Universal Characters Of Human Rights

frequent Characters Of homophile RightsOne of the most essential characteristics of benevolente well(p)s is worldwideity. The notion of ordinaryity has been analyzed, discussed, and utilize in several contexts and incompatible ways by motley scholars. This argument gives rise to the debate amid realists and nominalists. The Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary simply defines the word widely distributed (universus) as a general term or c at a timept having universal effect or application at entirely times and in every places. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the word universal means a tone or property which individu all in ally indivi triplex member of a class of things must possess. It further explains that universals be the qualities of individual things, or particulars. For example, the quality of redness (a universal) is possessed by all red objects (which be particulars). However, in other ways universals atomic number 18 quite unlike particulars. For exa mple, redness, unlike red objects, croupnot be picked up.1Michael J. Loux underlines that in metaphysics, a universal is what particular things pick out in common, namely characteristics or qualities. He analyses three major kinds of qualities or characteristics of universality basing on realists shot i) types or kinds to which things fit (e.g. mammal) ii) properties which they possess (e.g. short, strong) and iii) relation backs into which they enter (e.g. father of, next to). These are all different types of universal. It is known as shared entitles universals.2For St. Thomas Aquinas, the word universal can be considered in dickens waysthe universal nature whitethorn be considered together with the intention of universality viz. the relation of one and the same to m any(prenominal)the universal can be considered in the nature itself, for stance, animality or charitableity as existing in the individual.3The Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the word universal in the wi z of according to the totality or in keeping with the whole.4Hence, each particular Church is universal to which all men are called and belong in different ways.5 adult male rights advocates maintain that if military personnel rights are the rights that belong to everyone regardless of sex, race, color or worship, simply because one is a adult male being, then they are universal by definition itself. It authorisely states in the oblige one of UDHR all valet de chambre beings are innate(p) free and equal in dignity and rights. Mary Ann Glendon, the author of The World Made New Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, notesThe title universal meant that the declaration was morally binding on everyone, and not simply on the governments that voted for its adoption. The universal declaration, in other words, was not an outside(a) or intergovernmental document it was addressed to all human beingsity and founded on a unified conception of the human being.6In his work on The next of Human Rights, Upendra Baxi places the concept of universality in a Hegalian context. For Hegel, the combination of universality and particularity is already inexplicit in the moment of abstract universality, in the same way as a tree clay and branches are implicit in a seed. So, referring to Hegels method, Baxi uses the synthesis of abstract universality and abstract particularity which brings nearly concrete universality so that we whitethorn understand the concept of universality of human rights more easily. He logically connects Hegalian method with the concept of universal human rights by distinguishing three moments first, the UDHR is addressed to every human being it is the objective movement of abstract universality second, it is particularized by the series of norms such as workers rights, womens rights, rights of children, or right to life third, the concrete universality can be achieved where rights and man meet in his life.7However, nominalist s do not agree with realists base about the concept of universality and conceptualists accept it partly.Objection of catholicityThe question of whether universals exist is a tricky logical one. The rationalists conceive that universals are real and they exist independently, whereas the nominalists hope that all that is real is particular, and therefore, universals are just words which at best apply to resemblances among real things. The conceptualists believe that universals exist as concepts. Antifoundationalists8argue that Universal human rights are simply impossible because what counts as human and as rights belonging to humans, are context-bound and tradition-dependent. There is no transethnical fact or being that may be called human to which universal human rights may be attached.9And yet, there are st feverish various objections to the concept of human rights as universal. In her article History of Universal Human Rights up to WW2, Moira Rayner denies the idea of human rig hts as universal although she maintains that human rights are rights possessed by lot simply because they are human beings. She says,The idea of human rights is not universal it is essentially the product of 17th and 18th deoxycytidine monophosphate European thought and even the idea of rights does not necessarily exist in every fellowship or advanced civilization. Universal human rights are, historicly, the flower of what was originally a European plant.10For Blair Gibb, human rights are not necessarily universal because he argues that the rights established by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights may not be applied to all nations. He then points out that even those nations that experience singed it, and in practice they still have limitations and difficulties to realize them fully in their own territories. Furthermore, he argues that the UDHR pushes western value that are not always agreeable to eastern nations. He gives an example that civil or governmental rights such as the right to criticize the government openly or complete freedom of discernment and expression, threaten cohesive Asian societies. For him, the UDHR is a bit idealistic and it is better applied more to substantial nations than developing nations.11According to Raimundo Panikkar,12the concept of human rights is a Western conception and it is not a universal concept.13However, he does not mean that we should abandon the responsibility of declaring or enforcing human rights. He accepts that human rights can bring an authentic human life in this con unpredictable world and the defense of human rights is a sacred duty. For him, no concept as such is universal. Each concept is valid primarily where it was conceived.14To instal it in the other way, although the word God is universally used in all contexts of world religions, its concept is different from one another, because humankind presents a plurality of universal discourses. Panikkar believes that there should be at to th e lowest degree two conditions to be fulfilled in parliamentary law to make the concept of human rights become universally valid (i) it should eliminate all the other contradictory concepts and (ii) it should be the common point of reference for any problem regarding human dignity.15In order to clarify the debate on whether human rights are universal or not, the 1993 Vienna Declaration reaffirms the universal character of human rights