general improvement

"Co-operation of states in the fields of human rights must be combined with unfailing observance of the principle of sovereign equality of states and of non-interference in the affairs which are essentially within their domestic jurisdiction"¹⁷.

This, if experience were not enough, emphasises why the declaration is a "common standard of achievement"¹⁸ rather than a factual international law.

Besides the question of national sovereignty, the declaration has been the object of much criticism. The main one is formulated around the nature and the character of "Universalism". From a western perspective, human rights - which are based on the natural law that says that human beings are equal in birth and rights - are bound to be universal. This is obviously a liberal view most associated with western societies and their emphasis on individual freedom. However, the cultural relativist argument is that there is nothing to verify the veracity of this position as humanity is a loose concept and therefore "to promote these rights is to promote that kind of society"¹⁹. This does not prove to be very different from the cultural and political hegemony exercised by the imperial powers from the renaissance to the middle of the 20^th century.

Similarly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a combination of civil and political rights and, of social and economic rights. The tradition of Western liberal democracies has always been to emphasise the former. Indeed, the 1215 Magna Carta guarantees freedom from arbitrary "imprisonment and dispossession" while the French Declaration of Man and the Citizen of 1789 stress that "all men are born free and equal in rights" and that these rights are "liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression"²⁰. By contrast the socialists' conception of rights shifts the balance of importance towards social and economic rights. In that context of imperative centralised planning, the socialist state has an essential need for national sovereignty in order to properly and uniformly secure "citizens' rights as state rights"²¹.

This argument has become a major one for countries such as China or Cuba in justifying human rights abuse. It is indeed easy to claim that civil and political rights are disregarded to the greater benefit of social and economic ones. The universality of human rights is then only an ambition. It is noble but for some countries the cause is lost in advance. Certain rights are ambiguous in their formulation and almost impossible to implement for the poorest countries. It is the case of paid holidays mentioned in article 24 of the declaration. David Manasian rightly suggest the futility of branding these countries "violators" since it is not a strictly deliberate violation²². This might seem to be a feeble argument as it is obvious that paid holidays are not the main concerns of the many Non Governmental Organisations trying to denounce human rights abuse. It is nonetheless a valid example of the limit of the universal character of the declaration.

The question remaining is to which extent should or could the international community attempt to see the Human Rights universally respected. For a starter one can contemplate the reason why several countries never signed the United Nations Charter. Among them, and most notoriously, is Saudi Arabia. The concept of a secular state might be obvious in western societies but it is far from being universally the case. In that respect, article 18 of the declaration, which stresses ";the freedom to change [one"s] religion or belief" goes against the Islamic precepts which rules as law in Saudi Arabia.

On another line, cultural relativists denounce the universal character of humanity as derived from natural law. This can sometimes be reduced to a linguistic issue but language remains arguably our best tool when it comes to communicating our belief to others. Richard A. Wilson mentions the example of some Native American tribes, namely Hopi and Navajo, for whom the concept of humanness is constructed around the community, and to whom outsiders are non-humans²³. It seems obvious in that respect that human rights would be different than those of non-humans, even though somewhere else someone might disagree.

Similarly, cultural context might accentuate even more the problems linked to the linguistic of human rights. The different understanding of a concept might be of a cultural nature, of a linguistic nature, or both. David Kelly argues that when it comes to the language of freedom, "we still have little ground for assuming that the referents - the things meant - are entirely interchangeable between languages"²⁴. He provides a better example of cultural difference when it comes to understanding certain concepts by quoting an interview in which Lee Kuan Yew comparing the USA to Asian societies argues that:

"The expansion of the rights of the individual to behave or misbehave as he pleases has come at the expense of orderly society. In the East, the main object is to have a well-ordered society so that everybody can have maximum enjoyment of his freedom"²⁵.

This kind of argument, critics of the cultural relativists claim, can become handy to justify armed interventions in order to protect the "well-ordered" character of a given society. Events such as those of the students upraise of June 1989 on Tiananmen square are convincing examples that the cultural relativist argument can fuel the defence of blatant human rights abuses.

Another twist in the cultural relativism stance regards indigenous rights which arguments, John Gledhill claims "rest on special cases reasoning about the rights of indigenous people as colonised peoples"²⁶. One might think that too much is made of minorities' rights. Aborigines in Australia are offered a relation to the land that is opposed to the notion of private property of capitalism. However, and this is where it might seem unfair to some, no one else in capitalist societies is offered the choice - as a right - of living a pre-industrial "agrarian lifestyle"²⁷.

Nevertheless, if cultural relativism has clear limits, so does the Universalist claim. Cultural specificities are clear and visible throughout the world. As Chris Brown argues, human equality - as understood in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - is hard to implement in a caste system or in a family-orientated, rather than individual-orientated society²⁸. It is also a case of non-western culture having to deal with western concepts. David Kelly emphasises the way, during the Vietnam War, "the South Vietnamese fought badly for [the American idea of] freedom and democracy" while "the North wanted [and obtained] freedom from foreign domination"²⁹. This example of the different conceptions of freedom and their different level of importance is strikingly close to the present situation in Iraq where Iraqis, despite being liberated by American troops, have recently demonstrated with slogan such as "No Saddam, No Bush, Yes Yes Islam".

When it comes to universalism, one is entitled to believe that a compromise can be reached. As Robertson and Merrills argue, if basic standards are respected, uniformity might not be needed although "certain ideas and practices" would have to change³⁰. The final word should however be given to Chris Brown whose view that "rights are best seen as a by-product of a functioning ethical community" rather than "a universal solution" might yet prove the most constructive on the long term.

*****

If titles were all that matters, there would be no ambiguity about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It would constitute the highest legal document and its scope would truly be universal. However, because there is no ultimate judiciary body to enforce it, the universal ambition falls flat. The aim was to create a universal document mainly because it could not have been otherwise. Human rights might be more often abused than respected, their knowledge is nonetheless universal and human right consciousness has increased over fifty years as a result. Countless NGO's have done a tremendous job of denouncing these abuses on a regular basis, giving backing and reasons for hope to the individuals who fight for these rights to be respected or at least recognised in the countries where they are not.

On the matter of whether or not there is need or room for universal human rights to be understood in a linear way, cultural relativists have come up with several arguments. From cultural specificity to indigenous right the debate remained centred around the validity of the notion of cultural exception and self-determinism as a right. It could all end up being a matter of ethics, leaving the political realm to enter the moral and philosophical ones. If this would prove to be the case, then, as always, to introduce the concept of utilitarianism - that is considering actions in terms of utility (obviously relative) rather than absolute ideas of right and wrong - despite some of its obvious implications, could sharpen the problem of ethics and raise the debates. It might be a good way to approach local cultures in the larger frame of the global culture of Human Rights.