Más contenido relacionado


Universality of Human Rights

  1. P R E S E N T E D B Y B I S H A L S H A R M A Are Human Rights Universal?
  2. o The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is half a century old, but critics are still asking whether anything in our multicultural, diverse world can be truly universal. o Isn't human rights an essentially Western concept, ignoring the very different cultural, economic and political realities? o Can the values of the consumer society be applied to societies that have nothing to consume? o Isn't talking about universal rights rather like saying that the rich and the poor both have the same right to fly first-class and to sleep under bridges?
  3. The fact is that there are serious objections to the concept of universal human rights which its defenders need to acknowledge honestly, the better to refute them.
  4. Philosophical views on Universality of HR o All rights and values are defined and limited by cultural perceptions. There is no universal culture, therefore there are no universal human rights. o Some philosophers have objected that the concept is founded on an individualistic view of people, whose greatest need is to be free from interference by the state. o Non-Western societies often have a communitarian ethic which sees society as more than the sum of its individual members and considers duties to be more important than rights.
  5. African countries Argument In Africa it is usually the community that protects and nurtures the individual: 'I am because we are, and because we are therefore I am.' In most African societies, group rights had precedence over individual rights and conflict resolution would not necessarily be based on the assertion and defence of legal rights.
  6. North/South argument o The Universal Declaration was adopted at a time when most Third World countries were still under colonial rule. o 'Human rights' are only a cover for Western intervention in the affairs of the developing world. o Developing countries, some also argue, cannot afford human rights since the tasks of nation- building and economic development are still unfinished. o Suspending or limiting human rights is thus the sacrifice of the few for the benefit of the many.
  7.  The human-rights concept is understood and upheld only by a small Westernized minority in developing countries; it does not extend to the lowest rungs of the ladder. Universality in these circumstances would be a universality of the privileged.
  8. Human rights reflect Western cultural bias o Human rights reflect Western cultural bias like the rights of women. o How can women's rights be universal in the face of widespread divergences of cultural practice, when in some societies marriage is seen not as a contract between two individuals but as an alliance between lineages. o You cannot follow the model of a 'modern' nation- state cutting across tribal boundaries and conventions.
  9. religious leaders argue o Some religious leaders argue that human rights can only be acceptable if they are founded on transcendent values of their faith, sanctioned by God. o There is a built-in conflict between the universality of human rights and the particularity of religious perspectives.
  10. The objections also reflect a false opposition between the primacy of the individual and society which country can truly claim to be following its 'traditional culture' in a pure form? o Culture is too often cited as a defence against human rights by authoritarians who crush culture domestically when it suits them. o None have remained in a pristine state. o All have been subject to change and distortion by external influence, both as a result of colonialism. o There is nothing sacrosanct about culture anyway. o There is much in every culture that societies quite naturally outgrow and reject.
  11. Are we, as Indians, obliged to defend, in the name of our culture, the practices of sati or of untouchability? o The fact that slavery was acceptable across the world for at least two thousand years does not make it acceptable to us now. o Where coercion exists, rights are violated and these violations must be condemned, whatever the traditional justification. Coercion, not culture, is the test.
  12.  Human rights are fully compatible with the secular understanding of all faiths.  Every religion seeks to embody certain verities that are applicable to all humanity-justice, truth, mercy, compassion.  Amartya Sen has pointed out that it is the availability of political and civil rights which give people the opportunity to draw attention to their needs and to demand action from the government.  India, China, Chile, Cuba, Lebanon and Panama - played an active and highly influential part in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  13. What exactly are these human rights that someone in a developing country can easily do without?  right to life?  Freedom from torture?  The right not to be enslaved  not to be physically assaulted, not to be arbitrarily arrested, imprisoned?
  14. Memorable phrase “Human rights, start with breakfast.” “Human rights are not the gift of a particular government or legal code.” “Human rights can keep the world safe for diversity.”

Hinweis der Redaktion

  1. This is a very basic overview. There are other differences, but these are the main ones.
  2. America’s Funniest Home Videos is a wonderful source of torts videos.
  3. This might be a good place to mention that many torts can also form the basis for a criminal wrong as well (e.g. homicide/wrongful death, robbery/conversion, etc.), but it can also be mentioned at a later point in the presentation.
  4. Take a poll of students to determine whether they think these torts actually happened. The poll may be taken either after each fact scenario or after all of them. These are all actual tort cases.
  5. Explain to students that the focus of the class will be on negligent torts. There are a wide variety of intentional torts, each with different elements, so the subject is not as amenable to a one or two class session. Strict liability torts are traditionally very uncommon and there is little more else to be said about them than the summary above.
  6. Explain that in order to win a negligent tort claim, the plaintiff must prove each of the four elements. If one of the elements is missing then the plaintiff cannot win (e.g., if the plaintiff cannot prove that the defendant’s breach of duty caused the plaintiff’s damages then even if the plaintiff was injured s/he cannot recover).
  7. Ask students to attempt to answer each of the questions on the slide. In addition, you may want to ask questions such as whether everyone is held to the same reasonable person standard. Ordinarily they are, but some interesting exceptions include professionals such as architects, doctors and lawyers (held to the standard of a reasonable member of their profession) and people with physical disabilities (held to the standard of a reasonable person with such a disability). Note, however, that people with mental disabilities are held to the same standard as people who do not have such disabilities.
  8. There is not necessarily one right answer for any of these individuals. Possible answers include: (1) actively scanning the pool or not placing too much chlorine in the pool; (2) yelling “Timber!” or making sure the surrounding area is clear; (3) keeping the dog on a leash or keeping the dog fenced in; and (4) making sure players are properly hydrated or making sure players are not forced to play injured.
  9. It would be good to mention an actual case where it was held that there was no proximate cause. One good case involves a flaming barge floating down a river that set fire to a house on the riverside and due to a strong wind thirty neighboring houses caught fire. The court held the barge operator liable for the first house, but not the other 29. One of the courts rationales was to promote a social policy that encouraged purchasing homeowner’s insurance. The theories, on a basic level, are: (1) whether the tortfeasor could have foreseen the consequences of his or her actions; if not no proximate cause; (2) whether the tortfeasor’s actions were the direct cause of the consequences; if there was an intervening cause such as a lightning strike then no proximate cause; and (3) similar to forseeability, whether the harm was within the range of harms that could be expected from the tortfeasor’s actions.