Critically discuss the historical-cultural context of human rights Essay

Critically discuss the historical-cultural context of clement rights. Does their context differ across cultural boundaries and if - Essay ExampleIn academic literature, the school of thought that who argued against universality in relation to human rights ar today establishing sore perspectives regarding human rights. This school of thought, now incorporates cultural elements within a universal concept cogitate to human rights, instead of directly criticizing the idea of universality (Hey 2000, p.17). This approach interpreted in regard to human rights paves way for a focus on various issues affecting the indian lodge and the implications in terms of establishing human rights that are recognized internationalistly. Further, there is a likelihood of a new universalism being born as a go forth of globalization. This new universalism link to significant developments that have occurred globally in terms of theories and politics relate to human rights. In practice, various righ ts that exist within the confederation are now viewed as being interdependent. However, there is also an increasing recognition of cultural diverseness thus resulting in varying concepts related to rights in regard to a new universalism. For example, the establishment of the internationally recognized criminal tribunals in countries such as the Netherlands or Tanzania, reflect on a consensus for international responsibility, and also accountability in regard to serious crimes that are against humanity. In essence, this paper explores the historical-cultural context related to universality of human rights. (Hey 2000, p.19). Universality is an important characteristic related to human rights and by definition, human rights denotes the rights getable to every human being and hence, considered universal. Each human being is considered a holder of human rights that are independent of their origin, their daily activities, where they reside and their citizenship or community. Universali ty in regard to human rights is much influenced by other factors associated with human rights, and human rights are categorical, egalitarian and indivisible (Onuma 2001, p.33). In essence, a review of universalism and relativism reveals a build-up of two different terminologies, however the counterpart of the former term is particularism and for the latter term is absolutism. The main origin for the misconception revolves around an assumption identifying universalism as being only legitimate through absolute justification. As a result, a relative means of legitimization can establish only a justification considered relative. The result in this sense related to the proponents advocating for human rights tends to establish an absolute justification in terms of the set human rights. This assumption is influenced by the view that relative justification is not appropriate to establish universality related to human rights (Onuma 2001, p.42). On the other hand, it could be argued that th is two terms lack direct association, which creates consequences in regarding to evolution an understanding of the universality related to human rights, and also attempt to establish a justification. Human rights often struggles as a result of particular interests among states that place priority for sovereignty over universality related to human rights. In addition, the private sector also impacts on human rights as a result of focusing on self-regulating approaches and capitalizes to establish their influence relative to certain limits. Further, this challenge forms part of