Posted at 11.18.2018
In my newspaper I'd like to look at views of universalists and ethnic relativists on the issue of human privileges, in order to find out whether human privileges are firmly a European idea - whether they were present in all ethnicities or created in the European culture in the eighteenth century. If indeed they in reality were created in the European civilization, would which means that they do not apply to certain parts of the globe? If so, are many people to enjoy smaller scope of privileges than others?
I will connect it to legitimacy of questionable traditional procedures, in specific Feminine Genital Mutilation (FGM), which is likely to be used as a research study.
Discussion among scholars (including anthropologists, law firms, sociologists, etc. ) on either universalist or relativist belief of human protection under the law has been going on for over 60 years now. To a major extent it started from the works on drafting the Universal Declaration of People Rights (UDHR), that was a mile step in the security of human rights worldwide. Since that time, the discourse has been raised many times, helping discussions on local systems of human rights and standards used by them. Last year's 60th wedding anniversary of General Declaration of People Protection under the law (UDHR) was a reason for many real human rights' campaigns worldwide, including United Nations advertising campaign, "Dignity and justice for all of us, " that was designed to remind the world of the foundation of all human privileges - dignity, which entirely with widespread justice can't be cured as "an extravagance or a wish-list".
Even though it has been over 60 years from the UDHR and over 40 years since creating the International Covenants (over 30 years since they became binding), the sphere of individual rights is still to be improved upon and future decades will constantly be facing human rights challenges. Enjoyment of equal people rights, regardless of a cultural group membership is still one of these. In spite of the actual fact that major conventions on human being privileges have been ratified by almost all of the World's says, no unity in real human rights specifications has been reached yet. Some blame it simply on the "lack or insufficiency of ethnic legitimacy of individuals rights expectations. "
The Convention on the Rights of the Child can easily serve as an example of almost universally ratified treaty on earth. Notwithstanding, children's privileges are still definately not being respected. Another example will be the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979) which includes been binding for nearly 30 years now, 186 countries are functions to it, but still nobody could declare that women's privileges are universally reputed. One could ask if general, full value for human protection under the law is even possible - no idealist would agree with such a declaration but conventions mean a whole lot, expressing not only political will but also ideas and goals to be come to for.
Global failure to see human protection under the law is often a disagreement by human privileges' skeptics, stating that the plan created by international human being protection under the law treaties is a misconception. However, as Donnelly argues in an exceedingly apt way:
The Universal Declaration, like any other list of human privileges, specifies minimum amount conditions for a dignified life, a life worth human being. Even rich and powerful countries regularly land far short of these requirements. As we've seen, however, this is exactly when, and perhaps even why, having individuals privileges is so important: they demand, as rights, the social changes necessary to realize the fundamental moral eye-sight of human aspect.
In my paper I'd like showing how important general observance of individuals rights is as well as perhaps I will try to seek out some methods to achieve it. In addition, I will try to prove that certain traditional practices (if so FGM) cannot be justified by ethnic relativism of individual rights, as individual rights apply to every individual equally. Within a partially globalized world, where all civilizations appear to overlap it's important to preserve all distinct cultures from vanishing, at exactly the same time not forgetting that certain practices can simply belong to the past because of their harmful effect on the community all together as well as at its singular members.
Limitations of the paper will allow me to show just a piece of the broad theme pointed out in its subject, nevertheless I will try to refer to the almost all of contemporary trends and dreams regarding FGM elimination, which has already some time ago turn into a global issue.
In the first section of the paper I'll just sketch the individual rights' background, emphasizing on their source. In the second chapter I'll show a few of the quarrels invoked by universalists and social relativists as well as signalize the relevance of the talk as it pertains to the FGM. Finally, I will look at whether some balance among both methods can be placed. Finally, in the third chapter I am going to express the FGM practice, its implications, up to now achieved goals in the scope of its eradication plus some prospects for future years.
This very chapter is meant to complete the release. It includes relevant, basic information, as regards to human rights looked at from the universalist vs. relativist perspective.
