Human Rights

The United Nations defines human rights as those entitlements endowed upon an individual simply for the reason of them being a human being. Human rights are recognised as universal, alienable and indivisible, meaning they apply to all humans, they cannot be taken away, and they cannot be partially recognised. It could easily be assumed that it is these rights which in essence tie us together as humans.

However the concept of human rights, especially its principles of universality, have increasing global and national implications. Human rights are recognised differently across borders, depending on the cultural and socio-political institutions present in each nation, and there have been many claims that the perceivable 'forced recognition' of a determined doctrine of rights has the ability to undermine a nation's sovereignty and cultural independence.

I came across a chapter in a book written by Makau Matua, titled 'The Complexity of Universalism in Human Rights'. In this chapter, Matua argues that while the development of human rights cannot be traced back to one cultural power, the recognition of human rights aligns with the adoption of a liberal democracy, and that in itself is a cultural imposition upon many countries who are perceived as not having an agreeable governing system

Please don't get me wrong (please!), human rights are essential to our livelihoods and should be recognised at their maximum standard. However, I think it is increasingly important that we recognsie the complexity that many nations face when recognising and enforcing these doctrines in a modern and globalised context.