Introduction

Human rights are rights held by every person. “Universal” just means that everyone has them. Simple, right? Not so much. Human rights have raised debates from the moment people started using the phrase. Let’s focus here on the last 75 years or so since the end of the Second World War. As globalization connected the world, human rights became the common international language of what is right or wrong. But people argue over what human rights means and where they apply.

The second half of the twentieth century saw the rise of international organizations like the United Nations. There were also non-government groups known as NGOs. Countries signed international treaties designed to solve the problems of war and treating people unfairly. Among these treaties were the first international documents addressing human rights. These rights apply to every human. Race, religion, and gender do not matter. However, the twentieth century also witnessed horrible acts of violence. There were genocides and ethnic cleansing in Cambodia, Rwanda, Iraq, Bosnia, and elsewhere.

Universal Declaration

In December 1948, 48 national governments agreed to recognize the “dignity” and equal rights of “all members of the human family.” Recognizing equal rights for all was “the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” These rights include the rights to gather peacefully, to work, and to own property. Other rights include the right to an education and social protection, to not be arrested without a reason, and to not be enslaved or tortured.

In 2018, the United Nations celebrated the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Then, human rights scholar Ved Nanda warned that the UDHR is under threat:

“large abuses of human rights continue from China, Vietnam, The Philippines, and Myanmar to Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Guatemala, Syria, and several countries in the Middle East and Africa. Extreme nationalism and populism are rising in Europe. Authoritarian rulers on every continent often violently put down protestors. However, the declaration has inspired those fighting for civil rights. It encompasses the simple yet powerful idea that that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

This op-ed was penned by a man who was born in India while that country was still under British rule. His message was a warning: the world is failing to meet the ideals of the Declaration of Human Rights. But it was also a message of hope: the document itself is a guiding light.

Universal Tensions

Human rights activists around the world responded quickly to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). India challenged South Africa in the UN General Assembly over its racist apartheid system. Apartheid is racial segregation in South Africa. In 1950, the General Assembly declared that apartheid is wrong. The United States and European empires were also accused by their citizens and colonial subjects of mistreatment.

The governments in question, however, pointed to the UN Charter, which said state governments have the right to do whatever they wanted in their own borders. Supporters of human rights claimed that the new UDHR placed human rights abuses outside of national law. They faced one significant problem, though. The UDHR was just a declaration. It was not a binding treaty or a national or international law.

Supporters of human rights face another problem. It’s very hard to make someone do something they do not want to do if they also command an army. This is why human rights abuses continue into the twenty-first century, even after the creation of the UDHR.

This hasn’t stopped people from trying, though. Since 1948, most nations in the UN have agreed to dozens of different treaties relating to human rights.

Universal or relative?

As human rights have spread around the world, two opposed perspectives emerged: universalists and cultural relativists. Universalists believe that human rights are the same everywhere and should be applied the same in every place. Cultural relativists, on the other hand, believe that human rights should be understood differently in different places and under different conditions.

Cultural relativists argue that human rights are based on European values. They say human rights are a form of cultural imperialism. In other words, a way for more powerful countries to force their culture on others. Universalists claim that cultural relativists want to continue old practices with serious problems. Universalists say many of these practices restrict the rights of women and minorities while using “culture” as an excuse.

It is true that the language of human rights reflects many values from Western culture. In particular, individual political rights stand out in many human rights treaties. Many non-Western belief systems support collective rights held by groups. Documents like the UDHR often put less emphasis on those.

Still, many non-Western people played key roles in shaping the UDHR and later treaties. The Chinese scholar, P.C. Chang, for example, helped write the UDHR. He was joined by representatives from Lebanon, the Philippines, India, and Chile, alongside Western representatives like Eleanor Roosevelt. The group that drafted the treaty enlisted the help of the “Committee on the Philosophic Principles of the Rights of Man” This committee consulted belief systems around the world to advise the writers of the UDHR on universal norms and values.¹

Globalization and human rights

Globalization has certainly helped spread the idea of human rights. The United States played a key role in 20th century globalization. American notions of human rights, and especially individual political rights, came along with new economic systems. In the end, though, has globalization actually improved human rights?

Unfortunately, the answers to this question are not clear. Globalization has connected more of the world than ever, making it easier for people to see when governments abuse human rights. Activists like those in Iran’s Green Movement, Egypt’s Tahrir Square, and Hong Kong’s Umbrella Movement can livestream abuses and coordinate their protests. However, governments have access to the same technology. They can misinform and monitor their citizens.

Globalization has definitely changed the material conditions of most people in the world. This has important consequences for human rights. Many argue that, as a result of globalization, more humans than ever before have been lifted out of poverty. Access to healthcare, clean water, and technology has spread to new regions. Democracy has spread around the world. Today, more than half of all people live in a democracy.

As globalization continues, inequalities have increased between people and nations. Large corporations put workers in danger, especially in poorer parts of the world. Fewer people now live in deep poverty. However, almost half the people alive today live on less than $5.50 a day. As many as 1.5 billion people get by on less than $1.25 a day. This has led some people to ask if universal human rights are a nice idea, but not really the lived experience of millions of people around the world.

1 Historians still debate the truth of what this committee found. Some argue that the committee created a “myth of universality” by linking old belief systems to twentieth-century human rights.