CC BY
122
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
GE
Kiamran SHAFIEV
Deputy head of the Department of Legislation on State-Building, Milli Mejlis of the Azerbaijan Republic (Baku, Azerbaijan).
THE UNIVERSALITY OF
HUMAN RIGHTS AND
THE PRINCIPLE OF
CULTURAL RELATIVISM
Abstract
This article analyzes international stand-ards on human rights and takes a critical look at the arguments of those who support the principle of cultural relativism. The author attempts to
justify the existence of universal values and standards, including in the sphere of human rights, by revealing their interconnection in different cultural communities.
I n t r o d u c t i o n
International standards on human rights are undergoing validation in the world today, while human rights are being increasingly interpreted in the context of the regional and national, as well as special religious features of different cultures.
Although human rights are enforced in many international documents, and standards have supposedly been drawn up for their application, they are at times subjected to serious criticism.
At this stage, different spheres of political, economic, and cultural life are becoming globalized and international standards on human rights are being established in the world, on the one hand, while the anti-globalist movement is becoming more widespread and criticism of the universality of human rights is becoming stronger, on the other.
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
The question arises of whether human rights standards can exist in a world abounding in diverse cultures and religions.
The supporters of the universality of human rights deem that there are certain universal human rights standards that can apply to any society. They believe that human rights are not the product of one culture, but can be drawn up by the common efforts of the entire international community.
Those who adhere to the conception of cultural relativism proceed from the fact that every culture can be evaluated only on the basis of its own principles and not in the light of universal criteria. The human rights set forth in international documents are realized in a particular country taking into account its special cultural (national, religious) features. In other words, the diverse historical traditions, psychology, and culture of different peoples have an impact on the understanding of human rights and their application. The supporters of both conceptions are putting forward sufficiently justified arguments in defense of their views.
It seems that this problem will be of interest to the South Caucasian countries. After the collapse of the U.S.S.R., dramatic changes occurred in the economy, politics, and ideology of the former Soviet republics. Today the South Caucasian countries are integrating into the European structures and elaborating different approaches to resolving the particular problems facing society.
This gives rise to the need to analyze the essence of the international standards on human rights and the principle of cultural relativism.
The Universality of Human Rights
The idea of human rights has a long history. In the Middle Ages, the legal status of the individual was mainly determined by his/her affiliation with a particular social stratum; human rights were treated more as a privilege granted to a vassal by his/her landlord.
At the same time, important documents were adopted in this area, for example, the Magna Carta Libertatum (1215) and the Habeas Corpus Act (1679), which restricted the rights of the king. The latter document also established that an individual has the right to freely take responsibility for himself and can only be punished by a court decision. Its main provision was the rule of law.
The Age of Reformation was the next important stage in the development of the conception of human rights. At this time, the rights of individuals were declared in questions of religious confession, which gave an additional boost to the struggle for rights in the political sphere.
In the 17th century, liberalism underwent development with its theory of natural rights, which continued to evolve in the future. The works of the well-known followers of this idea (Locke, Mill, Montesquieu, and others) set forth fundamental human rights to life, security, freedom, property, and resistance to oppression. They were declared to be natural, unalienable, inviolable, and existing independent of the state called upon to protect them.
The 18th century holds a special place in the history of human rights. Such documents as the American Declaration of Independence (1776) and Bill of Rights (1789-1791), and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), which are of special significance in the history of the recognition and enforcement of human rights, declared unalienable human and citizen rights.
The 1776 U.S. Declaration of Independence says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”1
1 [http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm].
