Conflicting interpretations of universal human rights

Human rights is a Western invention and cultural variations justify different interpretations of fundamental human rights. Basic guarantees of due process in democracy are Western concepts that are imposed on other cultures without their consent. Non-Westerners have their own definitions of human rights. Human rights can be considered of two kinds: civil and political rights (free speech, worship, etc.) emphasized by the West, and economic rights (social and economic security guaranteed by the state) emphasized by non-Western cultures. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes both categories, with the second designed to please those countries that deny their subjects the first. Efforts to expand the range of human rights beyond the first category are questionable because this process intentionally undermines and dilutes the very idea of political rights. Economic rights are not claims against the state, rather they are demands for things to be granted by the state to the individual. As such, they guarantee the individual's dependence on the state for the necessities of life. Such economic rights are therefore instruments for increasing state power over the individual. It is for this reason that the USA has long resisted ratification of the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. On the other hand, for some non-Western countries, the political rights are perceived as inhibiting the ability of government to guarantee the economic rights.

Universality is the crux of the human rights system. It means global accession to, and ratification of, the principal international human rights treaties. Contemporary human rights are heir to demands for human dignity throughout history and across cultures. The express the enduring elements of the world's great philosophies, religions and cultures. Today they build upon modern science and advanced technologies, while enabling all people to participate in the shaping and sharing of the world in which they live.

Efforts to formulate a pattern of global ethics are based on the assumption that basic moral or ethical concepts are identical in all religions and cultures. Dissent may occur on exact wording and priorities, but there is basic agreement that one should "do unto your neighbour as you would have done to yourself". This precept contains an interdiction of all overt or hidden mechanisms of exploitation of human beings and nature.

Claims as to the non-universality of human rights are often an ill-disguised attempt to escape international scrutiny of human rights abuses. The forces of repression often cloak wrongdoing in claims of exceptionalism. But the people themselves repeatedly make it clear that they seek and need universality. Human dignity within one's culture requires fundamental standards of universality across the lines of faith, culture and state.

Although economic, social and cultural development patterns vary from country to country, human rights standards must be absolute, subject only to very narrowly circumscribed exceptions, limitations and conditions permitting derogation. When relative, they lead states into temptation and encourage justification of the means by the end.