This paper critiques Makau Mutua's article "Savages, Victims, and Saviors" which argues that the human rights framework depicts the third world as savage, the individual as victim, and the West as savior. The paper questions whether human rights are a universal concept or Western imposition. It argues that while Mutua makes valid points, he fails to acknowledge weaknesses in third world legal systems that require international involvement. Overall, the paper concludes that while the human rights framework originally had colonial origins, it has developed into a universal concept, not just a Western idea of domination.

1. INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
A CRITIQUE ON THE SAVAGE-VICTIM-SAVIOR: THE METAPHOR OF HUMAN
RIGHTS
This paper critiques the article by Makau Mutua (Savages, Victims and Saviors: The metaphor of
Human Rights). It seeks to question the universality and cultural neutrality of the human rights
project, it also seeks to question the metaphor brought forward by Makau Mutua.
There are three dimensions brought forth by the article, the first dimension depicts a savage and
evokes effects of barbarism1. Although not confined to the offending state, the state is portrayed
as the perpetrator, which chooses to let illiberal, anti-democratic or other authoritarian culture
run rife, in stark contrast to the ‘good’ western state that brings these cultural driven atrocities to
an abrupt halt.2
The second dimension depicts the ‘face and the fact of the victim as well as the essence and the
idea of victimhood’,3 in short, the victim is a powerless, helpless, innocent whose naturalist
attributes have been negated by the primitive and offensive actions of the state and the rampant
culture in the state, he proceeds to inquire into the nature of human rights reports, which
routinely feature a catalogue of horrible catastrophes, coupled with a diagnostic epilogue and
recommended therapies and remedies.
The third, and last, dimensions depicts the savior or the redeemer “… the good angel who
protects, vindicates, civilizes, restrains and safeguards. The savior is the victim’s bulwark against
tyranny. The simple, yet complex promise of the savior is freedom: freedom from the tyrannies
of the state, tradition and culture.”4 However, this freedom is attuned to a specific set of cultural
values which is fundamentally Eurocentric thus creating an “othering process” that depicts the
1 Mutua, Makau (2001) ‘Savages, Victims,and Saviors:The Metaphor of Human Rights’ Harvard International Law
Journal, 42 (1), pp. 201-245.
2 De Brennan, S, ‘Critique,Culture and Commitment: The Dangerous and Counterproductive Paths of International
Legal Discourse’,2004 (2) Law, Social Justice& Global Development Journal (LGD).
3 See supra note 1
4 Ibid

2. civilized (western) states and none civilized (third world) states, in which the predominantly
western Human Rights body coming to save the savages from the “other world.”
In the savage dimension, the third world state is portrayed as the overreaching perpetrator which
chooses to let illiberal anti-democratic culture to run rife in the stark contrast to the good western
state that bring an ultimate halt to such cultures.5 However, Mutua fails to note that it is a reality
that the municipal remedies are weak thus the laxity in punishment for these acts against human
rights aspects. Mutua also fails to recognize non-western offenders who are not in the third world
countries e.g. the Japanese and the Chinese.
The second dimension depicts a powerless victim, helpless, innocent who has been negated by
the primitive and offensive actions of the state and the rampant culture therein. The human being
whose dignity has been violated by the savage, what Mutua fails to note that most act against
humanity are committed by the state against its citizens (in a vertical dimension) and not by
citizens against citizens (in a horizontal dimension). Examples are the acts committed by
President Al-Assad of Syria against his citizens or by president Bashir of Sudan against his
citizens.
The third dimension is that of the savior providing freedom to the victim, the freedoms however
is depicted as Eurocentric. He depicts human rights as a little more than an exercise in which the
good western state is juxtaposed against the illiberal, immoral and draconian non-western one.6
The question arises is, is human rights a western concept (cultural relativism of the west) or a
uniform law of nations (universalism)?
Analytical postures developed during the colonial era can no longer be sustained, it is
questionable whether one can paint our physical boundaries as stagnant and immutable given
that globalization and an increasing interdependency among nations has brought multicultural
identities. One can no longer say that the third world countries make no contributions to the
5 See supra note 2
6 Ibid

3. developments of international laws, we therefore can no longer say that human rights is a
Eurocentric idea of colonial superiority and domination.7
Makau states that most INGOs focus their activities in third world countries, it is however worth
noting that most of the western nations have strong legal municipal mechanisms of dealing with
human right offenders compared to third world countries which have a very weak mechanism.
Example being the European Court on Human Rights that deals with European countries that has
been in force for a long time, the weight of this court cannot be compared to the weight of the
African Court on People and Human Rights. This leaves it to the INGOs to fill the void left by
the weak institutions.
Thus in conclusion, human rights are a universal concept and not merely ideas brought in by the
western countries to rule in on the third world countries. Also the concentration of the INGOs on
third world countries is merely by default due to the the lack of proper municipal mechanism in
these third world countries to properly deal with human rights offenders.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Mutua, Makau (2001) ‘Savages, Victims, and Saviors: The Metaphor of Human Rights’ Harvard
International Law Journal, 42 (1), pp. 201-245.
De Brennan, S, ‘Critique, Culture and Commitment: The Dangerous and Counterproductive
Paths of International Legal Discourse’, 2004 (2) Law, Social Justice & Global Development
Journal (LGD).
www.go.warwick.ac.uk/elj/lgd/debrennan
7 De Brennan, S, ‘Critique,Culture and Commitment: The Dangerous and Counterproductive Paths of International
Legal Discourse’,2004 (2) Law, Social Justice& Global Development Journal (LGD).