One of the very most essential characteristics of real human privileges is universality. The idea of universality has been examined, discussed, and found in several contexts and various ways by various scholars. This debate gives rise to the argument between realists and nominalists. The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary simply identifies the word 'general' (universus) as a general term or concept having common effect or request at all times and in every places. Corresponding to Encyclopedia Britannica, the term 'general' means a quality or property which every individual person in a school of things must possess. It further explains that universals will be the qualities of individual items, or particulars. For example, the grade of redness (a general) is possessed by all red things (that are particulars). However, in other ways universals are very unlike particulars. For example, redness, unlike red items, cannot be found.
Michael J. Loux underlines that in metaphysics, a common is what particular things have as a common factor, particularly characteristics or attributes. He analyses three major kinds of qualities or characteristics of universality basing on realist's view: i) types or kinds to which things belong (e. g. mammal); ii) properties that they have got (e. g. brief, strong); and iii) relationships into which they enter in (e. g. daddy of, next to). These are various different types of widespread. It really is known as distributed entitles universals. For St. Thomas Aquinas, the word "universal" can be viewed as in two ways:
"the universal characteristics may be considered together with the objective of universality - viz. the relation of 1 and the same to many;
the universal can be viewed as in the nature itself, for position, animality or humanity as existing in the individual. "
The Catechism of the Catholic Cathedral uses the term "universal" in the sense of "according to the totality" or "in keeping with the complete. " Hence, each particular Chapel is "universal" to which all men are called and belong in different ways.
Human rights advocates maintain that if human rights will be the rights that participate in everyone regardless of sex, competition, color or religious beliefs, simply because the first is a human being, then they are universal by classification itself. It obviously states in this article one of UDHR: "all humans are born free and identical in dignity and rights". Mary Ann Glendon, the writer of "THE PLANET Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Common Declaration of Human being Rights, " notes:
"The subject 'common' meant that the declaration was morally binding on everyone, and not just on the government authorities that voted for its adoption. The widespread declaration, in other words, had not been an 'international' or 'intergovernmental' record; it was tackled to all humanity and founded on a unified conception of the individual. "
In his focus on "The continuing future of Human being Rights", Upendra Baxi places the concept of universality in a Hegalian framework. For Hegel, the combo of universality and particularity has already been implicit in the moment of abstract universality, in the same way as a tree trunk and branches are implicit in a seed. So, discussing Hegel's method, Baxi uses the synthesis of abstract universality and abstract particularity which brings about concrete universality so that people may understand the concept of 'universality' of individual rights easier. He logically connects Hegalian method with the concept of universal human privileges by distinguishing three "moments": first, the UDHR is addressed to every individual; it is the objective movements of abstract universality; second, it is particularized by the group of norms such as worker's rights, women's rights, privileges of children, or right to life; third, the concrete universality may be accomplished where rights and man meet in his life. However, nominalists do not trust realists' idea about the idea of universality and conceptualists accept it partially.
Objection of Universality
The question of whether universals are present is a tricky logical one. The rationalists assume that universals are real plus they exist individually, whereas the nominalists assume that everything is real is particular, and therefore, universals are just words which at best apply to resemblances among real things. The conceptualists believe universals exist as ideas. Antifoundationalists dispute that -
"Universal human rights are simply just impossible because what matters as "individual" so that as rights owned by humans, are context-bound and tradition-dependent. There is no transcultural truth or being that may be called "human" to which universal human protection under the law may be fastened. "
And yet, you may still find various objections to the concept of human protection under the law as common. In her article 'History of Universal People Rights - up to WW2, ' Moira Rayner denies the thought of human protection under the law as general although she keeps that human protection under the law are protection under the law possessed by people simply because they are humans. She says,
"The thought of human rights is not common - it is actually the product of 17th and 18th hundred years European thought and even the idea of 'privileges' will not necessarily exist atlanta divorce attorneys modern culture or advanced civilization. Widespread human privileges are, historically, the blossom of that which was originally a Western seed. "
For Blair Gibb, real human rights are not necessarily general because he argues that the rights set up by the 1948 General Declaration of Individuals Rights might not be applied to all or any nations. He then highlights that even those nations which have singed it, and in practice they still have restrictions and difficulties to understand them completely in their own territories. Furthermore, he argues that the UDHR pushes american values that aren't always agreeable to eastern nations. He gives a good example that civil or political rights like the to criticize the government openly or complete independence of opinion and appearance, threaten cohesive Asian societies. For him, the UDHR is a little idealistic and it is better applied more to developed nations than developing nations.
According to Raimundo Panikkar, "the idea of human protection under the law is a American conception which is not a widespread strategy. " However, he will not mean that we should abandon the responsibility of declaring or enforcing individual rights. He allows that human protection under the law may bring an authentic human being life in this contemporary world and the defense of human rights is a sacred duty. For him, "no notion consequently is common. Each theory is valid mostly where it was conceived. " To place it in the other way, although the term "God" is universally found in all contexts of world religions, its notion is different from one another, because humankind reveals a plurality of general discourses. Panikkar believes that there must be at least two conditions to be fulfilled in order to make the idea of human protection under the law become universally valid: (i) it should eliminate all the other contradictory principles and (ii) it ought to be the common point of guide for any problem regarding human dignity.
In order to clarify the debate on whether individuals rights are universal or not, the 1993 Vienna Declaration reaffirms the widespread character of real human protection under the law as follow:
"All human rights are general, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. "
The Vienna Declaration invites the international community to treat human being rights internationally in a good and identical manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis; also to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.
