1. Pate 1
The Irrelevance of the Universality of Human Rights Debate
By Ashley Pate
PAR 410
Habibi
11/30/2014

2. Pate 2
There has been much debate in recent years over the application of human rights in non-
Western societies. Many non-Western societies have argued that human rights are relative to a
specific culture, and therefore cannot be applied uniformly on an international level. They also
argue that human rights are derived from western constructs of morality and ethics1. For
example, Singapore’s former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew has said ““universal recognition of
the ideal of human rights can be harmful if universalism is used to deny or mask the reality of
diversity.” 2
Lee Kuan Yew’s viewpoint is just one of many in non-Western societies which sees the
possibility of the universal application of human rights as unlikely and unfavorable3. In modern
society, there is a struggle of many non-Westerners to recognize cultural differences while at the
same time recognizing the individual rights of a person.4 This struggle comes from the supposed
view of many people that the universality of human rights negates the ability to respect cultural
diversity within a particular society or group. However, in this paper I will set out to prove that
1 Jacqueline Langwith. “Human Rights.” (Detroit, Mich.: Greenhaven Press, 2008.), page 24
2 Amartya Kumar Sen. “Human Rightsand Asian Values.” (New York: Carnegie Council on Ethics and
International Affairs, 1997.)
3 Michael C Davis. “Human Rightsand Chinese Values: Legal, Philosophical,and Political Perspectives.” (Hong
Kong: Oxford University Press, 1995), page one.
4 Patrick Hayden. “The Philosophy of Human Rights.” (St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2001), page 371.

3. Pate 3
there is in fact no collision of viewpoints, but rather a fundamental misunderstanding from both
Western and non-Western cultures of the implications of universal human rights.
The issue over cultural relativism and universalism has ruled much of the human rights
debate in recent years, however people have been asking the wrong questions about their
relationship. Supporters of cultural relativism, like Lee Kuan Yew, believe that universal human
rights law is just another tactic used by Western countries to establish their imperial dominance
over non-Western countries. They have argued that since people from different cultures have
different backgrounds and traditions, it is not in their best interest to follow international human
rights law. It is important to note here that no politician, at least from an Asian or African
background, has actually denied the existence of universal human rights.5 Rather, they just deny
its universal application.
One of the fatal flaws that supporters of universalism make and that many non-
Westerners see as a problem within the idea of universalism is the assumption that one must
believe human rights should have the same meaning irrespective of cultural traditions or else one
must abandon the notion of the universality of human rights completely. Westerners are often
quick to reject the notion of cultural relativism because of its apparent implications of non-
consolidation with universalism.6 As Fernando Teson, a legal academic and supporter of
5 Fernand De Varennes. "The Fallacies in the "Universalism Versus Cultural Relativism" Debate in Human Rights
Law." (Asia Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law 7, no. 1 2006), page 79.
6 Fernand De Varennes. “The Fallacies in the “Universalism Versus Cultural Relativism” Debate in Human Rights
Law,” page 77

4. Pate 4
humanitarian intervention, said, “If there is an international human rights standard - then its
meaning remains uniform across borders.”7
However, to come to this conclusion is illogical because this view of universal human
rights is outdated and ignores the possibility for a human right to be applied internationally. In
fact, it is possible to console international human rights laws with specific cultures, and human
rights need not be relative to these cultures. In order to do this, one must consider contextual
differences in Western and non-Western societies. This includes taking into account social and
economic conditions for a specific country.8 A right can vary between countries because of the
different situations that each country is experiencing, but does not mean that the human right
cannot still be universal in the way it is applied.9 There are many reasonable and valid
regulations that allow for different results in the application of international human rights law.10
According to the European court of human rights, “a difference of treatment is discriminatory if
it has no objective and reasonable justification that is if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if
there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the
aims sought to be realized.”
7 Patrick Hayden, “The philosophy of Human Rights,” page
8 Fernand De Varennes. “The Fallacies in the “Universalism Versus Cultural Relativism” Debate in Human Rights
Law,” page 78.
9 Fernand De Varennes. “The Fallacies in the “Universalism Versus Cultural Relativism” Debate in Human Rights
Law,” page 77-80.
10 Fernand De Varennes. “The Fallacies in the “Universalism Versus Cultural Relativism” Debate in Human Rights
Law,” page 81-2.

5. Pate 5
What needs to be distinguished in the whole debate over cultural relativism is the
confusion that exists as to what the debate is all about. Although the debate is sometimes
portrayed as tensions involving a denial of the universality of human rights, this is not the true
nature of the argument. At least officially, no Asian or African state will openly deny that the
basic human rights contained in instruments such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights are
universal The true crux of the matter is whether human rights can be “set aside “because of
cultural differences.11
Many scholars and politicians have engaged in the debate over the acceptance of
international human rights but have, in my opinion, somewhat missed the mark on the real issue
at hand. Proponents of universalism argue that cultural boundaries and differences must be
ignored in order to support the notion of universal human rights, while proponents of cultural
relativism argue that universal human rights are a Western construct used to spread imperialism.
In fact, a consensus between universalism and cultural relativism is possible, and necessary in
modern society in order to establish a stream-line international human rights statute.
11 Fernand De Varennes. “The Fallacies in the “Universalism Versus Cultural Relativism” Debate in Human Rights
Law,” page 79.

6. Pate 6
Bibliography
1. Davis, Michael C. Human Rights and Chinese Values: Legal, Philosophical, and
Political Perspectives. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1995.
2. Donnelly, Jack. "Cultural Relativism and Universal Human Rights." Human Rights
Quarterly: 400.
3. Hayden, Patrick. The Philosophy of Human Rights. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2001.
4. Langwith, Jacqueline. Human Rights. Detroit, Mich.: Greenhaven Press, 2008.
5. Sen, Amartya Kumar. Human Rights and Asian Values. New York: Carnegie Council on
Ethics and International Affairs, 1997.
6. Varennes, Fernand De. "The Fallacies in the "Universalism Versus Cultural Relativism"
Debate in Human Rights Law." Asia Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law 7,
no. 1 (2006): 67-84.