The politics of women's rights in Iran (original) (raw)
Related papers
ARE HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL? ISSUE OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM
ARE HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL? ISSUE OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM, 2022
This paper argues weather human rights are universal in the context of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is the idea that each culture or ethnic group is to be evaluated on the basis of its own values and norms of behavior and not on the basis of those of another culture or ethnic group. Relativism is a doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute. Whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. Multiculturalism is the tolerance of different cultures and identities but, cultural relativism, on the other hand, is the acceptance of different ethical and legal standards for different groups within a population on the grounds of culture. It is argued that Human Rights cannot be universal in the context of cultural relativism, then, it is just as destructive to human rights. On the other hand balancing multiculturalism with human rights means allowing for different cultural and religious identities, while applying the same laws to everyone and keeping respect for all human rights as a universal minimum standard.
The Universality of Human Rights Against Cultural Relativism: Between Fiction and Reality
The Lawyer Quarterly, 2021
This paper aspires to defend the universality of human rights against cultural relativism. The relativism claims that human rights are not universal enough, but even if they were, it would not imply they should always prevail over other moral or legal norms. This paper advocates the opposite: the human right corpus is universal enough because it has been drafted and approved by representatives of all cultures which are dominant in the current globalized world in the context of actual or latent international political conflicts. The intercultural consensus on human rights is overlapping, i.e., the human rights corpus contributes to realizing the comprehensive doctrines of good that are held in all participating cultures. Although the consensus on human rights does not inevitably lead to a uniform moral and legal practice, it also plays a crucial role in a purely declaratory level-it creates a common language through which various cultures can conceptualize their different moral and legal attitudes. Therefore, the language of human rights should take at least prima facie precedence over other moral systems whether stemming from a religion or a particular moral or political philosophy.
HUMAN RIGHTS BEYOND DICHOTOMY BETWEEN CULTURAL UNIVERSALISM AND RELATIVISM
THE AGE OF HUMAN RIGHTS, 2020
The consolidation of relations of global society requires the progressive establishment of a global legal system, consisting of a system of rules-precisely, human rights-as the source and evaluation criteria of positive national rights. This essay aims to contribute to some extent using reflective dialectical methodology, establishing logical-argumentative criteria, based on the dialogue between authors to exercise a critical reflection of the official narrative on the universality of human rights, in addition overcoming the universalism/relativism dichotomy eurocentricaly established by a theory of human rights between universalism and cultural relativism. Introdution There are strong criticisms of the attempts to create a world political order based on the defense of human rights, allowing international organizations and major powers to implement a centralized policy of "humanitarian" intervention, situated above the sovereignty of States, using even of war resources if necessary. In this line of argument, there are those who accuse the West of using "human rights rhetoric" to cover up their true political and economic interests and, through that discourse, impose its policies on the rest of the world. The process leading to the creation and consolidation of human rights is contemporary to the expansion of Europe and the West over the whole world and inextricably linked to this process and its contradictions. If, in the so-called West, the consolidation of some fundamental rights was the result of many struggles and conflicts and wars, non-European countries excluded from this process since the beginning and not infrequently participated as victims. The approach to the issue of human rights comes as a more tortuous issue to jurists faced with dilemmas that have assumed an enormous degree of importance with the intra-frontier and international community and which, at the same time, have not yet achieved unity of thought that allows its organization to ensure universal protection. It is, therefore, relevant to the establishment of a set of universal human rights to try to find, at least, a minimum set of guarantees capable of assuring the dignity of the human person. The very notion of dignity is problematic for the solution of this impasse, as each country, and within each of these countries, each culture sheltered by them, tends to establish its own conception of human dignity. To discuss a theory of human rights necessarily leads to a reference to the juridical theory of this class of rights, enshrined by a range of treaties, conventions and
HUMAN RIGHTS BETWEEN UNIVERSALISM AND CULTURAL RELATIVISM
HUMAN RIGHTS: BETWEEN UNIVERSALISM AND CULTURAL RELATIVISM, 2021
The concept of human rights over time has gained popularity and recognition. It has been observed that the evolution of human rights in the present era has aroused a lot of debate and controversy as regard its justification and applicability to a human being, by virtue of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Conference in Vienna 1993. These international treaties reconfirmed the validity of the universality of human rights, which has attracted criticizing from cultural relativist scholars like Renteln that it is based on western origin. This paper adopted the doctrinal and analytical research method in examining cultural relativist views such as Renteln's argument on the Universality of Human Rights and Cultural Relativism if Universalism of Human Rights is Western Imperialism? Weakness and Challenges of cultural relativist View on human rights. It was therefore recommended that, in order to end the endless arguments on whether or not human rights are universal, there is a need to convene an international forum where at least a more significant number percentage of nations can form a quorum in resolving the issue.
The Cultural Relativist Critique of Human Rights: politics and problems
The idea of human rights originated during the European Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries. The English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) formulated the idea that natural rights — to life, liberty, and property — arise from natural law, a code of rules which derives legitimacy from human reason. For Locke and the French social reformer, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), these natural rights predate governments; by organising society into states, human beings do not surrender these rights, but only give up the right to enforce them. The ideas of Locke and Rousseau enjoyed prominence during the American and French Revolutions in the latter part of the 18th century. The natural and self-evident rights of mankind were embedded in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Bill of Rights and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. For Thomas Jefferson, a participant in the drafting of all those documents, human beings are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” In the 21st century, human rights are generally understood as being anchored in the concept of human dignity, rather than in notions of divine or natural law. The central premise of human rights is that every human being, regardless of their cultural, social or economic background, is entitled to the same basic rights and freedoms. Human rights are not ‘privileges’, and so they cannot be granted or revoked. Human rights are therefore conceived of as inalienable and universal. In practice, however, the implementation and protection of universal human rights is often complex and problematic. In particular, the idea of universal human rights has been challenged by cultural relativists, on the basis that the claim to universal applicability reflects a form of cultural imperialism or hegemony. Relativists hold that the universal human rights discourse originates from Western philosophical positions which conceptualise the individual as the fundamental political actor, rather than the collective or communal units privileged in many non-Western traditions. Human rights discourses can only make universalist claims, argue cultural relativists, because of the global political ascendency of the West. In response, universalists accuse relativists of allowing politically and socially repressive practices, which subordinate individual wellbeing to collective utility, to be justified and legitimised on the basis of cultural difference. This essay accepts that the human rights discourse originated in Western thought, but it rejects the notion that the attempt to establish universal human rights norms, particularly in the post-war era, is a form of Western imperialism. Rather, this essay argues that the opponents of universal human rights exploit the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination – legal constructs designed to protect weak political collectives from stronger ones – in order to mount their arguments. It holds that the cultural relativist critique of universal human rights is often advanced by actors seeking to maintain insidious and violent power imbalances within the political systems of certain states. This essay argues that such criticisms generally reflect calculations of political interest rather than consistent ideological opposition to the adoption of foreign (i.e. Western) values.
HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE REBUTTAL OF RELATIVISM
Unpublished, 2013
Traditionally, human rights are conceived as moral rights, which are possessed by all persons owing to their being human. Yet, it is not an uncommon view that owing to its historical or cultural heritage, each society has its own peculiar conception of human rights and justice. While some emphasize cultural diversity and historical background of local communities, others stress legal or political relativism and incommensurability of values, changing from one social setting to another.