The Universalization of Human Rights: Reflections on Obstacles and the Way Forward

Human rights are often seen as one of the success stories in the field of international law and international relations. When the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted, it was by and large seen as a self-evident framework for managing the relationship between state, individuals (and communities), the core goal of the Declaration being the wish to express what ‘human dignity’ is all about. Nowadays though, many political systems around the world are – either still or again − presenting a different view of human rights, including setting totally different priorities in the broad field covered these days by the term ‘human rights’. The article contains of four warnings concerning the supposed universality of human rights: 1. The sheer numbers of UN human rights conventions and other human rights instruments, adopted since 1948, are as such not decisive to state that the human rights are universally applicable; 2. universality is not uniformity – within the frameworks set states have space to ‘do it their own way’; in addition, the (quasi-) legal input of states in a variety of debates is often not as clear cut and convincing as it looks at first sight;3. many states are urged to accept human rights terminology (‘standards’) but are not willing to accept external control and criticism by external bodies or independent experts;4. there are frictions between international legal obligations and national (constitutional) legal characteristics of states. With these four warnings in mind, the article addresses ‘the way forward’: one should aim for a process-like approach. The buzzword should be ‘universalisation’ rather than ‘universality’. In addition, a bottom-up approach is needed to confront those who are politically and legally responsible for upholding human rights with their obligations and to show them a way forward. Doing so, perceptions of local communities are discussed as well, as cultural exceptions are mainly voiced by local communities as opposed to states that have ratified human rights instruments. Civil society organisations can play an important role in communicating these local perceptions and in contextualising some of these international human rights norms.