the Second World War

politicians and civil society came to realize that national

schemes for the protection of human rights did not be enough.

Largely through the ongoing work of the United Nations, the

universality of human rights has been clearly established and

recognized in international law. All Member States of the UN have

a legal obligation to promote and protect human rights, regardless

of particular cultural perspectives.1 “Universal human rights do not

impose one cultural standard, rather one legal standard of minimum protection necessary

for human dignity. As a legal standard adopted through the United Nations, universal

1 For example, Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Cfr. Also Joe Derry-Malone, Are human rights universal’, in e-International Relationshttp://www.e-ir.info/2012/10/04/are-human-rights-universal/ ; Shashi Tharoor, Are Human Rights Universal?,in WORLD POLICY JOURNAL http://www.worldpolicy.org/tharoor.html

human rights represent the hard-won consensus of the international community, not the

cultural imperialism of any particular region or set of traditions.”2

Western model of human rights

Having read the Declaration, human rights are characterized by

being:

Inherent in all human beings by virtue of their humanity

alone (they do not have, e.g., to be purchased or to be

granted) and equally applicable to all universal human

nature common to all the peoples

Inalienable (within qualified legal boundaries) dignity of

the individual

The main duties deriving from human rights fall on states and

their authorities or agents, not on individuals: human rights must

themselves be protected by law. Furthermore, any disputes about

these rights should be submitted for adjudication through a

competent, impartial and independent tribunal, applying procedures

which ensure full equality and fairness to all the parties, and

determining the question in accordance with clear, specific and

pre-existing laws, known to the public and openly declared. The

specific nature of human rights, as an essential precondition for

human development, implies that they can have a bearing on

relations both between the individual and the state, and between

individuals themselves (vertical effect and horizontal effect).

That vision of human rights implies a democratic social order.

2 United Nations Background Note, The Challenge of Human Rights and Cultural Diversity, by Diana Ayton-Shenker http://www.un.org/rights/dpi1627e.htm

Natural law vs. relativism

The concept of Natural law is based on a system of laws that is

supposed to be determined by nature, and thus universal. On the

one hand, the natural law tradition claims an unconditional

authority of some basic normative principles which are supposed to

be prior to human legislation and in this sense "natural" as

opposed to merely artificial.3 On the other hand, normative

principles are thought to be "natural" in the sense of being

understandable without explicit reference to a divine revelation

and thus applicable also to people outside of the dominant

religious tradition.4

On the contrary, postcolonial critics contest the idea of rights

as universally applicable and argue the relativity of human

rights. The so-called “universal” human rights are expressive of

Western cultural particularity. The debate often turns on the idea

that, though rights are said to have universal validity, they

originate in the West and in some sense express Western interests.

The ideology postulated by States on cultural relativism is geared

towards countering Western philosophy of rights or Western

cultural model. But, Universal Declaration of Human rights was

not based on any particular ideology but on comprise and practice.

In fact, both western and non-western ideologies agree on the

dignity of human person. There are points in cultural practices

where conflict may exist between human rights and cultural values.

The cultural values on their however does not form the thrust of

3 A good example in Sophocles' Antigone4 Under this assumption, Bartolomé de Las Casas, a member of the Dominicanorder, became an ardent defender of the "natural rights" of non-ChristianIndians in South America.

the universalism debate. The debate is more focused on States and

respect for human rights and individual freedom.

History of human rights

There are good reasons to assume that the genesis of the idea of

human rights can - in one way or another - be linked to the

religious, philosophical, and cultural sources of the Occidental

tradition. This tradition provides indeed a number of

humanitarian, emancipator, egalitarian, and universalistic motifs

which might have helped to shape the modern principles of human

rights.