In order to comprehend if human rights are common or relative, it is vital to define individuals rights. As stated in Encyclopedia of human being rights, human protection under the law are "guidelines for the cover of the individual and the peaceful coexistence of the species", "they signify the basic moral values of our own modern world and are thus truly the manifestation of the conscience of mankind" but are also continually re-evaluated by scholars and NGOs all over the world, which perhaps is a never ending process.
Some scholars say, the main of human privileges can be even tracked back to the early thirteenth century, which is when individuals began to gain rights "against" the state of hawaii and its interference in their private life. In particular Magna Charta Libertatum of 1215 is often mentioned as the first someone to have posted the principle of equality before rules, to property and spiritual freedoms, nonetheless it was applicable and then a certain interpersonal class - the barons. The thought of human protection under the law, called in those days "natural rights", returned in the eighteenth hundred years in Europe and was then developed by such authorities, as John Locke, Jean - Jacques Rousseau, or Voltaire. At that time the idea began to be put on all human beings, regardless of social class and status. This idea was subsequently indicated within the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789) and AMERICA Declaration of Independence (1776).
Considering their roots and nature, individual rights can be considered a bridge between morality and positive laws, deriving themselves from common human being dignity, which can be an "inherent property" and "absolute internal value, ", therefore one should "treat others always at exactly the same time as a finish, never merely as a means" (I. Kant). So should the state.
Some authors, such as Jack port Donnelly, search the source of human rights also in "humanity" or "human nature", whose notions are regrettably "obscure" and "controversial".
These historical roots of human privileges have mentioned that human protection under the law refer to the partnership among individuals and their state and are to safeguard and solution the weaker part of this romantic relationship. Notwithstanding with the conversations over real human dignity, as the building blocks of human protection under the law, it can be agreed that concept of human rights, present in school of thought for few generations, has gained its international legal shape after the Second World Battle, as "the inability of national regulations to protect people have been cruelly demonstrated".
As R. Normand and S. Zaidi have rightly explained, "folks have always yearned for independence, security, and public justice; the modern human protection under the law system was the first ever to assert these values as the birthright of everybody everywhere you go. " I show the view that real human privileges are somehow coded in every one of us and eventually gain their manifestation in each world, its legal system and practice. It is merely a matter of your energy that they become totally universal. And it does not necessarily mean shedding diversity on earth, it just means residing in a diverse world where everyone can enjoy their human rights in the edges of "global morality". This idea might sound hopeful and utopian but this can be a foundation of each human rights security system and can be reached only by a lot of time and effort. Record has shown that it took over seven-hundred years (keeping track of from first individuals rights' warranties laid down in Magna Charta Libertatum (mentioned above) or, as some could claim, hundred and fifty years (keeping track of from the later eighteenth century's declarations and constitutions) to set-up international system of human being rights protection. It appears, not little time will be had a need to ensure human rights' respect worldwide. Especially, with no symmetry in the levels of development. Still, I'd be positive about human protection under the law' development as yet in only 60 years, impressive framework has been created. It however needs constant and ongoing improvement and keeping it up to date to face modern day and future challenges.
Universal expectations of human rights were for the very first time codified after the Second World Conflict, as stated above, by the General Declaration of People Rights. It is vital to underline that United Nations consisted of 58 Member Expresses in those days, however the only ones that refrained from signing the Declaration were: Byelarussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, USSR, Ukrainian SSR, Yugoslavia (due to socialist / communist doctrines put in place in those countries in those days, which triggered "interpretational differences", as Baderin calls it), South Africa (because of apartheid legislation) and Saudi Arabia. The rest of the UN Member States signed the UNDHR, regardless of the fact that they were not exclusively "Western" Says as it is claimed today. The next countries authorized UDHR in 1948: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Myanmar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Turkey, UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United states, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen.
That proves that although some core values decided on in the UDHR were first elaborated on and described in the "Western" traditions does not mean they were (and are) not present globally - no matter physical location and culture. Whatever the area people live in, they react when their protection under the law are infringed and stand up in order to safeguard their humanity and dignity.