At the opening service of the World Seminar on Human Privileges in1993, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, emphasizes on the top of the normal substance of universality and underlines how human rights are actually to be common standard for those participants of the international community. He invites the international communities to exceed one's own culture and principles in order to understand the true interpretation of human rights in one's life, as he says,
"The human protection under the law that people proclaim and seek to safeguard can be caused only if we transcend ourselves, only if we make a conscious work to find our common substance beyond our apparent divisions, our temporary variations, our ideological and cultural barriers. "
Human Rights as one common Language of Humanity
Generally people allow that human protection under the law will be the product of record and they're given birth to from historical happenings. The term 'right' exists sine historical time. In history, Egyptian, Geek, Roman and the like were known as great lawmakers who printed codex of varied laws and established series of protection under the law and obligations. The world's religions such as Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity and Buddhism, have also established moral codes of conducts based on divine legislation or teaching to be able to protect the rightful habit of the individuals so that there could be peace in individual society. These rules and laws are generally based on individual dignity and concerned with duties of man to his fellow men, to governors, to the type, to God and the complete creation. Then, as time passes by, the constant changing world has been always shaping interpersonal system and political order, sweeping away old regimes, old rivalries and old obstructions and exchanging them with new system and ideas. Autocracy decreases and democracy boosts. Knowing of one's won privileges and freedom is better and stronger. Folks learn from the failures of the past to check out a much better and peaceful modern culture.
The era of colonization is a good example to point out how the language of human protection under the law is extended to the oppressed people. For the reason that period, there were some human protection under the law advocates who defended for the protection under the law of indigenous people. For instance:
Bartolome De Las Casas (1484-1566), Spanish historian and Dominican missionary in the Americans, compared the oppression of the Indian by Western and called for the abolition of Indian slavery. He defended against the unwell treatment of native individuals by the Spanish colonists and advocated before Ruler Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor on behalf of rights for the natives. His motives are: to avoid the suppression of most encomienda ; to liberate the Indians from all types of slaves; to restore the ancient Indian state governments and rulers; also to contain the rightful owners of these lands.
Francisco de Vitoria (1485-1546), Spanish theologian, was best known for his protection of the privileges of the Indians of the New World against Spanish colonists as well as for his ideas of the restrictions of justifiable warfare. He was also called one of international laws pioneers because he added the theory of just war and international rules.
Anthropologists such as Sally Engle Merry presume that the treaty of Westphalia (1648) is the foundation for the language of international human rights law. It really is a series of peacefulness treaties and contracts among European says which end the 30 Years' War (1618-1648) and the Eighty Years' Battle (1568-1648) in Europe. As end result, these treaties and agreements gave beginning to a new system of political order in central Europe, i. e. , the machine of sovereign condition governed by a sovereign. During this time period, international laws and affairs were based on the notion of express sovereignty. However, the treaties did not restore peacefulness throughout Europe because France and Spain continued to be at conflict for another eleven years. However the Tranquility of Westphalia at least created a basis for international legal norms or the words of international real human rights regulation.
In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly implemented the UDHR which has become a universal standard for the promotion and safeguard of human privileges worldwide. This adoption is a specific affirmation of the international coexistence which is commonly based on real human dignity and admiration for those people's protection under the law in all over. However, some criticize that the General Declaration was politically impossible through the Cold Warfare to meet both civil or political rights and interpersonal or economic privileges. Western human rights law centered on political and civil privileges like the right to flexibility of talk or religion and so on, whereas socialist and communist countries centered on economic and communal rights such as the rights to work, food, enclosure, etc. International human being rights regulation, however, has developed a dominant language of global justice that ends the cleavages dominant during the Cold War.
Today, the terminology of human rights is among the most language common to all humanity, a worldwide lingua franca handling social, political, social and monetary issues worldwide. It is shifted from politics discourse to a more unified language of global justice. It really is a vocabulary that guides every human being in an age of globalization. Mary Robinson, the ex - High Commissioner for Human Privileges, once said that:
"All of us, in our different forms of appearance, can speak the 'common language of humanity, ' the vocabulary of human rights, which is enshrined in the General Declaration of Individual Protection under the law. "
As the earth Conference on Human Rights started on 14 June 1993, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Secretary-General of the US, gave the opening assertions to the assembled diplomats as follow:
"Human rights should be viewed not only as the utter yardstick which they are, but also as a synthesis resulting from a long historical process.
As an absolute yardstick, human rights constitute the normal language of mankind. Adopting this terminology allows all peoples to understand others and to be the creators of their own background. Human privileges, by definition, are the ultimate norm of all politics.
As an historical synthesis, real human protection under the law are, in their substance, in constant motion. By that I mean that human rights have a dual dynamics. They should share absolute, classic injunctions, yet simultaneously reflect a moment in the development of history. Human privileges are both overall and historically identified. "
However, there are a few politicians who use the term "human privileges" in a very narrow sense because of their own benefits. As a result of misinterpretation of the term, the UDHR becomes no worthwhile than "bourgeois protection under the law" or "Western rights. " Some claim that the essential idea of real human rights does not go with the specific characteristics of local or regional cultures and customs. For some, recognizing human rights in different ways in various contexts matching to one's own culture and custom is a better solution for all. However the article 27 of the UDHR demonstrates that the dialect of the declaration does not exhibit any social preference since real human rights are a language of mankind.