Universal Human Rights? Irrelevant.

Note from the Author: You thought I was gone? Wix, you can lock me out, but I will never be silenced! :) And what better way to make a comeback than to declare universal human rights a myth?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations in 1948, has been a cornerstone of global human rights law, setting out a common standard of human dignity and freedoms – basic claims and entitlements that many argue, one should be able to exercise simply by virtue of being a human being. Some of these include, the right to life, liberty and the security of the person (Art. 3), freedom from torture (Art. 5), equality before the law /freedom from discrimination (Art. 7), and freedom of opinion and expression (Art. 19). However, as the 21st century unfolds, the question arises as to whether the UDHR remains relevant in addressing contemporary human rights challenges. The landscape of human rights has shifted considerably, influenced by its clash with state sovereignty, globalisation, cultural relativism, the rise of authoritarianism, and the expansion of rights claims beyond those originally envisaged. While the UDHR's core principles endure, I challenge its applicability in modern times. 

The UDHR is not fully relevant in addressing the complexities of modern human rights issues because it does not adequately account for state sovereignty and the diverse socio-political realities of the 21st century.  The articles were drafted in the aftermath of World War II by a group dominated by Western powers, including the United States, France, and the UK, which shaped its philosophical foundations. Thus the document promotes individualistic values such as freedom of speech, personal autonomy, and the right to private property—values deeply rooted in Western liberal democracy. But try selling the “freedom of speech” clause to China, where dissent is more likely to get you censored than celebrated. These individual values do not align with every culture's traditions or political structures. China adheres to a collectivist political structure, prioritising societal harmony and state authority over individual autonomy. As a result, the right to freedom of speech (Article 19), heavily emphasised in the UDHR, is often challenged in China, where censorship and the control of dissenting voices are justified by cultural and political norms that prioritise social stability. 

This can be seen in The Safeguarding National Security Ordinance Law implemented in March 2024 in China to prevent, suppress and punish acts and activities endangering national security. Yet while China frames the law as essential to maintaining national security and societal harmony, it significantly undermines individual freedoms, particularly the right to freedom of speech as pro-democracy activists, journalists, and politicians in Hong Kong have been arrested or silenced, with media outlets shut down and protests suppressed, reflecting China's emphasis on social stability over individual liberties. As such the UDHR can be seen as a symbol of western neo-imperialism – imposing a western ideal of human rights onto the world and expecting full compliance. In cases like China’s, the UDHR struggles to remain relevant in modern geopolitics, where state sovereignty and security concerns increasingly override individual freedoms. Sure, it’s a “universal” declaration—just as long as your universe looks a lot like the U.S. or Western Europe.

However, contemporary human rights declarations continue to uphold the fundamental rights first highlighted in the UDHR, demonstrating its enduring influence. For instance, the 2012 Human Rights Declaration by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) includes civil and political rights such as the right to life, freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial, which mirror those outlined in the UDHR. This incorporation shows how the UDHR’s principles resonate across diverse political systems. Moreover, The UDHR also serves as a vital reference point for international accountability. The new “vice and virtue” laws enacted by the Taliban in August 2024, prohibit women from speaking or showing their faces outside their homes, and require women to completely veil their bodies in thick clothing to avoid leading men into temptation. Women are also barred from speaking in public, singing, or reading aloud, even within their homes. These measures directly violate multiple rights enshrined in the UDHR, such as the right to freedom of expression, the right to education, and the principle of equality. When a state systematically fails to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens, it undermines its own legitimacy and moral authority. Sovereignty is predicated on the idea that a government is responsible for the welfare of its people; when that responsibility is neglected or actively violated, the justification for sovereignty is called into question. 

By invoking the UDHR, activists and international bodies can call attention to these violations and demand accountability from the Taliban regime (though indeed this is extremely difficult to do in authoritarian regimes) The UDHR provides a universal framework that empowers individuals and organisations to advocate for the protection of human rights, emphasising that regardless of cultural or political context, fundamental rights must be upheld. This ongoing relevance reinforces the UDHR's role in guiding international discourse on human rights, ensuring that violations are met with global scrutiny and prompting calls for reform – crucial for the activism we see from NGOs like Amnesty International. Thus the UDHR remains relevant as a benchmark for measuring and critiquing state behaviour.