Some people questioning real human rights claim that the theory is purely Traditional western and therefore imposed in other areas of the world. The advantages to the next chapter already challenged that view in ways. However, these dialogue has been going on for over 60 years now and will not seem to be solvable that easily. Hence both edges: universalism claimants and (cultural) relativism claimants use exact and convincing arguments grounding their positions. In my own paper I would like to present a few of them and take a look at whether they apply to the FGM practice.
As a spot of departure, I'd like to cite point 5 of the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action '93, which claims that:
All human protection under the law are common, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat individuals rights internationally in a fair and identical manner, on a single footing, and with the same emphasis. As the significance of countrywide and local particularities and various historical, ethnic and spiritual backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of Areas, no matter their political, economical and ethnical systems, to promote and protect all human rights and important freedoms.
If we make a in contrast assumption, that one human rights cannot be applied universally (and consequently, some individuals and belonging to them individuals are worthy of more respect than others), we may come to a fairly hazardous conclusion, which includes already triggered shameful occurences in world's record, especially visible throughout the twentieth century. For example may easily serve all the crimes against humanity dedicated in the recent hundred years. Because of this, I'd with full awareness opt for a full and global popularity of certain human rights (about which consensus in widespread human rights documents has been achieved), notwithstanding their Western root. Overall, in every nook of the world humans have that same dose of inalienable dignity and must therefore be able to benefit from the same privileges.
An obvious shortcoming is encountered in the case of accessibility of common protection methods (already known as effective only in creating universal framework of expectations). The answer could then be creating effective local systems of individuals rights safety, and above all, national equipment. Nevertheless, it isn't the only solution and way to achieve broadest possible observance of human being privileges. In societies still far from the desired model, international organizations (both governmental and non - governmental) should kick in, helping to promote human protection under the law, create civil modern culture and moreover, to safeguard citizens of their states, hazardous traditional methods or even effects of historical conditionings (such as extreme patriarchate). This is the least the entire world can do to replace the time of colonialism.
In this sub - section I'd like to sketch the challenge and range of Woman Genital Mutilation process, as it is vital for following discussion provided further on. I realize that perhaps this chapter may give an impact of being misplaced, but it is just a conscious measure, to be able to signalize some important points of FGM practice in connection with universality of individual rights.
According to the World Health Corporation, "the term "female genital mutilation" (also called "female genital trimming" and "female genital mutilation/reducing") identifies all procedures concerning partial or total removal of the external woman genitalia or other problems for the feminine genital organs for non-medical reasons". It is estimated that between 100 and 140 million ladies and ladies in the world have undergone such procedures, additionally, 3 million girls are predicted to be at risk of undergoing the task every year.
Female genital mutilation has been reported to occur in all elements of the globe, but it's mostly utilized in: the traditional western, eastern, and north - eastern regions of Africa, some countries in Asia and the center East and among certain immigrant areas in THE UNITED STATES and European countries.
In my newspaper I am focused on that occurrence in the African Continent (and also using Europe, among immigrant communities). However, I'll not enter information on FGM in any specific country, but try to present it holistically completely with all the current phenomena assisting removal of FGM as a hazardous practice both on the nationwide and international level.
An argument often mentioned by ethnical relativists is the fact that human protection under the law have been developed in wealthy West, which unfortunately still can be put in the opposition to the indegent South (before, during the Cold War, the entire world has been divided into West and East) and therefore cannot be fully enforced because of the biggest violation of individual rights in the South, which is "degrading poverty and inhumane conditions of life of an incredible number of individuals". That kind of approach can directly effect activism to achieve proper respect of certain individual rights to be of second importance. Nevertheless, one needs to be cautious about weighting importance of certain privileges. No poor interpersonal conditions could justify cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of women (typically by women straight and by men and traditions indirectly), which FGM doubtlessly is. Information on this practice are elaborated on in the sub - chapter 3. 1 of the newspaper.