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
The 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen says: “1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. 2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.”2
The idea of human rights underwent immense development, becoming enriched over the centuries by many rights and freedoms. But it was not until the 20th century that human rights were recognized as a fundamental value, which was reflected in the corresponding international documents. Thoughts from religious doctrines and philosophical, political, and legal teachings of different eras are embodied in the contemporary conception of human rights. Respect for human rights was confirmed as one of the priority principles of international law in 1945 with the adoption of the U.N. Charter. Largely due to the U.N.’s consistent efforts, the universality of human rights was clearly defined and recognized by international law. Human rights occupy a special place in the list of the U.N.’s purposes and tasks that are stipulated in its Charter, Art 1 of which points out that one of the U.N.’s purposes is to achieve international cooperation “in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.” This is also confirmed by Art 55 of the Charter, which says that the U.N. shall promote “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.”3
Later, the provisions of the U.N. Charter were made more specific in international pacts which are often called international standards on human rights. They were called upon to create a universal international legal base for interstate cooperation in human rights issues. The first of them was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on 10 December, 1948. Although this document is not binding, it possesses great moral force and can be regarded as a universal catalogue of human rights and freedoms. Adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights prompted the further drawing up of international standards in this sphere and the creation of international control mechanisms. Its authors strove to formulate those fundamental rights that were enforced in human nature itself. The purpose of the Universal Declaration was to list these rights and establish standards that should be observed in all countries.
The Preamble proclaims “this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society ... shall strive.”4
But the opinion already existed at that time that the Declaration of Human Rights reflects the ideas of Western society. American anthropologist Melville Herskovits prepared a draft “Statement on Human Rights” which says: “.the Declaration must be of world-wide applicability. It must embrace and recognize the validity of many different ways of life. It will not be convincing to the Indonesian, the African, the Chinese, if it lies on the same plane as like documents of an earlier period. The rights of Man in the Twentieth Century cannot be circumscribed by the standards of any single culture, or be dictated by the aspirations of any single people.”5
During the time that has passed since adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the U.N. has adopted a multitude of international legal documents on the protection of human rights. The most important of them are the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.
In 1966, the U.N. General Assembly adopted new important acts—the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They present a more detailed list of human and citizen rights. Moreover, the Covenant on
2 [http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html].
3 [http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/].
4 [http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html].
5 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism].
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
Civil and Political Rights envisages the creation of a Human Rights Committee_responsible for observing its provisions and realizing the rights recognized in it. Both documents became a kind of international code of human and citizen rights, and the member states assumed the obligation of undertaking the necessary measures to ensure the rights and freedoms stipulated in them.
The adoption of these covenants was a turning point in the evolution of the idea of the universality of human rights—the world community went from efforts aimed at encouraging universal respect and observing human rights to their effective protection. For example, in compliance with the facultative protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a Human Rights Committee was instituted that reviews the reports of states on measures adopted to realize the rights envisaged in the above-mentioned document, as well as citizens’ complaints about the violation of their rights. Within framework of the U.N., the following documents were also adopted: the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and so on.
The Vienna Declaration adopted in June 1993 in Austria at the U.N. World Conference on Human Rights, which enforces the universal nature of human rights, says: “All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.”6 This means that political, citizen, cultural, economic, and social human rights should be regarded in composite. No one can choose which rights to encourage and protect, they are all equal and apply to everyone. The universality of human rights guarantees the equality of human and citizen rights and freedoms, regardless of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, property or official status, place of residence, religious or other convictions, membership in public organizations, or any other circumstances. Any form of restriction of citizen rights for any reason is also prohibited, be it social, racial, national, linguistic, or religious. Men and women have equal rights, freedoms, and opportunities to realize them.
Human rights are universal rights and freedoms for all people regardless of the social system, political regime, form of state structure and rule, or international status of the country of which the person is a citizen.
Questions of human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy, and rule of law are of an international nature since their observation is one of the foundations of world order.
The most important universal human values are reflected in human rights, which each individual should possess no matter who he is and where he lives. They are universal, that is, they are the property of each and everyone (the international community recognizes rights for all people), indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated.
The obligations adopted by countries in the sphere of human rights within the U.N., OSCE, and other international organizations do not belong to the exclusively internal affairs of the corresponding state.
The universality of human rights means that the state is responsible to its people and the international community for fulfilling the obligations it assumes by joining specific international agreements on human rights.