Further, human rights advocates have broadened the scope of issues included under the umbrella of human rights, notably third generation rights. This includes new areas such as environmental rights, gender identity, and specifically LGBTQ+ rights, in addition to UDHR traditional rights like freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial. This calls into question the idea of cultural relativism in human rights. While the scope of human rights issues has expanded, there is less tolerance for different interpretations or cultural practices regarding these rights. This suggests that human rights advocates expect countries to conform to a more universal standard of rights without room for local adaptations or differences. This narrowing of differences can lead to increased suspicion or backlash against human rights initiatives, especially in diverse political and cultural landscapes. A recent example of the clash between universal human rights and cultural relativism can be seen in Qatar's hosting of the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Homosexuality is illegal in Qatar and same-sex relationships are punishable by law, reflecting the country’s adherence to Islamic cultural and religious principles. During the World Cup, several European teams, including England and Germany, planned to wear "OneLove" armbands to protest Qatar’s anti-LGBTQ+ laws and promote inclusivity. However, FIFA intervened, threatening sanctions, which highlighted a deep conflict between Western human rights values (promoting LGBTQ+ rights) and Qatar's local laws, grounded in its conservative Islamic beliefs. Qatar's response, backed by cultural relativism, emphasised that Western countries should not impose their values on a society with different cultural and religious norms. Further, reports revealed that workers in the construction of stadiums faced poor working conditions, low wages, and lack of labour rights protections. Human rights groups condemned these practices as violations of Article 23 of the UDHR (the right to just and favourable working conditions. While Qatar made some reforms to its labour laws, including ending the kafala system, critics argue that these changes were insufficient and often poorly enforced. From Qatar’s perspective, its labour practices were framed within the context of the rapid economic development it was undergoing, and local leaders saw international criticism as an imposition of foreign standards on their labour market. This case demonstrates that global human rights frameworks like the UDHR must engage more thoughtfully with local contexts in order to be relevant and effective in addressing contemporary issues.

However, while it is true that human rights advocates have broadened the scope of issues under the umbrella of human rights to include third-generation rights, it is essential to recognize that the UDHR maintains its relevance and effectiveness precisely because it encompasses certain fundamental rights that remain largely non-derogable. Call me old-fashioned, but I think “don’t commit genocide” is a pretty reasonable universal standard.The notion that the expansion of human rights leads to an intolerance for different cultural interpretations overlooks the fact that the UDHR was designed to articulate universal principles that protect against the most egregious violations of human dignity—violations that are fundamentally unacceptable regardless of cultural context. such as the prohibitions against torture, slavery, and genocide. The condemnation of the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya people in Myanmar, for example, underscores the UDHR's relevance. The United Nations and various human rights organizations have classified the actions against the Rohingya, including widespread violence, displacement, and killings, as genocide. Likewise, in 2024 the UN human rights council declared there to be ‘reasonable grounds’ that genocide is being committed in Gaza inspiring mass protesting, petitioning and riots in order to preserve ‘fundamental human rights” precisely because such profound suffering cannot be justified or excused by cultural relativism. The UDHR places inherent value on each human life, which is why it remains relevant regardless of shifts in what constitutes human rights. It underscores the idea that human rights are not merely cultural constructs but inherent entitlements that transcend geographical and cultural boundaries.

Nevertheless, while it is true that human rights advocates have broadened the scope of issues under the umbrella of human rights to include third-generation rights, it is essential to recognize that the UDHR maintains its relevance and effectiveness precisely because it encompasses certain fundamental rights that remain largely non-derogable. The notion that the expansion of human rights leads to an intolerance for different cultural interpretations overlooks the fact that the UDHR was designed to articulate universal principles that protect against the most egregious violations of human dignity—violations that are fundamentally unacceptable regardless of cultural context, such as the prohibitions against torture, slavery, and genocide.The condemnation of the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya people in Myanmar exemplifies this relevance. The UN and various human rights organizations have classified the actions against the Rohingya, including widespread violence, displacement, and killings, as genocide. This classification has ignited international outrage and advocacy, as citizens around the globe demand justice for the Rohingya and call for accountability for those responsible. Such widespread condemnation not only reinforces the principles outlined in the UDHR but also illustrates a collective recognition that these violations and such profound suffering cannot be justified or excused by cultural relativism. Similarly, in 2024, the UN Human Rights Council declared there to be "reasonable grounds" that genocide is being committed in Gaza, inspiring mass protests, petitioning, and riots aimed at preserving "fundamental human rights." The passionate outcry from activists, citizens, and international organisations highlights the urgent need for a global response to these atrocities. This widespread outrage signifies that the principles enshrined in the UDHR resonate deeply with people around the world, transcending cultural boundaries and emphasising a shared commitment to protecting human dignity.

See, while I do think that culture’s having the authority to make their own decisions on third generation rights as well as their political structures and climates under state sovereignty is crucial and undermines the relevance of a UDHR, ultimately, the UDHR's continued relevance is anchored in its core rights that are essential for human dignity. In this way it is not modern day human rights that keeps it relevant, but rather it’s basic, original freedoms such as guaranteeing each human has a right to life, which continues to serves as a standard and a call to action, reminding states that regardless of cultural differences, every individual deserves respect, safety, and the opportunity to live free from fear and violence.