Jewish-Christian thought: the dignity of human being derives

from God. This idea is reflected in the Biblical imagine that

all human beings have equally been "created in the image of God"

(Genesis 1:27) and thus been endowed with an unalienable

dignity. Also in Psalm 8 the singer, overwhelmed and struck

down by the magnificence of creation, turns to God wondering:

"What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest

him? For thou hast made him little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him

with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy

hands; thou hast put all things under his feet" (Psalm 8:4-6). In the New

Testament the principle of equality before God erases social

and ethnic difference.5

The ancient Stoicism: Stoicism has provided the metaphysical

basis for the concepts of human dignity and human rights.6 The

Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, one of the most prominent

5 Thus St. Paul emphasizes: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).6 Georg Picht, "Zum geistesgeschichtlichen Hintergrund der Lehre von den Menschenrechten,"

Stoic authors, teaches that the human spirit emerges from

divinity. He further points out that all human beings

intimately belong together, by their common participation in

the divine λόγος (logos)7.

Human rights’ Charters: Magna Charta Libertatum of 1215, the

Golden Bull of Hungary (1222), the Joyeuse Entrée of 1356 in

Brabant (Brussels), the Union of Utrecht of 1579 (The

Netherlands) and the English Bill of Rights of 1689 specified

rights which could be claimed in the light of particular

circumstances (e.g., threats to the freedom of religion), but

they did not yet contain an all-embracing philosophical

concept of individual liberty.

The School of Salamanca: in XV e XVI centuries, Spanish

theologians (Francisco de Vitoria and Bartolomé de las Casas)

laid the (doctrinal) foundation for the recognition of

freedom and dignity of all humans by defending the personal

rights of the indigenous peoples inhabiting the territories

colonized by the Spanish Crown.

The Enlightenment: The ideas of Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), of

Samuel von Pufendorf (1632-1694), of John Locke (1632-1704)

and of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) attracted much

interest in Europe in the 18th century. Locke, for instance,

developed a comprehensive concept of natural rights; his list

of rights consisting of life, liberty and property. Jean-

Jacques Rousseau elaborated the concept under which the

7 Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, The Communings with Himself. Revised Text and Translation into English by C.R. Haines (Cambridge/Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987), p. 335: "And thou forgettest how strong is the kinship between manand mankind, for it is a community not of corpuscles, or seed or blood, but of intelligence. And thou forgettest this too, that each man's intelligence is God and has emanated from Him ..."

sovereign derived his powers and the citizens their rights

from a social contract. The term human rights appeared for

the first time in the French Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du

Citoyen (1789), which, as well as the French Constitution of

1793, reflected the emerging international theory of

universal rights.

The American Declaration of Independence of 4 July 1776 was

based on the assumption that all human beings are equal. It

also referred to certain inalienable rights, such as the

right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Both the

American and French Declarations were intended as systematic

enumerations of these rights.

Industrialization: At the end of the 19th century, the

industrial countries, above all United Kingdom, began to

introduce labour legislation, which had the effect of

worsening the competitive position in relation to countries

that had no labour laws. Economic necessity forced the states

to consult each other. The Bern Convention of 1906 is the

first convention meant to safeguard social rights. Many more

labour conventions were later to be drawn up by the

International Labour Organisation (ILO), founded in 1919.

United Nations: The atrocities of World War II put an end to

the traditional view that states have full liberty to decide

the treatment of their own citizens. The signing of the

Charter of the United Nations (UN) on 26 June 1945 brought

human rights within the sphere of international law. In

particular, all UN members agreed to take measures to protect

human rights. The Charter contains a number of articles

specifically referring to human rights. The UN Commission on

Human Rights, established early in 1946, submitted a draft

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to the UN

General Assembly.

Comparison with other models

That is in general term the physiognomy of the so-called “Western

model of human rights”. Analysing other model s let us understand

why many scholars endorse the relativism’s theory. In some

cultures, the system of values is really at variance with the

scheme settled in Universal Declaration. I think that asking

whether “Western model” is relevant for non-Western cultures is

very sensible.

Africa

There is a strong link between the development of human rights in

Africa and the colonialism. Actually, the values of African

cultures are far from those imparted by European people (which

compose the most significant part of the Universal Declaration).