"The European liberal custom of privileges has made substantial contributions to the idea of civil and politics rights. But one of its limitations is the inadequate identification of what economic inequality and deprivation symbolize for individual dignity. " Unfortunately, this statement may be applied to the issue of removing FGM, which in the case of poor and undeveloped countries fulfills an obstacle of not yet emancipated women, still depending on men as the sole breadwinners. Not going through types of procedures of FGM in their early on puberty (or youth) may put women at risk of not getting married and therefore enduring poverty and sociable exclusion. Alternatively, however, considering it, sets them at risk of struggling grievous health implications (as indicated in section 3) or even loss of life (estimated as outcome of one third of the cases).
Some authors signify that protection from inhuman and degrading treatment should be determined by moral standards of 1 society. This debate is hard to trust regarding FGM and other unsafe methods. It leaves door widely available to justification of torture or other universally unacceptable practices on the basis of ethnic relativism.
It is nonetheless true that "exterior imposition" of prices may be simply ineffective and counterproductive as it pertains to lives of traditional areas. I however wouldn't normally call protecting an incredible number of potential FGM victims a "Western imposition". Therefore, individuals rights advocacy of women (and men) who have been born in perhaps more beneficial circumstances, may spare the suffering of many.
In spite of the claim that "(. . . ) many ethnic traditions in the world have had little say in the formulation of those [general] standards", as explained above, the actual fact that human protection under the law have indeed been developed by American theorists and philosophers will not mean they do not apply to the whole humanity as such.
In the light of examined documents, articles and literature, I could not deny a reasonable amount of cultural relativism is needed - especially because common observance of individuals rights in neighborhoods can be best attained by the convincing content of individuals rights standards.
A big supporter of relativism, A. A. An-Na'im, does not prevent himself from acknowledging that "the cross social approach is no all - or - nothing proposition", with what I must agree. It reflects an acceptable perspective that universalist procedure and relativist approach do not necessarily lay on other poles and can be reconciled by inter cultural dialog, smart politics steps and succeeding legislation.
As already mentioned in point 37 of the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action'93:
Regional preparations play a simple role in promoting and protecting human rights. They should reinforce universal human being rights criteria, as within international human protection under the law equipment, and their security. The World Seminar on Human Rights endorses work under way to improve these arrangements also to increase their efficiency, while at the same time stressing the importance of co-operation with the United Nations human rights activities.
Indeed, universal criteria sought by the common denominator, which is already reflected in many international treaties, can be effectively understood by local systems of individuals rights' safety which in my thoughts and opinions are one of the means to achieve fullest realization of real human rights. First of all, they represent comparative homogeneity of civilizations and traditions. Second, they assist in consensus and ensure physical closeness and linguistic ease of access. Thirdly, they allow or at least help the enforceability because they are nearer to the arising problem of human protection under the law' protection. On the other hand, the easiness of attaining consensus may as well certainly be a downside, as might allow drifting too far from the common standards of human being rights and for that reason result with verying requirements of the same protection under the law worldwide.
"The UN has provided an effective market for airing views and negotiating protection under the law key points, but its effect on the daily lives of men and women remains limited. " Indeed, an enormous firm as the US can only provide for a construction (based on political decisions usually) in the human being rights coverage, whereas real safeguard should belong to certain states, local systems and civil modern culture organizations, which can be attained by "thickening [these] international aid networks".
In addition to that, in order to accomplish changes, all the attempts have to be predicated on persuasion. Psychologically, people will obey certain rules if they understand them as deriving from their own culture. This however would in my judgment be no case when it comes to FGM - a practice leading to abnormal pain and fighting. A practice having its root in tradition but sacrificing too much to be able to accomplish some uneasy to understand and admit goals. If inter alia persuasion is to be used (and in simple fact was and still is used) in reducing FGM, it needs to be an super - quick and super - effective one.
To sum up this sub - chapter, I would use one phrase long, simplistic postulate: set in place standards internationally, execute regionally. However, only if effective local systems do not lose their connection with the universal standards.
