Human Rights - An Agent of Change

Since the beginning of time, humans have struggled with the axiological question. While pondering their ultimate value, individuals in the earliest centuries allowed the church's authority to dictate moral code. After the atrocities of the Holocaust, however, human rights could no longer be left up to theocracy alone. For this reason, the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted in 1948. Regardless of this action, however, the human rights discussion has remained vibrant. By studying the international implication of human rights, an understanding of the explosive issue of human rights can be reached.

Understanding that the definition of human rights has inherent international implication is important in realizing the controversy surrounding the movement. A doctrine of human rights essentially declares that humans are, among other things, equal regardless of ethnicity, religion, or nationality. Thus, human rights must, by their nature, be universally applicable. Though some may argue otherwise, most recognize the fact that no international body has real policing power. Even the United Nations cannot insure that sovereign states obey international law. For this reason, the term "human rights" has far different connotations in the West and the South.

The Western concept of human rights is based on its individualist society. In the West, rights are considered an integral part of everyday life. A typical Westerner is of the attitude and opinion that his or her rights extend far beyond those of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to various economic and social rights. Criminal proceedings, for example, reflect brilliantly the Westerner's concept of individualistic rights. The positive right of being innocent before the law until guilt has been proven has escalated in the United States to allow for the exclusion of evidence gathered "illegally." Because the United States places a higher value on individuals and their privacy rights than those of the government, its citizens' rights have stretched to cover a variety of topics, and have become commonplace.

In the South, on the other hand, rudimentary human rights are lacking. This is the result of both collectivist cultures and weak governments. Collectivist cultures, which are prevalent in the East, emphasize a group over an individual. In these cultures, people voluntarily give up some of their rights in order to support the group. Individuals in this type of environment often have a different idea of what is considered a human right than individuals in the West. Similarly, weak governments often account for Southern definitions of human rights. In a state where a weak or failed government police often fail to enforce anti-corruption or human rights laws, human rights are not often the subject of discussion. For this reason, while Westerners can have incriminating, while illegal, evidence expunged from their trials, Southerners are jailed or killed without a trial.

The issue of human rights has become extremely significant in world politics as state sovereignty has recently been jeopardized. Students of international relations are aware of the changing nature of world politics, and possible end of the sovereign state. International non-governmental organizations have been gaining power in the international realm, and this power is impacting state sovereignty. Similarly, as the world becomes a global village, actions within the border of one state impact drastically the events of other states. The issue of Human Rights also affects sovereignty, as charters establishing the rights would hold multiple countries responsible to an authority outside its borders.

For example, Sao Tome and Principe has been heralded as a strong respecter of human rights along, and as a government that, with each year, has made the attempt to increase humanitarian and democratic efforts. If, however, a violation of human rights occurred within the state, changes would be fast and drastic. Civilian, and possibly military, uprisings to the violation would be staged and violence would spread along the country side. Appeals would be made to the United States, as the world's most powerful country, to curb the violence. The United States would then be torn between sending troops and respecting Sao Tome and Principe's sovereign government. Sending troops could result in hostility between the country's and its allies and the Untied States, while refraining could allow for the imposition of weak governments in the country, as well as in others. Thus, a human rights violation in Sao Tome and Principe directly affects the United States.

World politics is changing and the evolving issue of Human Rights can be considered one of the agents of change. Though axiological discussions of human rights can be traced back to the beginning of time, the issue is vibrant today. With an understanding of human rights, one will be able to better understand the world as it slips into a new era of international politics.