.F’;.CV0C=Universality of human rights has always been a extensively challenged and debated topic, especially in the recent decades.
In recent decades, a widely contested debate over the universality of human rights has emerged. Rights are certainly not universally-applied today, with oppression, torture and various atrocities committed in many parts of the world. This paper will focus on the notion that both in the Third-World and the West, states have used human rights discussion as a political tool, which has weakened arguments for its universality. This perspective will be utilised to break down arguments made against universal human rights before presenting alternative conceptions of universal human rights and identifying developments which may ensure they can be universally applied and respected.
It is important to first define the theoretical basis of ‘universal’ human rights. Universal conceptions argue human rights are inalienable, self-evident and applicable to all human beings (Donnelly, 2003, 10). These arguments are often linked to origins in Western philosophy and natural law, developed from philosophers such as John Locke (Langlois, 2009, 12). Many scholars maintain that human rights are ‘pre-political’, thus unchangeable and unaffected by cultural or political variation. Donnelly identifies the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the basis in establishing the “contemporary consensus on internationally recognised human rights” (2003, 22). Human rights hold universal values which should be adopted by states worldwide.
A common challenge to this view is the concept of cultural relativism. What the West may consider universal norms in human rights are not applicable in other cultures. Human rights are argued to have developed from Western culture and thus they are inappropriate in application to other cultures (Langlois, 2009, 19). It has been