Arguments Against Universalism (DP IB Global Politics: HL): Revision Note

Cultural considerations

• Some people say that different cultures may have different interpretations of human rights

  • Cultural relativism supports this view

• These differences must be considered, so universalism doesn’t always apply

• Some argue that although human rights are important, the way they can be interpreted or defined can be influenced by

  • Religious beliefs

  • Cultural practices and norms

Example: Article 16 of the UDHR

• Article 16 has been interpreted differently in different societies

  • In some societies cultural traditions consider that marriage can solely take place between a man and a woman

    • They argue this article supports that view

    • European countries such as Bulgaria, Serbia and Slovakia do not recognise any same-sex unions

  • In other societies traditional views about marriage have been rejected, particularly in recent years

    • They argue this article does not say that marriage must solely be between a man and a woman

    • By January 2025, 22 European countries legally recognised and perform same-sex marriages

• Universalism is questioned because some of the articles are open to interpretation by such cultural considerations

Situational considerations

• Some argue that different situations mean that some human rights cannot be applied

  • If situations must be considered, universalism doesn’t always apply

• Some situations which actors argue might prohibit the protection and enforcement of human rights include

  • If a state is at war, the government may have to limit Article 19 (freedom of expression) 

  • Some may argue that people who commit horrific crimes should be executed and thereby deprived of Article 3 (right to life)

  • In the case of a terrorist attack, some governments may argue that Article 9 (arbitrary arrest and detention) must be suspended so they can prevent further violence

• Universalism is questioned because some of the articles must be suspended in certain situations

The group can take priority over the individual

• Some people argue that the needs of society should come before the needs of individuals

  • This is linked to the arguments criticising the UDHR as Western-biased, as it promotes individualism

• If groups can take priority, universalism doesn’t always apply

• There are several discussions about whether the rights of groups should be prioritised

  • The rights of groups, referred to as collective rights, can be seen articles 27-30 of the UDHR, but the rights in the UDHR are all seen as equally important

  • Some make cultural arguments

    • For example some East Asian states argue that their cultures prioritise the rights and stability of the community over the rights of individuals

  • Some argue that the rights of groups that are marginalised and disadvantaged should be prioritised over the rights of others

• The UDHR is focused on the rights of individuals rather than groups

  • Article 29 acknowledges that individuals have duties to their community, but this is not the same as granting rights to groups as a whole

  • Genuine collective rights, such as the right of peoples to self-determination, were not included in the UDHR and only appeared later in the 1966 international covenants