In this section, I am going to show certain world - large trends pertaining to FGM and so rar achieved framework with reference to its complete abandonment.
FGM influences women's physical and mental health.
As regards to the physical consequences, WHO classifies FGM into four types: type I / Clitoridectomy (entails partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the clitoral hood), type II / Excision (will involve partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora), type III / Infibulation (entails narrowing of the vaginal orifice with creation of any covering seal by lowering and placing mutually the labia minora and/or the labia majora, with or without excision of the clitoris), type IV / Unclassified: (consists of all other harmful procedures to the feminine genitalia for nonmedical purposes, for example, pricking, piercing, incising, scraping, and cauterization).
The WHO Survey mentions major, numerous health outcomes of FGM, that are divided into: "immediate dangers of health issues" and "long - term health threats", occurring at any time during life.
The former include: severe pain (it requires to be emphasized that FGM is usually performed without any kind of anesthesia), shock, abnormal hemorrhage, difficulty in moving urine, infections, individuals immunodeficiency virus (HIV), death, emotional outcomes, unintended labia fusion, repeated feminine genital mutilation (scheduled to unsuccessful curing).
The latter include: pain, microbe infections, keloid, reproductive tract attacks and sexually sent infections, human being immunodeficiency pathogen (HIV), quality of erotic life, birth issues, risk to the newborn, mental consequences plus more.
FGM practice violates numerous international human being rights procedures. Inter alia: artwork. 25 of the UDHR (right of all humans to live in conditions that permit them to take pleasure from good health and healthcare), fine art. 12 of the ICCPR (prohibition of discrimination due to sex, and universal right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health), fine art. 2f of CEDAW, which expects Claims to "take all appropriate measure to change or abolish customs and methods which constitute discrimination against women" and skill. 5a of thereof, which requires Condition Gatherings to "modify public and cultural patterns of do of women and men, with a view to achieving the eradication of prejudices and customary and all the practices which are based on the thought of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes". It also violates the Convention on the Protection under the law of the kid (CRC), the African Charter on Individuals and Individuals' Rights, and many more.
African Union has its own human privileges treaty, which is the African Charter on Human being and People's Rights, used on 27 June 1981 and binding since 21 Oct 1986. It reflects specificity of African ideals, whose primary is portrayed by an African proverb: "If you wish to go fast, go alone. If you want to go significantly, go together". In African societies, it's the community's interest that prevails over specific interest in the majority of the cases. Furthermore, the African Charter not only talks about the privileges but also stipulates the obligations of an individual towards its community and Point out. The Charter mentions women's protection under the law in article 18, par. 3: "The State shall ensure the reduction of every discrimination against women and also ensure the coverage of the privileges of the girl and the kid as stipulated in international declarations and conventions. "
Notwithstanding, a significant step towards eradication of FGM was signing the Process on the Rights of Women in Africa on 11 July 2003, which started to bind on 25 November 2005, having been signed by 15 Member States of the African Union. Presently 45 Expresses out of 53 African Union Member Says have agreed upon it, however just 27 had ratified it. Article 5 of this protocol mentions FGM explicitly:
States Gatherings shall prohibit and condemn all forms of harmful practices which negatively influence the human rights of women and which can be contrary to accepted international specifications. States
Parties shall take all necessary legislative and other procedures to get rid of such tactics, including: a) creation of general public awareness in all sectors of contemporary society regarding harmful tactics through information, formal and informal education and outreach programs; b) prohibition, through legislative methods guaranteed by sanctions, of most forms of female genital mutilation,
scarification, medicalisation and para-medicalisation of female genital mutilation and all other practices in order to eliminate them; c) provision of necessary support to victims of harmful
practices through basic services such as health services, legal and judicial support, mental and psychological counselling as well as vocational training to make them self-supporting; d) safety of women who are at risk of being put through harmful practices or all the forms of violence, abuse and intolerance.