In the recent past, on the basis of the principle of state sovereignty, it was believed that the entire sphere of a state’s interaction with its own people was an internal issue regulated at the national level.
[http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/A.CONF.157.23.En].
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
In today’s world, state sovereignty is no longer absolute. It is restricted both from the outside, due to the actual interdependence of countries and peoples, which is juridically reflected in the subordination of states to international law and the appearance of international structures with supranational powers, and from the inside, since the sovereignty of the state, even on its own territory, is restricted by the unalienable rights and freedoms of the individual and the state’s responsibility to each citizen.
Human Rights and Their Regional Protection Systems
We have already looked above at the U.N.’s role in drawing up international standards on human rights. Thanks to the U.N.’s long and targeted activity, the universality of human rights has been clearly defined and recognized by international law. The creation of a system of international control over the observation of human rights is one of the most important achievements of this prestigious structure. In addition to the Human Rights Committee, within the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, a Committee against Torture and Committee on the Rights of the Child function. A Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women was formed within the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
But along with the system of human rights protection formed within the U.N., corresponding structures also function at the regional level.
Europe is way ahead of other continents with respect to integration processes, including in creating a contemporary system of human rights protection. The Council of Europe is an extremely old and influential organization engaged in the protection of human rights. On 4 November, 1950, its members adopted the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the value of which is not so much in the human rights enforced in it as in the creation of a mechanism for their protection. This system has already long proven its efficiency among all the regional means of human rights protection, and what is more, it is at times even more effective than the activity of the U.N. bodies.
The European Court of Human Rights, which has the authority to review appeals both from states and individuals, was created on the basis of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The decisions it issues are binding for states, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers monitors their implementation and is called upon to ensure unconditional observance and fulfillment of the standards of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by the member states.
Court decisions that were important as judicial precedents have a serious impact on the formation and development of European law; the state’s judicial bodies are guided by them in their everyday practice. The members of the Council of Europe constantly adjust their legislation and administrative practice in keeping with the Court’s decisions.7
French academician Karel Vasak noted that the value of the Convention is essentially defined by its mechanism, not by the rights it protects. For the first time in human history, there is an international mechanism that functions beyond the state and expresses the universal values of the whole of mankind.8
7 See: Prava cheloveka, Textbook for higher educational establishments, ed. by E.A. Lukasheva, Moscow, 2001,
p. 516.
8 See: V.A. Kartashkin, Prava cheloveka v mezhdunarodnom i vnutrigosudarstvennom prave, Moscow, 1995,
p. 89.
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
The activity of the European Court of Human Rights is a graphic example of how states limit their sovereignty in favor of a supranational body in questions of ensuring human rights.
The inter-American system of human rights protection was created within the framework of the Organization of American States. The Inter-American Convention on Human Rights was adopted on 20 November, 1969, and it espouses a much more extensive list of rights than the European Convention. In particular, it set forth such rights as the right to a name, the rights of the child, the right to citizenship or nationality, the right to equality before the law, the right to asylum, and so on.
According to this convention, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is endowed with control functions over the observance of human rights. But its activity proved ineffective: during the years it functioned, it issued no more than ten judgments. In contrast to the European Court of Human Rights, there is also the problem of executing the body’s decisions. The following fact can be stated: the activity of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has proven inefficient.
A comparison of the activity of the European and American regional law-protection bodies makes it possible to conclude that they can only function efficiently if political and legal systems, historical experience, and level of socioeconomic development are identical. This largely explains why the European system is much more successful than the Inter-American Court on the Latin American continent.9
The African regional system of human rights protection was founded in 1981 when the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity adopted the Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (it came into force in 1986). This document has several distinguishing traits that are not characteristic of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights due to the political situation on the continent, as well as to the historical traditions and values of the African nations. Along with human rights, the Charter also enforces peoples’ rights (all peoples have the right to national and international security, existence, and use of natural resources) and sets forth the individual’s duties toward his family, community, and state. In particular, it talks about the individual’s duties to preserve the harmonious development of the family and serve his national community. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights is the controlling body. It prepares a report based on a state’s notification of mass violations of human rights by another state. In this report it sets forth the facts and its conclusions and sends it to the countries concerned and to the Assembly of the Heads of State and Government. The Commission does not examine individual cases of human rights’ violations. As we see, the controlling body on the African continent does not possess broad powers.