On a factual basis the African values has been deep into communal

living, the individual been part and parcel of the community.8 One

of the most relevant documents referring to human rights, African

Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, adopted June 27, 1981, stresses not

on individual human rights, but on people’s rights. This is

generated, from an historical point of view, by the long domination of

European colonists (art. 20 “All peoples shall have the right to

the assistance of the States parties to the present Charter in

8 For example in Africa the decision to marry is not that of the girl but that of the family and clan, sometimes the community at large depending on the statusof the family. Individual exercise of free choice in this respect will be seen as a flagrant disrespect for elders and family. To claim such a right would affect bonds established in family and society.

their liberation struggle against foreign domination, be it

political, economic or cultural.”) and, from a structural point of

view, by the typical African society, based on communities

(family, tribe, nation, State). From this point of view, we can

understand why the Charter list the “duties” of individual

(art.29), instead of the “rights”.

Many consequences derive from this historical and cultural “gap”.

From the natives’ point of view, firstly, it is not possible to

notice the contrast between the concept of self-determination as a

right of each nation, elaborated by European scholars, and its

effective application in African states. The Universal Declaration

differs a lot with the reality: European colonialist did not

recognize the right of self-determination for many years. The

second contrast is between the idea of equality and non-

discrimination because of race, ethnic or religion and the lasting

racism all over the world and the phenomena of apartheid in

Southern Africa. How was it possible to talk about freedom of

individual, when in day life people were discriminated for the

colour of their skin, for their background or their religion? On

the other hand, from “Western” point of view, universal human

rights, as listed in Universal Declaration, can not be in conflict

with cultural values and norms, in Africa, instead, there are

many contrasts with the various cultural practices that violate

human rights. For example in Ghana and Togo the traditional

practice of Trokosi is a gross violation of rights of a child and

women. Trokosi is the pledging of girls, sometimes from infancy as

payments for crimes committed by male members of the family.

Another example in the Almanjiri practice in Northern Nigeria,

this is the process of giving up children as young as 4years old

to the Iman or spiritual leader, they are taught the Koran, and

made to beg for alms in the street. They carry bowls and beg for

food, sometimes eating leftovers from people’s plate at

restaurants. This practice takes away the essence of childhood, is

a form of slavery and against the dignity of the human person.

Middle East: Islamic Tradition

It is a trivial observation that religion constitutes merely one

component within a whole range of political, economic, social, and

cultural factors which inhibit or foster the implementation of

human rights in Middle East. When it comes to Islamic countries,

however, this maxim seems worth recalling, because Islamic

religion and culture is often portrayed as being the chief

obstacle to an improvement of the troubling human rights situation

in some of these countries.

One can hardly deny that the relationship between Islam and human

rights is complicated and raises a number of problems. These

problems do not derive from Islam per se but have to do with

traditional or fundamentalist interpretations of the Shariah9.

Shariah is the Islamic religious law that governs not only

religious rituals, but aspects of day-to-day life in Islam.

Sharia, literally translated, means "the way." There is extreme

9 The Islamic tradition - like other major religious traditions - does not consist of, or derive from, a single source. Most Muslims if questioned about its sources are likely to refer to more than one of the following: the Qur'an orthe Book of Revelation which Muslims believe to be God's Word transmitted through the agency of Angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad; Sunnah or the practical traditions of the Prophet Muhammad; Hadith or the oral sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad; Fiqh (Jurisprudence) or Madahib (Schools of Law); and the Shari'ah or code of law which regulates the diverse aspects of a Muslim's life.

variation in how Sharia is interpreted and implemented among and

within Muslim societies today.10

Concrete conflicts focus on primarily around questions of gender

equality and religious liberty. Although acknowledging woman's

legal personality, the traditional Shariah did not include the

principle of equality in rights for men and women.11 Further,

despite the Islamic tradition of religious tolerance, some forms

of discrimination against religious minorities - such as

restrictions on inter-religious marriages - are still legally in

force in most Islamic countries today. Another infringement on

religious liberty stems from the Shariah ban on "apostasy." There

is a minority of Islamic countries -- like Iran, Sudan, and Saudi-

Arabia -- in which apostates from Islam are threatened by capital

punishment. But even in those more "moderate" countries in which

the death penalty for conversion from Islam to another religion no

longer exists, other legal sanctions - including enforced

dissolution of the convert's marriage - run counter to the human

right to adopt a religion on the basis of a person's free

decision. More recent pragmatic interpretation of the Shariah has

helped to bring about a tradition of religious tolerance. But this

traditional Islamic tolerance should not be equated with religious

liberty in the modern understanding of human rights, because

traditional tolerance does not imply equality of rights.

