Human Rights: blogs and contributions of WorldSupporters - Bundle
Debating the "universitality" of human rights
Artikel over mensenrechten voor het vak global studies:
Debating the “universality” of human rights
An article by Sara de Jong
On December 10, 1948 a major step towards equality and freedom for all individuals in the entire world was taken: the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This document had been commissioned almost immediately after the end of the second world war. The unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust had made world-wide support for freedom and equality for all humans a matter of the greatest urgency. The persons ‘behind’ the declaration came from many countries, distributed evenly over the continents, with an important role played by the American First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, the Jewish French legal scholar René Cassin, the Indian activisit Hansa Mehta and the Chinese philosopher Zhang Pengchun.
The heart of the declaration is its universality: it promises equal rights to all human beings all over the world (although it took a woman, Hansa Mehta, to change the references to ‘men’ into ‘human beings’, so as to avoid gender inequality). As René Cassin said (when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 1968):
“The other salient characteristic of the Declaration is its universality: it applies to all human beings without any discrimination whatever; it also applies to all territories, whatever their economic or political regime.”
However, over time a huge debate arose over the question how universal this declaration really was or is. It caused conflicts with, and some even say it violates the laws and belief systems of other cultures. Opponents have portrayed it as a Western liberal program forced onto the rest of the world, to increase the power of the West. Two examples are especially known: one from the Islamic world, and one from Asia.
In 1990, the member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference came together in Cairo to discuss and adopt the so-called “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam”, which can be seen as a protest against the universality of the UDHR. There are two important differences: the UDHR treats every person, man or woman, as an individual with equal rights. The Cairo Declaration treats men and women as belonging to two different classes, with different rights and duties (article 6). Something similar can be said about Muslims and non-Muslims: they, too, have different rights and duties. The freedom of religion, one of the central aspects of the UDHR, is simply rejected (article 10).
Another example is the so-called Asian Values debate, which also reached its height in the 1990s. Politicians of various Asian countries, most often of countries with little political freedom, sharply rejected the UDHR as having no historical validity for Asian cultures, and therefore once more as an instrument of Western cultural and political power. Where the Islamic countries brought human rights under the authority of Islamic law, these Asian politicians stressed general “Asian values”. Most of these consider the community to be more important than the individual. Two examples are: social harmony (a Confucian ideal) is much more important than individual freedom, and economic well-being is much more important than political freedom or other civil liberties.
Both the member states who signed the CDHRI and the main spokesmen for the Asian Values represented countries which were often accused of serious, long-lasting, human rights violations. Their negative views on the UDHR were therefore not always taken seriously. But the question of the universality of the UDHR has continued to linger, and will probably be triggered again in the future. Therefore, we must have a debate on what ‘universality’ means and how this can exist alongside cultural differences.
bibliography
Cassin, René. (1968, December 11) Nobel Lecture. Visited on 7 February 2014:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1968/cassin-lecture.html
Milner, Anthony. (n.d.) What’s happened to Asian Values? Visited on 7 February 2014:
https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/html/1885/41912/values.html
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (n.d.). Visited on 7 February 2014:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. (n.d.). Visited on 7 February 2014:
ABC: Teaching human rights.
Education Category: General
Ages: 4-8, 8-12, 12-16
With this activity children will learn and appreciate similarities and differences.
ABC: Teaching Human Rights is a book by the United Nations. Learning about human rights are not just lessons for the classroom, but lessons for life. This booklet contains helpful information about introducing human rights issues to children from preschool to secondary school. It provides background information about the human rights and dealing with difficult issues, which can be interesting to read. But you can also skip this part and read more about some interesting and fun activities to make children more aware about the human rights.
Activity about similarities and differences:
(a) Attributes
Children are seated in a circle. One child stands in the middle of the circle and makes a statement that describes himself or herself. For example: “Is wearing a belt” or “Has a sister”. Everyone who shares that attribute must change places, including the child in the middle. Whoever is left without a seat becomes the person in the middle and names the next attribute. Children will quickly see that they can be similar and different in many ways. An interesting ending would be to choose a more intangible attribute, such as: “People who are kind”. The game usually breaks down at this point because it becomes more difficult to identify such attributes at a glance. Teachers may wish to discuss how people usually recognize such behavioral attributes. (UDHR articles 1, 2; CRC article 2)
If you want to know more you can find the booklet here.
Learn children about human rights.