There are no regional bodies on human rights so far in Asia, which is most likely due to the absence of a regional body like the Council of Europe, Organization of African Unity, or Organization of American States. Moreover, the countries of this region are not bound by one culture or a single religion. The presence of at least one of these elements might make it possible to create a regional body.
An analysis shows that the most efficient system of human rights protection, which can be considered a kind of yardstick, was drawn up in Europe. And this is despite the fact that different religions are confessed on this continent, and each nation has its own history and culture, but there are values that everyone who lives here respects. It was possible to create a single legal space on the basis of these moral principles. There can be no doubt that the European culture has had a positive influence on the establishment of international standards on human rights.
9 See: G.E. Lukiantsev, “Evropeiskie standarty v oblasti prav cheloveka: Teoriia i praktika funktsionirovaniia Ev-ropeiskoi konventsii o zashchite prav cheloveka i osnovnykh svobod,” available at [http://www.memo.ru/library/books/ lukjanc/].
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
The Principle of Cultural Relativism
The idea of the universality of human rights is not shared by everyone, there is also another approach to international standards on human rights.
Cultural relativism is a conception in keeping with which human values are far from universal and greatly depend on the cultural and religious traits of the nation. In so doing, it is believed that each culture can be evaluated only on the basis of its own principles and not in the light of universal criteria. Consequently, the protection of human rights is not carried out in keeping with international standards, but at the state’s own discretion. The conception of human rights is a product of historical development. It is closely tied to specific social, political, and economic conditions and the particular history, culture, and values of each country. Certain periods of history have put forward their demands with respect to human rights. So the supporters of cultural relativism believe that countries at different stages of development or with historical traditions and cultural values that differ from each other have a different understanding and practice in the sphere of human rights. Correspondingly, the standards and models of human rights adopted by certain states cannot be considered the only ones, and they cannot demand that all countries subordinate themselves to them.10
Of course, we cannot deny the fact that the modern conception of human rights originates in Western Europe. Called upon to protect each individual from the state’s absolute power, it is based on the idea of individualism, which is one of the historical achievements of the Western culture. And in some cases, precisely this factor is used by the opponents of the idea of the universality of human rights. The supporters of cultural relativism put forward different arguments in defense of their conception of human rights.
One of the approaches is based on the fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international documents rely on the Christian culture and do not correspond to the Muslim value system.11
Another point of view that does not put the emphasis on religion relies largely on cultural differences. The opinion is expressed that human rights reflect the values of the Western culture based on individualism, while other cultures rely on different principles that are not based on individualism, but on the interests of the family and community.
The idea of the universality of human rights is also seen as an attempt to impose the principles of one culture on the representatives of another. That is, this conception seems to turn a blind eye to the cultural differences between nations, which prevent the representatives of one culture from adopting the values prevalent in another society.
The head of one of the delegations at the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 had the following to say about this: “I would like to note that the representatives of developing countries understand and value the development of the way of thinking and motives underlying contemporary Western policy and views on human rights; we have the right to expect at least the same understanding and respect for the historical development and experience of non-Western communities and for our cultural and social values and traditions. Many developing countries, some of which are proud of their ancient and highly developed culture, have historical development experience that differs from that of the Western countries with respect to the formation of their ideas of human rights and democracy. Indeed, they frequently drew up their own distinguishing ideas based on a different experience
10 See: G.M. Danilenko, Mezhdunarodnaia zashchita prav cheloveka. Introductory Course: Textbook, Iurist Publishers, Moscow, 2000, pp. 32-33.