Representatives of the traditionalist or fundamentalist currents

of Islam typically claim that human rights have always been

recognized in the Islamic Shariah which, due to its divine origin,

provides an absolute foundation for protecting the rights and

10 http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shariah.asp 11 It was on this basis that Suadi Arabi absented from the UN Declaration becauseequality in marriage was seen as against the Islamic religion.

duties of every human being12. The Qur'an, which is the main source

of the Shariah, repeatedly emphasizes the dignity of the human

person. According to Sura 2:30, God has called upon Adam to act as

his deputy (khalifa) on earth, thus giving him a special rank

above all other creatures. Along a similar line, Sura 17:70

emphasizes that God has honoured the children of Adam.

An example of this tendency is the Declaration of Human Rights in

Islam13, adopted by the foreign ministers of the Organization of

the Islamic Conference, at the 1990 annual session of the OIC held

in Cairo. In article 1 the Cairo Declaration emphasizes that all

human beings are "equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic

obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on

the grounds of race, colour, language, sex, religious belief,

political affiliation, social status or other considerations." But

equality in dignity is not clearly connected to claims of equal

rights.14 The same idea is present in the Preamble of Arab Charter

12 The central role of the Islamic Shariah, primarily understood as an ethical and religious concept rather than a legalistic one, as both the frame of reference and the guideline of interpretation of the Cairo Declaration manifestsitself throughout the document, especially in its two final articles which state: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shariah." (art. 24) "The Islamic Shariah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration." (art 25). 13 The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) is a declaration of themember states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference adopted in Cairo in 1990, which provides an overview on the Islamic perspective on human rights, andaffirms Islamic Shari'ah as its sole source. CDHRI declares its purpose to be "general guidance for Member States [of the OIC] in the Field of human rights". This declaration is usually seen as an Islamic response to the post-World War IIUnited Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948.14 What is striking in article 5, which also deals with family matters, is the formulation that the right to marry and build a family should not be restricted according to criteria "stemming from race, colour or nationality." What is missing in this formulation is a rejection of restrictions based on religious difference. Even more troubling is article 10 which not only gives Islam a privileged status superior to all other religions, but also seems to ban missionary work among Muslims. The article reads as follows: "Islam is the

on Human Rights, adopted on 15 September 1994. The geopolitical

identity is delineated from the start: “Given the Arab nation's

belief in human dignity since God honoured it by making the Arab World the

cradle of religions and the birthplace of civilizations which confirmed its right

to a life of dignity based on freedom, justice and peace; pursuant

to the eternal principles of brotherhood and equality among all

human beings which were firmly established by the Islamic Shari'a and the other

divinely-revealed religions”. The principles of equality,

fundamental in Western Charters, is mentioned, but not applied

(women and dhimmi). About this, the historian M. Ignatieff, in Una

ragionevole apologia dei diritti umani, says: “The rights, set out in

Universal Declaration, do not make sense in a political thought,

from theocratic assumption, such as the Islamic. (…) In the

Islamic view, the rule, which universalizes rights, constitutes an

individual as sovereign and independent; blasphemy, from the point

of view of the holy Qur'an.” In Muslim countries such as Pakistan,

for instance, it is often remarked by secular-minded proponents of

human rights that it is not meaningful to talk about human rights

in Islam because as a religious tradition, Islam has supported

values and structures which are incompatible with the assumptions

which underlie the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Asia

It is not possible to identify a unique system of values in Asia.

To make my exposition more clear, I would distinct and examine

only some of the main tradition, referring to human rights.

JAPANreligion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert himto another religion or to atheism."

The human rights’ tradition in Japan is influenced by those of

United States, after the Second World War. Although the post-war

Japanese Constitution is modulate on Universal Declaration and

American Constitution, it has maintained specific tracts of local

culture. For example, article 13 ratifies the individuality of

human rights and list some of them as in UN Constitution (“All of

the people shall be respected as individuals. Their right to life,

liberty, and the pursuit of happiness shall (…) to be the supreme

consideration in legislation and in other governmental affairs.”).

