Which Rights are Universal

Bibliographic Data

ID6350226
AuthorsDaniel A Bell (0000-0002-5521-3383, University of Hong Kong, corresponding author)
Year1999
Volume27
Issue6
Pages849-856
Publication date1999-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePolitical Theory (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0090-5917 • E-ISSN: 1552-7476
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/0090591799027006007
OpenAlexW1998776399
LanguageEN
Citations received9

EVAN CHARNEY HELPFULLY DEFINES THE TERM universal human rights. Human rights are held by individuals. They protect individuals against actions of other individuals and/or collectivities (including political and economic organizations). They are egalitarian because they are held equally by all individuals. They are universal because they apply in all cultural contexts. Finally, human rights are fundamental, meaning that they override other political goods in cases of conflict (barring exceptional circumstances). Most people, I suspect, can endorse this definition of universal human rights. The controversial part, however, is to specify content of universal human rights. Which rights are fundamental, universally valid human rights, and which ones are locally valid, 'peripheral' rights? Charney argues that he can identify content of universal human rights by transcending cultural particularity. According to Charney, the basic principles of a liberaldemocratic regime are universal human rights. More precisely, he refers to democracy and civil rights-in other words, American-style civil and political liberties. He does not explicitly say how he has arrived at this conclusion, but he seems to appeal to two arguments. First, Charney suggests that liberal-democratic rights are universal because they are contained in Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). But are rights set forth in UDHR truly universal? It is a common complaint in non-Western world that 'international' human rights instruments have been shaped largely by values and aspirations of Western liberal societies and that they have not yet adequately incorporated nonWestern views. Rather than develop this argument, however, let me point out that UDHR also runs counter to mainstream ideas about fundamental human rights in United States, meaning those expressed in U.S. Constitution. It is quite peculiar that Charney limits his discussion to articles 1 to 21 of UDHR. These articles uphold civil and political rights, but he fails to

Human rights · Law and economics · Political science · Sociology · American Constitutional Law and Politics · Law