11 See: Ibid., pp. 31-32.
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
of relations between the individual and society, man and other people, as well as the rights of human society with respect to the rights of the individual.”12
There is another argument: economic problems must first be resolved in countries where an adequate standard of living is not maintained and where poverty reigns, which, in turn, will create conditions for ensuring the rights of the individual. For this reason, human rights can be fully ensured only by economically developed countries.
It was said at the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993: “For most of the developing countries, respect and protection of human rights primarily means full realization of rights to existence and development. Arguments that human rights are a prerequisite for development are unjustified. Under conditions when there is no adequate food or clothing and people’s elementary needs are not met, economic development is the priority demand.”13
The opinion is also expressed that the principle of state sovereignty is a priority with respect to the universality of human rights. It is believed that ensuring state sovereignty is the fundamental principle for observing human rights. This prevents interference into a country’s internal affairs under the pretext of protecting human rights and the use of this factor as a means of pressure on it. The following thought was expressed at the same conference: “Views according to which human rights issues do not recognize borders and the principle of non-interference into internal affairs are unacceptable here, and any actions based on these views are nothing more than a form of pressure policy.”14
The supporters of the universality of human rights also espouse the following viewpoint: it must be admitted that not everyone is in favor of international standards on human rights. A more tolerant attitude should be taken toward one’s opponents and they should be given the opportunity to choose their development path for themselves.
The criticism of the universality of human rights proceeded not only from the representatives of non-Western societies. Well-known scientist Samuel Huntington wrote: “However, Western concepts differ fundamentally from those prevalent in other civilizations. Western ideas of individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality, liberty, the rule of law, democracy, free markets, the separation of church and state, often have little resonance in Islamic, Confucian, Japanese, Hindu, Buddhist or Orthodox cultures. Western efforts to propagate each of these ideas produce instead a reaction against ‘human rights imperialism’ and a reaffirmation of indigenous values... The very notion that there could be a ‘universal civilization’ is a Western idea, directly at odds with the particularism of most Asian societies and their emphasis on what distinguishes one people from another. Indeed, the author of a review of 100 comparative studies of values in different societies concluded that ‘the values that are most important in the West are least important worldwide.’ In the political realm, of course, these differences are most manifest in the efforts of the United States and other Western powers to induce other peoples to adopt Western ideas concerning democracy and human rights. Modern democratic government originated in the West. When it has developed in nonWestern societies it has usually been the product of Western colonialism or imposition.”15
Among the supporters of cultural relativism there are also those who believe, without any hidden political motive, that each culture is specific and it is impossible to draw up standards of behavior that are common for everyone.
The ideas of cultural relativism are used by several authoritarian state officials for reinforcing their power. They justify human rights violations by referring to cultural specifics.
As already noted, the universality of human rights presumes international control over their observance, in so doing “weakening” state sovereignty. Any country that assumes the obligation of ensur-
12 Ibid., p. 34.
13 Ibid., p. 33.
14
15 S.P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993, available at_[http://history.
[http://www.prof.msu.ru/publ/omsk/24.htm].
S.P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizati club.fatih.edu.tr/103%20Huntington%20Clash%20of%20Civilizations%20full%20text.htm]
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
ing human rights based on international documents must unconditionally carry it out. In so doing, international organizations or bodies should bring some influence to bear on protecting human rights.
But there are cases when the protection of human rights is used as a way to apply pressure in order to achieve political and economic goals not related to the protection of human rights. In some cases, force is used, in others, as happened in Rwanda, where violations assumed mass proportions, the reaction is restrained. It is very difficult to justify this difference in approaches. In so doing, the problem of human rights protection becomes a problem of security for some countries. The idea of ensuring human rights by force must be treated with caution since a dangerous trend may appear of using the regulations of international law on human rights’ violations in order to openly protect one’s own interests, which is also sometimes carried out with the help of force. It is precisely this kind of situation that pushes cultural relativism to the foreground.
It would seem that the high level of economic development in the Western countries should be a significant argument in favor of the universality of human rights, even if it is based on ideas inherent in the European culture. But several Southeast Asian countries have also achieved equally impressive economic success by following entirely different values, which proves that it is possible to choose a different development path.