At the same time it introduces a major limit to these rights: the

public interests (“…,to the extent that it does not interfere with

the public welfare,…”). Moreover, as in American constitutional

tradition, social rights are not seen as judicial norm, but as

political goals, as it is sanctioned in article 25: “All people

shall have the right to maintain the minimum standards of

wholesome and cultured living.

In all spheres of life, the State shall use its endeavours for the

promotion and extension of social welfare and security, and of

public health.” This is connected also with the antipathy of the

general public toward the assertion of rights by minorities in

Japanese society: Japanese people often see the groups of

individuals with different needs or rights as disrupters of group

harmony.

SINGAPORE, MALAYSIA and SOUTHEAST ASIA

Singapore and Malaysia share a similar system of values and an

analogous history, so they have many characteristics in common:

both are ex British colonies15; both are racial divided societies16;

15 They inherit the British juridical system (common law system)16

both have experienced the threat of communist subversion and a

great economic development; both have a not effective democratic

system.

In those two countries it’s very popular the doctrine of “Asian

values” (priority to economic development, social and racial

harmony, effective governance and political stability rather than

liberty of the person, freedoms of speech, association and

religion). This theory subordinates civil and political rights to

social, economic and cultural rights. Moreover, the Confucian

virtues of obedience, order, and respect for authority prompt the

citizens to reach objectives as nation building, economic

development, and consolidation of the state. Indeed citizens’

rights are inseparable from their duties.

Also in other countries (Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia..), in

the process of consolidating liberal constitutional democracy,

there is a widespread diffusion of “Asian values”. But, on one

Malaysia’s

Ethnic groups50.4% Malay

23.7% Chinese

11.0% Indigenous

7.1% Indian

7.8% others Singapore’s

Ethnic groups74.2% Chinese

13.3% Malay

9.2% Indian

3.3% others

hand, the application of those values do not reduce problems as

poverty and corruption. On the other hand, also human rights are

largely used rhetorically, by the supporter of populism,

contrasting with pre-existing culture, mentality, values.

NORTH KOREA17

North Korea is formally a “democratic people’s republic”, based on

the “Juche thought”18, but in reality there is a governing party,

which removes every form of political or cultural dissent. The

ideology of North Korea is inspired by Marx’s theory. Referring to

human rights, Marx argued that the 1789 French declaration had

propagated merely the rights of an isolated and selfish

individual: "The human right of freedom is not based on the

community of man with man, it is based on the separation of man

from man. It is the right of separation, i.e., the right of an

individual completely confined to himself."19 Following this vision

of human rights, Article 81 of the North Korean Constitution

argues: “(1) Citizens shall firmly safeguard the political and

ideological unity and solidarity of the people. (2) Citizens must

value organizations and collectives, and must demonstrate the

spirit of devoting themselves to the work for the society and the

people.”. And Article 82: “Citizens shall strictly observe the

17 The *human rights situation in North Korea. - Seoul : Institute for South-North Korea studies, 1992. - 140 p. : ill. ; 21 cm. ((In cop.: The reality of self-styled paradise) 199218 Socialist constitution of the democratic people's republic of Korea: Preface: “…the immortal Juche idea, organized and guided an anti-Japanese revolutionary struggle under its banner, created revolutionary tradition, attained the historical cause of the national liberation, and founded the DPRK, built up a solid basis of construction of a sovereign and independent state in the fields of politics, economy, culture and military,” 19 Karl Marx, "Zur Judenfrage," in: Marx-Engels-Werke, Vol. 1 (Eastern Berlin: Dietz, 1970), pp. 347-377, at p. 364.)

laws of the State and the socialist standards of life and defend

their honor and dignity as citizens of the DPRK.”