as followAll human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated.16The Vienna Declaration invites the internationalistic community to treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis and to promote and cling to all human rights and fundamental freedoms.At the opening ceremony of the World Conference on Human Rights in1993, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, emphasizes on the important of the common essence of universality and underlines ho w human rights are necessarily to be common standard for all members of the international community. He invites the international communities to go beyond ones own refining and values in order to realize the true meaning of human rights in ones life, as he states,The human rights that we proclaim and seek to safeguard can be brought about nevertheless if we transcend ourselves, only if we make a conscious effort to find our common essence beyond our apparent divisions, our temporary differences, our ideological and cultural barriers.17Human Rights as a Common Langu jump on of HumanityGenerally people accept that human rights are the product of history and they are born from historical events. The word right exists sine ancient time. In history, Egyptian, Geek, Roman and the like were known as great lawmakers who published leaf-book of various laws and established series of rights and duties. The worlds religions such as Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity and Buddhism, have also estab lished moral codes of conducts found on divine law or teaching in order to protect the rightful carriage of the people so that there might be peace in human society. These principles and laws are largely based on human dignity and concerned with responsibilities of man to his fellow men, to governors, to the nature, to God and to the whole creation. Then, as time passes by, the constant changing world has been always shaping social system and political order, wholesale away old regimes, old rivalries and old obstacles and replacing them with new system and ideas. Autocracy decreases and democracy increases. cognizance of ones won rights and freedom is stronger and stronger. The people learn from the failures of the past and look for a better and peaceful society.The age of colonization is a good example to point out how the spoken language of human rights is extended to the loaded people. In that period, there were some human rights advocates who defended for the rights of ind igenous people. For exampleBartolome De Las Casas (1484-1566), Spanish historian and Dominican missional in the Americans, opposed the oppression of the Indian by European and called for the abolition of Indian slavery.18He defended against the ill treatment of native peoples by the Spanish colonists and advocated before King Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor on behalf of rights for the natives. His intentions are to stop the suppression of all encomienda19 to liberate the Indians from all forms of slaves to restore the ancient Indian states and rulers and to have the rightful owners of those lands.20Francisco de Vitoria (1485-1546), Spanish theologian, was best known for his defense of the rights of the Indians of the New World against Spanish colonists and for his ideas of the limitations of justifiable warfarefare. He was also known as one of international law pioneers because he contributed the theory of just war and international law.21Anthropologists such as Sally Engle Merry pre sume that the treaty of Westphalia (1648) is the foundation for the language of international human rights law. It is a series of peace treaties22and agreements among European states which end the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) and the lxxx Years War (1568-1648) in Europe. As result, these treaties and agreements gave birth to a new system of political order in central Europe, i.e., the system of sovereign state governed by a sovereign. During this period, international law and personal business were based on the notion of state sovereignty. However, the treaties did not restore peace throughout Europe because France and Spain remained at war for the next eleven years. But the Peace of Westphalia at least created a basis for international legal norms or the language of international human rights law.23In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly select the UDHR which has become a universal standard for the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide. This adoption is a clear affirmation of the international coexistence which is commonly based on human dignity and respect for all peoples rights in everywhere. However, some criticize that the Universal Declaration was politically impossible during the iciness War to meet twain civil or political rights and social or economic rights. Western human rights law focused on political and civil rights such as the right to freedom of speech or religion and so on, whereas socialist and communist countries focused on economic and social rights such as the rights to work, food, housing, and so forth International human rights law, however, has developed a dominant language of global justice that ends the cleavages dominant during the Cold War.Today, the language of human rights has become the language common to all humanity, a global lingua franca addressing social, political, cultural and economic issues worldwide. It is shifted from political discourse to a more unified language of global justice. It is a lang uage that guides every human being in an era of globalization. Mary Robinson, the former High Commissioner for Human Rights, once said thatAll of us, in our different forms of expression, can speak the common language of humanity, the language of human rights, which is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.24As the World Conference on Human Rights began on 14 June 1993, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, gave the opening statements to the assembled diplomats as followHuman rights should be viewed not only as the absolute yardstick which they are, but also as a synthesis resulting from a long historical process. As an absolute yardstick, human rights constitute the common language of humanity. Adopting this language allows all peoples to understand others and to be the authors of their own history. Human rights, by definition, are the ultimate norm of all politics. As an historical synthesis, human rights are, in their essence, in con stant movement. By that I mean that human rights have a dual nature. They should express absolute, timeless injunctions, yet simultaneously reflect a moment in the development of history. Human rights are both absolute and historically defined.25However, there are some politicians who use the term human rights in a very narrow sense for their own benefits. As a result of mistaking of the term, the UDHR becomes no worth than bourgeois rights or Western rights. Some argue that the fundamental idea of human rights does not go along with the specific characteristics of local or regional cultures and customs. For some, recognizing human rights differently in different contexts according to ones own culture and custom is a better solution for all. But the article 27 of the UDHR proves that the language of the declaration does not exhibit any cultural preference since human rights are a common language of humanity.