2009•Cambridge University Press eBooksRequires access

Rights and Cultures

Wiktor Osiatyński

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Another important debate concerns the universality of rights. Actually, when applied to human rights, the term universality is almost tautological. Universality is implied in the very word human , which means that rights belong to every human being at all times and in all situations. Such a statement, however, clearly defies observable reality. Most people throughout history have not enjoyed their human rights. Therefore, we talk about the universality of standards. Every human being should have her human rights recognized and observed, and every community should attempt to reach such a standard. This universality of standards is justified by the fact that it is what protects the dignity of every person and makes human cooperation possible. The concept of human rights provides universal legitimacy to all those who oppose tyrannies, oppression, and the violation of human rights, anywhere in the world. Despite the widespread (one could say “universal”) problems with their violation, human rights are universal in the “normative” sense of global adherence to human rights norms and treaties. Almost all governments have signed the UDHR and ratified various human rights treaties. Far less universal are the actual observance of these treaties, fulfillment of the resulting obligations, and adherence to formally accepted standards. Debates about human rights initially concerned mainly the justification for such failures and violations. Because human rights consist of a number of norms and serve various values that can be in conflict with one another, justification has been sought through the prioritization of rights, with many attempts made to place certain rights before others.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Another important debate concerns the universality of rights. Actually, when applied to human rights, the term universality is almost tautological. Universality is implied in the very word human , which means that rights belong to every human being at all times and in all situations. Such a statement, however, clearly defies observable reality. Most people throughout history have not enjoyed their human rights. Therefore, we talk about the universality of standards. Every human being should have her human rights recognized and observed, and every community should attempt to reach such a standard. This universality of standards is justified by the fact that it is what protects the dignity of every person and makes human cooperation possible. The concept of human rights provides universal legitimacy to all those who oppose tyrannies, oppression, and the violation of human rights, anywhere in the world. Despite the widespread (one could say “universal”) problems with their violation, human rights are universal in the “normative” sense of global adherence to human rights norms and treaties. Almost all governments have signed the UDHR and ratified various human rights treaties. Far less universal are the actual observance of these treaties, fulfillment of the resulting obligations, and adherence to formally accepted standards. Debates about human rights initially concerned mainly the justification for such failures and violations. Because human rights consist of a number of norms and serve various values that can be in conflict with one another, justification has been sought through the prioritization of rights, with many attempts made to place certain rights before others.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Another important debate concerns the universality of rights. Actually, when applied to human rights, the term universality is almost tautological. Universality is implied in the very word human , which means that rights belong to every human being at all times and in all situations. Such a statement, however, clearly defies observable reality. Most people throughout history have not enjoyed their human rights. Therefore, we talk about the universality of standards. Every human being should have her human rights recognized and observed, and every community should attempt to reach such a standard. This universality of standards is justified by the fact that it is what protects the dignity of every person and makes human cooperation possible. The concept of human rights provides universal legitimacy to all those who oppose tyrannies, oppression, and the violation of human rights, anywhere in the world. Despite the widespread (one could say “universal”) problems with their violation, human rights are universal in the “normative” sense of global adherence to human rights norms and treaties. Almost all governments have signed the UDHR and ratified various human rights treaties. Far less universal are the actual observance of these treaties, fulfillment of the resulting obligations, and adherence to formally accepted standards. Debates about human rights initially concerned mainly the justification for such failures and violations. Because human rights consist of a number of norms and serve various values that can be in conflict with one another, justification has been sought through the prioritization of rights, with many attempts made to place certain rights before others.

Key concepts: Universality (dynamical systems), Human rights, Dignity, Political science, Law, Fundamental rights, Epistemology, Sociology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Rights and Cultures — Research Paper | ScholarLens