This provision inspired many African State governments to pass regulations prohibiting FGM. Regrettably, Botswana, Egypt, Eritrea, SЈo Tom and Prncipe have neither agreed upon, nor ratified the Standard protocol.
Obviously, good regulations are important in fighting with each other FGM however they cannot succeed by itself. Other steps to be taken are inter alia: women's education and thus making them more independent, building awareness and recognition in local areas, etc. Only coherent and multi - dimensional steps can lead to a complete eradication of FGM.
The chairman of the African Union Commission rate, Alpha Oumar Konare summed it up doing this: "We have to mobilize our communities, religious market leaders, traditional leaders, women and men - through education and information - to improve their attitude and require them in combating FGM. "
Serious effects of FGM began to be a focus in the late seventies of the twentieth century, as a evidence may easily serve the WHO's Regional Workshop in Khortoum (Sudan) in 1979 or discussion of Arab and African mind of point out in 1984, which already described a need of prohibiting and outlawing the practice of FGM.
A really striking fact relating to this traditional practice is that its complete reduction is a goal in the international area for a long time. Numerous international organizations have committed enormous funds to that purpose. Nonetheless, it is still practiced and the existing ambitious plan is to get rid of this hazardous practice in the upcoming years.
One could ask, why then are women the keepers of the custom, though it was a traumatic going on to themselves? Anthropologists list several known reasons for that. One of these would be functional reasons", specifically: virgins are more likely to find a respectful husband. And often it might be just a way to make it through as in most of African states where FGM is used, women would still highly depend on men - better informed, therefore breadwinners. For these reasons, FGM will be extremely hard to be fought without improving education status of African women, which one day will lead to cessation of socioeconomic dependence.
Besides, African women would often have a problem with more trivial problems of every day life (running home, upbringing of several children) and not have time for even considering emancipation from unsafe methods. However, as R. M. Abusharaf leaves us with hope, mentioning once wide-spread, nowadays totally abolished harmful tactics of ft. binding in China or widow burning in India.
Another reason behind which the practice is so difficult to be eliminated is that it's been established on the basis of patriarchal establishment of traditional societies and has been retained by its dominating groups, if so men. Even though, A. A. An - Na' im represents rather strong relative approach towards individual rights, he rightly observes that:
Dominant groups or classes in a population normally maintain perceptions and interpretations of cultural prices and norms that are supportive of their own passions, proclaiming these to be the only real valid view of that culture. Dominated communities or classes may hold, or at least most probably to, different perceptions and interpretations that are beneficial to their struggle to achieve justice for themselves. This however can be an internal have difficulty for control over the ethnic sources and symbols of power within that modern culture. Even though outsiders may sympathize with and wish to support the dominated and oppressed groupings or classes, their claiming to really know what is the valid view of the culture of that society will not accomplish this effectively.
Abdullahi Ahmed An - Na'im cases that "morality may be universal in the sense that all cultures have it, but that will not at all indicate this content of this morality(. . . )". This might mean that every deviation from common individuals protection under the law standard may be justified by a certain culture not showing the common morality. Which could mean every individual rights violation in the world could be justified by cultural specifics of the very society in which violation is committed. Such a practice could be very risky and effect with weakening the gravity of international community's negative reactions to certain harmful practices. This may eventually lead to stagnation in the sphere of individual rights' protection in certain parts of the globe and keeping local communities internally unbalanced (kept under the authority of the strongest social organizations - regardless of other categories in the contemporary society).
That is why ladies in the communities handled by FGM need support from the exterior, especially because custom and custom is one of the toughest phenomena to be defeat, as it continues the community alongside one another and makes its users feel safe.
Once again, it needs to be emphasized that the practice of FGM is against all the universally accepted guidelines of human rights (it is internationally recognized as such) and, as Executive Director or FORWARD, Naana Otoo-Oyortey, said: "It's time to know that the to genital autonomy belongs to all children, regardless of race, culture or gender".
