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