Are human rights universal? by Shashi Tharoor.

Pages: 6 Publication place: United States, Durham Publisher: Duke University Press
Publication Date: 1999
This article is on the topic of rights, their universality and their application, with an aim to
deconstruct criticism of human rights and consider if human rights apply to non-western
countries. What is considered rights or where they come from is subjective and can shape
this argument, the main arguments for the explanation of rights that are considered in this
article are; rights in the sense of serving a community and having a duty to promote others’
well-being, these rights can be changed to suit the needs of the community, that human
rights are useful, which the author uses to argue in favour of implementation globally.
Shashi Tharoor also takes an ontological, universal approach stating, “human rights derive
from the mere fact of being human” (Tharoor 1999 p6). The argument against this is that
the human rights that are discussed are relative and subject to the biases of western
standards and culture. Thus, many rights are both nonapplicable and invasive. Shashi
Tharoor seeks to critique this argument and point out flaws, taking on a cosmopolitan
approach that people derive their rights and moral claims from being human, not culture,
which is the basis for universal human rights.
Shashi Tharoor starts the article by focusing on the argument that human rights aren’t
universal, covering several points and raising questions, such as “Can the values of the
consumer be applied to societies that have nothing to consume” while the author does
disagree, he does take it into consideration. Analysing what many western philosophers
view of human rights such as independence and protection from the state as seen in the
right to private property and privacy. Shashi Tharoor raises two points in relation to this.
Some societies are structured around mutual duties to the community. Especially in many
poorer countries, the right to private property, especially to the extent it is enjoyed in
western countries, is not relevant due, as he puts it, “some human rights are simply not
relevant [such as] …the right to paid vacations (always a good laugh in the sweatshops of
the Third World)” (Tharoor 1999 p1). While he does touch on the fact that many of these
countries feel that it is just a form of the west extending their influence and cultural norms
onto the developing world, Shashi Tharoor also focuses on how the argument against is
practically implemented is that it simply not economical or “efficient in promoting
development” (Tharoor 1999 p2) this he points out is most seen in Asian societies. As the
author is a leftist liberal, he opposes this view. After laying out the opposition’s arguments,
he carefully deconstructs them and effectively argues in favour. First, arguing against the
objection based on culture points out that concepts of justice and dignity are found in
societies all over the globe. He also astutely points out that this argument is often not done
in good faith. Rather, it is used to justify authoritarian regimes. Secondly, human rights also
need to “fulfil the basic aspirations of growth and development” (Tharoor 1999 p2). That
economic exploitation is an evil human need to be protected from this speaks to human
security and sustainable development. Overall, the article is well organised. Shashi Tharoor
articulately deconstructs the opposition’s argument and successfully defends his own
position using the article’s structure.
As mentioned previously, this argument fits into a cosmopolitan approach to international
relations. This article is certainly very useful for a political theory of rights being applied to
the field of international relations. These arguments raised in the work of Thomas Pogge,
who also argues against economic exploitation and the universality of rights and morals and
applies them to the world economy and the need for restructuring. This demonstrates the
value and strength of the article as viewpoints and questions raised in Pogge’s article “Moral
universalism and global economic justice”, published in 2002 issues such as flexibility “Moral
universalism is clearly incompatible with fundamental principles containing proper names or
rigid descriptions of persons or groups” (Pogge 2002 p31) which Tharoor also raises. Pogge,
however, focuses less on actual rights but rather on the meta-ethical position, a position like
what Tharoor adopts in his article. As Pogge puts it “Universalism is thus not a moral
position with a clearly defined content, but merely an approach, a general schema that can
be filled in to yield a variety of substantive moral positions.” (Pogge 2002 p31-32) So
overall, the article is an important voice in not just understanding rights and such things as
global economic justice, but it also supports and aligns with arguments found in other
articles. Tharoor focuses less on politicization. While he does brush against it, the article
focuses on the more cultural and philosophical arguments Nhina Le in her article, identifies
politics as the main issue for the universality of human rights being politics and their
implementation. She says, “both Western and non-Western governments use their human
rights agendas to advance their domestic political interests and geopolitical interests. As a
result, the broader public is confused about the quality of human rights advocacy”(Le 2016,
p207). Nhina Le also focuses much more than Tharoor on “The Asian Way”, going into much
more in detail. However, it could be said that this is due partially to the increased impact
this viewpoint on human rights has had on the world in the past 20 years that have lapsed
between the two articles. Overall both articles contribute to the important dialogue that
makes up the discussion of human rights.
This article's most important contribution is a strong, balanced response to those who argue
the cultural relativity of human rights. The fact that Shashi Tharoor is not a white man from
western Europe also provides a valuable perspective, especially as many of the detractors of
the universality of rights call universal human rights a eurocentrist method of imposing
control over non-western states. Overall, his argument has very little weakness as it is well-
considered and persuasive. Rights are one of the most important topics in politics; they
concern themselves with what many consider the most important aspects of human
existence and seek to help people out of pain and suffering. Discussing and defending the
universality of them is extremely important as, hopefully, it will lead to a certain level of
universal application and acceptance.
Bibliography
Pogge, T. W. (2002). Moral Universalism and Global Economic Justice. Politics, Philosophy &
Economics, 1(1), 29–58
Tharoor, S. 2000, "Are human rights universal?", World Policy Journal, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 1-6.
Le, N. (2016). Are Human Rights Universal or Culturally Relative? Peace Review, 28(2),
pp.203–211.