Another fundamental principle of North Korean Constitution is

nationalism and a sort of “xenophobia”. That idea is clearly

manifested in Article 2: “The DPRK is a revolutionary state which

has inherited brilliant traditions formed during the glorious

revolutionary struggle against the imperialist aggressors, in the

struggle to achieve the liberation of the homeland and the freedom

and well-being of the people.”. And also in Article 41 “(1) The

DPRK shall develop a truly popular, revolutionary culture which

serves the socialist working people. (2) In building a socialist

national culture, the State shall oppose the cultural infiltration

of imperialism and any tendency to return to the past, protect its

national cultural heritage, and develop it in keeping with the

existing socialist situation.”. Referring to freedom of religion,

at Article 68, it s said, in an indirect way, that only approved

religions are admitted. Moreover, publics interests are superior

to religious freedom: “(Art. 68.2)No one may use religion as a

pretext for drawing in foreign forces or for harming the State and

social order.”

TAIWAN, SOUTH KOREA and HONG KONG

Although those countries have different culture and tradition, all

of them have experienced the Colonial rule and, after that, the

economic development. As a consequence, they have strengthened

their state against its potential foreign aggressors ad they

sacrificed civil and political rights for the sake of national

economic expansion, but they still maintain a liberal democracy.

They also share the values of Confucian culture. The concept of

rights was alien to traditional Confucian culture. Thus an

important question relevant for human rights is whether initial

success of implementing human rights implies the compatibility of

traditional obligation-based Chinese political theory and rights

based western theory. This is a sort of “challenge of modernity”

for those countries.

INDIA

India was one of the greatest British colony. It is also an

historical defender of human right. Despite of this, India has

interior contrasts and has to deal with many violations of human

rights. One of the major problem is the secessionism and the

ethnic crisis. It is interesting to analyse Article 25 comma 2 of

India Constitution, about freedom of religion “(2) Nothing in this

article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent

the State from making any law— (a) regulating or restricting any

economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may

be associated with religious practice; (b) providing for social

welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious

institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of

Hindus.” It is clear the preference given to Hindu religion over

other type of faith (despite of their diffusion), even if the

Explanation specifies that the reference to Hindus shall be

interpreted as including a reference to persons professing the

Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu

religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.

India found another difficulty in reconciliation between principle

of equality and “casteism”20. Even with Article 17, which abolish

this practice (“Untouchability” is abolished and its practice in

any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising

out of “Untouchability” shall be an offence punishable in

accordance with law.), the division in castes is nowadays a

structural part of India’s society.

CHINA

Popular Republic of China is one of the most powerful nation all

over the world, but it is lacking in human rights’ defence. In

fact, despite of the “White Paper of Human Rights”, adopted in

1991, at the moment human rights are limited in their

effectiveness.

Analysing Chinese Constitution, the two ideologies, which emerge,

are: Socialism and Nationalism. An unequivocal reference to the

first philosophy is in the Preamble: “Under the leadership of the

Communist Party of China and the guidance of Marxism- Leninism and

Mao Zedong Thought, the Chinese people of all nationalities will

continue to adhere to the people's democratic dictatorship and

follow the socialist road, steadily improve socialist

institutions, develop socialist democracy, improve the socialist

legal system and work hard and self-reliantly to modernize

industry, agriculture, national defence and science and technology

step by step to turn China into a socialist country with a high

20 In India, a caste system organizes division of labour and money in human society: the Jātis were grouped by the Brahminical texts under four categories, known as varnas: viz Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras. Certain groups, now known as "Dalits", were excluded from the varna system altogether, ostracized by all other castes and treated as untouchables.

level of culture and democracy. (…) Socialist relations of

equality, unity and mutual assistance have been established among

them and will continue to be strengthened.” In the Marxist

thought, the individual can not be superior to the society; the

“people’s dictatorship” impose to scarify individual rights for

the sake of all people.

To reach those goals, it is necessary to promote national

interest. As a result, China (officially) opposes imperialism,

foreign hegemony and colonialism, works to strengthen unity with

the people of other countries and to preserve national

independence. Again nation over individuals. We can find a good

example of nationalism in Article 36 of Constitution, about

freedom of religious belief. “No state organ, public organization

or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe

in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who

believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects

normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to

engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health

of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state.

Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.” A

part from the fact that (again) the national interest is more

important than the religious freedom, the Legislator is worried

about potential interferences from “foreign domination”, or – better-

from different and contrasting culture from Western countries.