C o n c l u s i o n
The arguments of the supporters of cultural relativism are not exhaustive, however, they give an idea of how varied their arguments are.
As we see, establishing international standards on human rights has been a long and difficult process. The protection of human rights is at different levels in the regions themselves.
It took Western culture centuries to achieve the universality of human rights for all members of society. In these countries, women waged a long battle for equal rights with men and there was racial discrimination.
Of course, each culture is inimitable and unique in its nature, each nation and each society has its own history and culture, its own individual viewpoint on the problem of human rights. But does adherence to human rights need to be made dependent on cultural values adopted in a particular society? Certain dangers are inherent in this approach, while in practice it is often used to justify violations of human rights.
For if the observance of international standards on human rights is made dependent on the mentality of different nations, it will be extremely difficult to ensure their protection and respect. Human rights are intended for all people belonging to any cultural environment.
It stands to reason that the Western culture has had an impact on the formation of international standards on human rights. It is no accident that the most effective system of human rights protection functions in Europe. But the universality of human rights should not be engendered by religious and cultural factors.
Universal values and standards exist, including with respect to human rights, which are accepted by different cultures. For example, torture, slavery, and inhuman and degrading treatment are unacceptable in any society. And although slavery, for example, has existed in many cultures throughout human history, there is not one society today that would protect such a phenomenon on the basis of culture heritage and traditions. On the contrary, in keeping with international law, all forms of slavery are a serious violation of human rights.
Nor is there anyone who will justify torture, murder, or genocide. Any attempts to justify such violations by means of cultural considerations do not have any legal feet to stand on and do not meet the demands and regulations of international law. Economic difficulties should not stop personal human rights from being ensured. Their observance does not depend on the economic state of society, although it stands to reason that economic prosperity has a positive effect on the realization of human rights.
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
It is thoughtthat a dialog of civilizations will make it possible to draw up a common foundation for protecting human dignity on which the system of human rights protection can rely. Recognizing cultural diversity should not cast aspersions on the universal nature of human rights. On the other hand, there is an interrelationship between cultural values and universal human rights in different societies. In this sense, the thought expressed at one time by Secretary General of the Council of Europe Catherine Lalumiere is interesting: “Universality is not uniformity, and it can entirely tolerably be related to the fact that, depending on societies and cultures, special accents are placed more on some rights than on others. I would even say that if human rights want to be truly universal, they should be rooted in different cultures. Only under this condition will people, no matter where they live, be able to know and understand human rights, for they are capable of carrying this out only proceeding from their own culture.”16
For example, freedom of speech guarantees each person the right to freely express his/her own opinion. But whereas one culture believes that caricature is a form of freedom of speech, another does not accept that way of expressing one’s thoughts. Some accept single-sex marriages to be a component of personal life, others are against such marriages.
The experience of drawing up international covenants on human rights shows that consent can be reached regarding principles that are common for different cultures and religions, in so doing reaching a consensus on the contents of human rights. So it is not necessary for cultures to be opposed to each other, for in today’s world they are not self-contained in a specific space, but touch upon and influence each other.
The different problems of human rights can be resolved on the basis of human unity, which means on the principle of universality, while preserving national and cultural diversity.
16 C. Lalumiere, Conference mondiale sur les droits de I’homme, disciurs de Secretaire General du Conseil de L’Europe, Vienne, 14-25 juin, 1993, p. 3.
Lela YAKOBISHVILI-PIRALISHVILI
D.Sc. (Philos.), professor at the Academy of Arts of Tbilisi, head of the Caucasian Institute of Social Strategies Foundation
(Tbilisi, Georgia).
GLOBALIZATION MYTH AND TRADITIONAL CULTURE IN GEORGIA AND THE CAUCASUS
Abstract
T
he geocultural orientation of the Caucasus, and Georgia as its part, is growing more and more important in
the age of globalization. This process has already offered Caucasian geoculture new possibilities; the Caucasus has been given