Already much has been done to be able to accomplish FGM eradication. Certain international steps taken and to be studied will be talked about in this sub - section. As FGM is applied mainly on female children, it is vital to bear in mind that "It really is children, whose individual development and cultural contribution will form the world's future - which is through children that entrenched cycles of poverty, exclusion, intolerance and discrimination can be busted for succeeding generations. " It really is uneasy to assume the future of a world which will not prevent its weakest inhabitants from being mutilated. If the custom continues, very little could be built on that poor garden soil watered by assault. I fully agree with FORWARD's core beliefs, which inter alia declare that it's important to recognize that positive public changes begin from local communities. Only when marginalized and vulnerable groups are allowed to speak and positively take part in shaping their lives, certain goals may be accomplished. Moreover, "human protection under the law of females and women must be upheld so that they are able to totally enjoy their intimate and reproductive health free from violence, coercion or ill - health. "
On 25 February 2008 current US Secretary-General, Ban Ki - Moon, launched a multi-year plan aiming to prevent and eliminate violence against women and girls in all elements of the world. The campaign is to last until 2015 and for that reason assist Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) Marketing campaign in getting its eight goals. Ban Ki - Moon, has stated that: "Assault against women cannot be tolerated, in any form, in any context, in any scenario, by any political innovator or by any federal government. "
Additionally, well founded concern with being at risk of FGM, after over a decade of fighting for precedents is becoming at the mercy of a Guidance Word released by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on 19 May 2009. This very note is dependant on so far developed jurisprudence of granting refugee position in many states of Western Europe and North America mainly. According to the guidelines included in the take note of, UNHCR considers FGM to be a form of gender - founded assault that inflicts severe injury, both mental and physical, and sums to persecution. " The aforementioned jurisprudence has recognized FGM as a kind of persecution ensuing with a choice of granting asylum.
Moreover, also Western european Court's of Individuals Rights jurisprudence has shown that it's not in dispute that subjecting a woman to FGM sums to unwell - treatment unlike Article 3 of the 1950 Western european Convention on Individuals Rights.
Despite maximal possible universalisation of real human rights would probably effect with their maximal observance, the case of female genital mutilation doubtlessly shows how complicated totally universal implementation of human protection under the law is. It is mostly made by discrepancies among States, triggered by may that be varying traditions or cost-effective distance (frequently many conditions simultaneously).
As shown above, traditional methods are one of the hardest & most complicated to be transformed and need years to be abolished. As experience has shown, elimination of dangerous traditional methods is never an effect of 1 decision by a state specialist or certain community but it is a complicated and time - consuming process. As an example of such phenomenon, emancipation of women in Europe may be recalled - it needed over one century and continues to be lasting. Suffragist motion was just a sparkle, accompanied by gradual changes in keeping mentality (of both women and men), amendments of law and sociable reforms. Nonetheless, the procedure is still happening, and needs constant efforts and activism. This example or a good example of FGM itself can provide as a evidence how hard traditional tactics should be changed. They can only be transformed by pretty much rapid advancement.
Moreover, it is worthy to remember that basic principle of subsidiarity pertains to human privileges too. As mentioned in the sub - section 2. 1. 4. 1, local systems can create effective measures for fighting damaging traditional procedures. Also, awareness building in local areas is vital and irreplaceable. Therefore, I hope the efforts taken by countries themselves along with the steps considered by the international community will little by little (but also as soon as possible) get rid of the hazardous traditional practice of Female Genital Mutilation.
As I were able to show, certain cultural deviations from common human rights can be found, however they cannot be too great, in order to still allow making human being rights "common terminology of mankind", as the first High Commissioners for Individual Privileges, Jose Ayala - Lasso, once articulated.
All of that needs constant strengthening of civil culture, mainly by time. It also inquires a lot of people's good will and energy, uncounted funds, and activism constituted by these elements. To be exact, not just external sociable activism, but mainly the inner one (as real changes can't be enforced) and evidently by men and women.
To sum up, human protection under the law have indeed been written down and first referred to by American theorists and philosophers but that does not mean they don't apply to the complete humanity as such.