Conclusion

Human rights can meaningfully and productively be connected with

different religious, philosophical or cultural traditions. The

"Western origin" of human rights means the simple fact that the

idea of universal rights of freedom and equality, as far as we

know, was first proclaimed in Western Europe and North America. By

investigating this historic fact more closely, we can discover

various factors -- political, economic, cultural, and religious --

which in one way or another might have helped to promote the

development of human rights. These factors, undoubtedly, also

include important currents of the philosophical and religious

tradition in the West.

On the one hand, people in the West, too, had (and still have) to

fight to have their rights respected. In fighting for their human

rights, they faced a lot of resistance. This resistance was not

only a political one, but also included cultural and religious

opposition epitomized, for instance, by the Christian churches

which over a considerable period of time were quite reluctant to

support modern principles of political emancipation. On the other

hand, European history also shows that a critical reconciliation

between modernity and tradition was possible, a reconciliation

which today clearly includes the churches, meanwhile often ardent

advocates of human rights21. 21 The Catholic Church provides an illuminating example. After a long period of reluctance if not resistance, the Catholic Church finally did endorse human rights and religious liberty. The Second Vatican Council's declaration Dignitatis humanae (1965) explicitly appreciates the modern understanding of human dignity based on the recognition of human freedom and responsibility. Even though the Vatican Council's declaration clearly marks a turning point within the history of the Church, it is not meant to be a total rupture from the Catholic tradition. Rather, the church considers human rights to be a modern way of protecting that unconditional dignity of every human being which has always beena part of the Christian message. The Church's commitment on behalf of human rights, albeit a rather recent development, thus appears to remain in keeping with the Christian tradition, more precisely: with a revised and modernized version of Christian tradition more appropriate for Christians living under the circumstances of modernity. The idea of the person being an "image of God," Christian conceptions of the natural law, the old insight that authentic faith requires a free decision -- these and other motifs allow building a bridge between tradition and modern human rights which themselves thus need not appear to be a merely external imposition.

From “western” point of view, it is needed a liberal understanding

of rights that gives priority to civil and political rights over

economic, social, cultural and collective or group rights. Rights

are distinct from (or normatively superior) to interests and they

are based on moral principles whose justification is derived

independent to the good/interests. Freedom is privileged over

order, individual autonomy takes precedence over social solidarity

and harmony, freedom of thought and the right to think win out

over the need for common ground and right thinking on important

social issues. Rights are emphasized rather than duties or

virtues.

The other models emphasizes the indivisibility of rights, the

collective rights and the need for economic growth, even if at the

expense of individual civil and political rights. This vision is

more pragmatic and utilitarian: stability is privileged over

freedom, social solidarity and harmony over autonomy and freedom

of thought, need for common ground and consensus on important

social issues over right to think. The realization of those aims

often require a State-centred view, based on the defence of

communities and traditional culture and of order.

From some points of view, “Westernization” correspond to

“Modernization”. The problem is that human rights seem to be

rooted in the "cultural genes" of a particular culture or religion

(the Western culture) which itself thus seems to be allowed to

claim the achievement of human rights as an exclusive legacy.

Surely the concept of human rights could not be born without a

certain vision of humankind, which linked human dignity and

divinity or, anyway, something superior. However, I think that

human rights’ origin is not so important to their application.

Human beings’ deep nature is the same all over the world. Franklin

Roosevelt once said: “Freedom means the supremacy of human rights

everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those

rights and keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose. To

that high concept there can be no end save victory.”

Bibliography:

Human rights in Asia, Ed. By Randall Peerenboom, Carole J.

Peterson, A. H. Y. Chen

http://www.humanrights.is/the-human-rights-project/

humanrightscasesandmaterials/

humanrightsconceptsideasandfora/

theconceptsofhumanrightsanintroduction/

definitionsandclassifications/

http://www.unesco-phil.uni-bremen.de/Texte%20zur

%20Vorlesung/MR%20-%20Islam%20-%20Bielefeldt.pdf

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/staff/emeritus/

robertfine/home/teachingmaterial/humanrights/lecturepodcast/

are_human_rights_western.pdf

http://www.religiousconsultation.org/hassan2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page