Instructions

Once you have read the Hajjar chapter and the UDHR, please complete this eResponse by writing concise but thorough answers to all of the following questions.

You must include page numbers in each question–your score will depend on it. I do not require any specific citation format. Just include (author last name, page number) at the end of the relevant sentences. Please note that you must cite when you draw any ideas from the text, whether or not you explicitly quote it. And you must draw your ideas from the text because that is the assignment.

Please be sure that if and when you use a direct quotation from the reading, you also explain what that quotation means in your own words.

Questions (number your answers)

1. An-Na'im identifies a basic paradox in human rights on p. 89. What do you understand this paradox to mean, in your own words? (You may paste here the direct quotation from the text, but please also digest this quotation to tell me what you understand it to mean).

2. An-Na’im argues that the concepts of universality and cultural relativism are tricky because actually all nations have some culturally relativist attitudes toward human rights. He says that one example is that the U.S. is hostile to one category of human rights. What is this category of human rights that the U.S. tends to avoid, and how is that an example of cultural relativism? Answer both parts.

3. Of all the dimensions or versions of universality that Donnelly describes, is there one that you find particularly convincing? Describe it and explain why you selected it.

4. How does Donnelly discuss self-determination versus sovereignty?

5. Be sure to review each of Donnelly's versions of "universality," etc. (in other words, each section of the article set off with headings). You do not need to write anything here for #5, but in our class discussion, you will be asked to define a random selection of them.

Reply to a classmate

When you have finished posting your numbered answers, please read through and comment on someone else's post, as well. Your comment should be substantive. If you agree or disagree with their post, explain why with reference to specifics. If you learned something from their post, identify what that is. 

•An-Na'im identifies a basic paradox in human rights on p. 89. What do you understand this paradox to mean, in your own words? (You may paste here the direct quotation from the text, but please also digest this quotation to tell me what you understand it to mean).

•

oI have read this quote over and over again to try and get an understanding of what it is saying because it is a difficult quote to break down for me. From what I am understanding from this is how do we protect the human rights of the public even though the right of self-determination essentially gets in the way of achieving that. The article of the 1966 Covenants states, “By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development” (Summers, 2). So, implementing “international supervision of domestic rights protection” means that it removes peoples’ freedoms of “self-determination” (An-Na'im, 89). I may argue that implementing international supervision of these rights does not infringe on peoples’ freedoms because the supervision is in effect to assure peoples rights are achieved to a standard that is fair and equal. Right now we see millions of people whose rights are not being met, which doesn’t allow them “self-determination.” I suppose though this could be an ethnocentric claim on my end. Albeit, I am still trying to understand this paradox further and am interested in all of your thoughts on this.

oSummers, James (2019) "The Right of Peoples to Self-Determination in Article 1 of the Human Rights Covenants as a Claimable Right," New England Journal of Public Policy: Vol. 31 : Iss. 2 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarworks.umb.edu/nejpp/vol31/iss2/5

•An-Na’im argues that the concepts of universality and cultural relativism are tricky because actually all nations have some culturally relativist attitudes toward human rights. He says that one example is that the U.S. is hostile to one category of human rights. What is this category of human rights that the U.S. tends to avoid, and how is that an example of cultural relativism? Answer both parts.

oIs the human rights category that the US tends to avoid “accepting that economic, social, and cultural rights are actually human rights” (An-Na'im, 93)? As such, this avoidance is due to the fact that we cannot apply a set of expectations, rights, and laws, when it could deny the lived experiences of other cultures and countries lived experience that we cannot speak for. When discussing law and rights about other countries, we cannot do so unless the country itself speaks upon this and agrees, which is not the case – cultural relativism. Universality generalizes ideas of how one should live and experience things which ultimately denies cultural relativism. This relates to Donnelly’s claim that “a multidimensional, multicultural conception of human rights requires appeal to principles inconsistent with normative cultural relativism” (Donnelly, 296). Possibly in order to gain greater insight, more empirical laws could be implemented thus providing scientific evidence to support whether or not “[accepting] economic, social, and cultural rights are actually human rights (93).

•Of all the dimensions or versions of universality that Donnelly describes, is there one that you find particularly convincing?

oI chose Universalism Without Imperialism

oPart of the reason I chose this section was because of Donnelly’s recognition of his arguments and the “ignored dangers of imperialist intolerance when such claims move into politics” (Donnelly, 303). I admire authors who have the ability to be transparent with their own biases and critique their own writings to better their work. Another reason I chose this section was because in addition to the claims about Westerners and their expectation for cultural sensitivity, he brings up the issue of “inattention or inaction” (304).

oI believe that we as Westerners tend to take on radical views and generalize what ‘needs’ to be done and ‘how’ it should be done in other countries without a recognition or in-depth understanding of their culture and systems – ethnocentrism. To act with care and caution means that there is open discourse and acknowledgement of others’ lived experiences and an elevation of their voices. This means we are not speaking over or for them, but bringing awareness to their lived experience and what they say they want to see. Although this does not excuse great moral injustice, as Donnelly’s states in his third paragraph. Tradition and culture still need to be held accountable when their actions actively abuse human rights on a deep level. Donnelly reinforces my statement about Westerners needing to acknowledge lived experience when talking about other cultures; “Many Americans do seem to believe that what’s good for the US is good for the world – and if not, then “that’s their problem”” (304).

oIn addition, his term, “abusive universalism,” is a great way to explain how we as Westerners think about problems outside of the U.S., particularly. I find it interesting that we generally think about these issues with such a narrow lens. I wonder why the U.S. tends to fall into this scenario. His concluding remarks about how human rights as an issue under “social justice and human dignity” will remain active in discourse and set an example of future human rights and a standard for how these rights should be included on each level of systems “[nationally], [internationally], and [transnationally]” (306).

•How does Donnelly discuss self-determination versus sovereignty?

oDonnelly explains how self-determination is the principle for people to exist their own way and have a form of intrapersonal governing. As such, the author explains how this goes against sovereignty because it denies the self-governing aspect of self-determination whereas sovereignty is perceived by the public. His following statement furthers this argument – “international legal sovereignty shields regimes that violate both ethical self-determination and most internationally recognized human rights” (297). Sovereignty tends to fall onto states governing by their own rules but it can deny international human rights, but unfortunately, because of self-determination it makes it difficult to find a balance and come to a consensus for ‘universal human rights.’