Requisites
- Booklet: teaching human rights
Maria Ressa's speech Harvard 2024
Maria Ressa delivering her speech to understand the battle in the world nowadays. Considering what she has been through, still standing inspiring, talking with passion delivering her message. It is a must watch or listen and act upon it: Maria Ressa delivers the Commencement Address, Harvard 2024
Summary C.H. Brants & A.A. Franken, ‘The protection of fundamental human rights in criminal process’
Comparative Criminal Law
- Week 1.
- C.H. Brants & A.A. Franken, ‘The protection of fundamental human rights in criminal process’, Utrecht Law Review
- Individual, state and individual rights and freedoms
- Common and civil law in practice
- Legal traditions and styles of procedure
- Checks and balances
- Adversarial & inquisitorial systems in practice
- Year of summary
Week 1.
C.H. Brants & A.A. Franken, ‘The protection of fundamental human rights in criminal process’, Utrecht Law Review
Legal systems and procedural traditions are to be distinguished as being either adversarial or inquisitorial. Adversarial systems are the so-called common law (English countries, like the UK, USA and colonies) and inquisitorial systems are civil law (European countries and colonies). There are also countries which have a mixed system. The question whether a legal system is adversarial or inquisitorial is important, because the criminal proceedings are different in the different systems.
Individual, state and individual rights and freedoms
The civil law system has the purpose to realize the ‘common good’. There are powers needed to carry out this task, so the liberty of the individuals is threatened. Only the state can achieve and uphold the liberty of the individual, so that the common good can be established. The State’s power is curtailed by the primacy of written rules under law, abstract constitutional rights of the individual and the division of power within the state, which implies judicial scrunity (review) executive action on the basis of written law and hierarchical monitoring and control within the executive itself.
Legally conferred powers in the written law are the only powers which can provide the State the possibility to infringe on individual rights; without legally written law they can do nothing.
In adversarial systems, the individuals define their relationships to the state in terms of the rule of law: as a set of concrete rights and freedoms from particular forms of state intrusion, which they themselves can assert. Under the common law system, executive organs of criminal justice do not monitor (to check or watch someone in order to find out what is happening) each other. They exist in a state of coordinate authority, and all their tasks are governed by the rule of law. Executive officials may do everything, they need no conferred powers, they may do anything which is not expressly forbidden in law. All law must be statutory, coming from the government, to be enforced by the executive and applied by the courts and interpreted in so.....read more
Articlesummary with Youth participation: Adultism, human rights and professional youth work by Corney a.o. - 2022
Introduction
Corney et al. (2022) explore the concept of youth participation within the context of adultism, human rights, and professional youth work. They challenge traditional power dynamics that exclude young people from meaningful decision-making, arguing for approaches that respect their rights and agency.
Methodology
The article primarily employs a conceptual and theoretical approach, drawing on existing literature and frameworks related to adultism, youth participation, and human rights. It does not present original empirical data but utilizes diverse sources to support its arguments and engage critical reflection.
Key Arguments
- Critique of adultism:
- The article highlights adultism as a systemic ideology that undermines young people's competence, autonomy, and right to participation.
- This manifests in various forms, including exclusion from decision-making, infantilization, and limitations on their freedom of expression.
- Human rights framework for youth participation:
- The authors emphasize the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) as a cornerstone for ensuring meaningful youth participation across various domains.
- They argue that participation is not just a privilege but a fundamental human right for young people.
- Professional youth work and its role:
- The article calls for professional youth workers to act as critical allies, challenging adultism and empowering young people to claim their rights and participate actively in shaping their lives and communities.
- This requires collaborative and youth-led approaches that move beyond tokenistic participation and prioritize young people's voices and agency.
Conclusion
The authors advocate for a transformative shift in perspective, recognizing young people as rights-holders and active participants in society. This necessitates dismantling adultism, upholding human rights principles, and fostering youth-centered practices within professional youth work and broader social structures.
Discussion
- Limitations: Acknowledges the complexities of implementing these ideals in diverse contexts and the ongoing challenges of adultism within institutions and societal norms.
- Future directions: Calls for further research exploring effective strategies to dismantle adultism, empower young people, and evaluate the impact of youth participation initiatives.
- Implications: This article has significant implications for professional youth workers, policymakers, and educators, urging them to adopt practices that respect young people's rights, challenge adultism, and create genuine opportunities for meaningful participation in decisions that affect their lives.
Overall
Corney et al. offer a critical analysis of adultism as a barrier to youth participation and propose a human rights-based framework for
.....read more
Add new contribution