Most of us will be aware that we have rights, both individual and collective, and should be familiar with the concept of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

But how universal should this declaration of human rights be? It should be everywhere surely, everyone deserves equal, inalienable rights, right?

Well, yes I agree with that to some extent, but here I seek to unpack why this debate its actually much more complex and nuanced than that. The declaration can be interpreted as ethnocentric, due to its derivation from the Western hemisphere, thus does not represent everyone universally as it overlooks the importance of cultural variation. The declaration is therefore arguably homogenising, as it overlooks cultural variation due to the importance placed on ensuring humanity as a whole is protected.

To begin with, notions of ‘personhood’ vary cross-culturally. In many societies, being a ‘human’ does not equate to being a ‘person,’ an example being the Gahuku Gamu in New Guinea, as their cultural practises and rites of passage are very different European or North American customs for instance. In some cases, ‘personhood’ is acquired over time, such as the Tallensi in Ghana, and is not a given quality at birth, as is broadly accepted in Western countries.

So why do we have a ‘universal’ declaration of rights that has been derived in the West, suits Western norms, aligns with Western ethics, that all countries, Western and non-Western, must adhere to, if other cultures do not regard everyone as ‘equal beings’ like the doctrine sets out?

To be clear, I am not in any way advocating for a removal of rights all together, or suggesting that the UN shouldn’t even bother because its fundamentally impossible to achieve an ethnically well-balanced doctrine, but I do believe that review is required, and perhaps the presentation of such doctrines should be altered, as the ‘universal’ title is perhaps not the best way to promote it.

So what could be done in the future to remove the ethnocentric nature of the declaration? Modernisation is certainly worth considering, as it was made over three quarters of a century ago. Whilst this is post-war, it is not up to date and does not match contemporary society therefore I would argue that over the next decade or so, some genuine reform is needed here. I would also advocate for a committee to be established (or something similar) to discuss and investigate how is best to incorporate better cultural appreciation into the declaration, to ensure this is a core focus of the modernisation process. This board should undoubtably be culturally diverse and could diplomatically agree on how to best promote rights internationally.

However, could it be argued that the universal nature of the declaration of human rights is integral precisely because the concept of personhood is not universal. Modern slavery exists, along with other rights based atrocities, with murder being somewhat normalised in some countries, thus the declaration of rights protects the existence of humanity. Furthermore, 193 nation states provided representatives to agree on the doctrine, highlighting how a range of views were considered. And indeed, the parameters are fairly broad, but I would still argue for modernisation, and one representative from each country is not necessarily representative of all cultural customs within that country, e.g. the Brazil representative will not be able to advocate for all the different Amazonian tribal practises, yet these individuals may need this level of consideration when writing such a doctrine.

In conclusion, it is fair to say that this is somewhat of a controversial debate and there is no (universally) right answer. I do however think that an improved version is possible, and certainly worth considering to make make the UN a more ethnically plural institution by ensuring that discussion is at the heart of their work, and is the core focus of the modernisation of rights. An enhanced version of the declaration where all cultures are appreciated, leaving space for further elaboration, is probably the closest we can come to an answer to this debate, and in my opinion, an established committee focussing on this would best answer the question ensuring this is suitably considered.

Further reading – Renteln