Global conflicts which arise out of the myth of universality of the human rights still remain a puzzle. Human rights are one of the most precious concepts ever invented. Still, the shades of Rashomon Effect (interpretation of same phenomenon in contradictory ways) constantly loom large over it. So, it is really surprising that the global institutions and scholars have tried to capture a dynamic reality of rights into a ontological framework which is universally acceptable. In the present VUCA times, promotion of human rights has taken the form of an industry rather than a moral appeal based on aspirational global norms.
Further, after the adoption of Universal declaration of Human Rights in 1948,it was replicated through regional instruments all over the world. The puzzle remains the same: Based on the decleration,are we able to protect everybody including the asylum seekers in Poland or new born babies in Syria by the virtue of them being humans? So, the myth of universality has witnessed many conceptions of good which may be individually valid but not reconcilable.
What we wanted as aspirational global norms have become contextual events. For example : the disagreement over basic right to life along with differences over capital punishment and abortion between the Christian and Sharia Law reflects conflicts over general acceptance of human rights. Further the ongoing refugee crisis in Europe is a testimonial to the value pluralism in Europe with respect to Human Rights as they suffer the problem of impossible trinity for governments: a)Shall we try to make our own citizens feel secure ? b) Shall we follow the international law? c) Shall we allow the refugees to enter and look after them?
So, in order to tackle this puzzle, human rights must be operationalized in a dynamic context considering regional and cultural particularities. Scholars like Jeremy Bentham and Loius Henkin have argued on human rights as “ natural rights” and “ jus cogens(compelling law)” respectively. Still, the major issue of universality and general global acceptance of the human rights persist. Therefore we need to study the transformation and evolution of human rights as systems conditioned by idiosyncrasies to issues with respect to localized histories, faith and cultural traditions. Human rights must emerge as a “problem solving and mitigation mechanism” rather than a teleological competition of parallel evolution among the societies. For example the acceptance for conception of LGBT rights and women rights has both temporal and space (location) considerations. People in developed democratic countries like USA are much more advanced intellectually and culturally to admire the importance of LGBT Rights with respect to orthodox Arab or emerging African societies.
Hence, we must tackle this puzzle of formalism and come out of the myth of universality which never exists in context of Human Rights. Universality of Human Rights must not be seen as delivering “essential Public goods” but a blissful concatenation of social evolution which justifies its problem solving ability in any society.
The author is a candidate at the philosophy department of LSE.