Issue 1 (15) 2012

CULTURAL RELATIVISM AS A PROBLEM OF INTERPLAY BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC LAW IN THE FIELD OF HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION

CULTURAL RELATIVISM AS A PROBLEM OF INTERPLAY BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC LAW IN THE FIELD OF HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION

M.Yu. Izhikov

Moscow State Law Academy

9, Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya st., Moscow, 123995

E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

This article highlights cultural relativism as a legal phenomenon of modern international human rights law. Cultural relativism is considered as a theoretical concept challenging universality of international human rights, claiming human rights (including their list, content, admissible limitations and ways of implementation) to be dependent on particular historical, economic, cultural, religious and other conditions of a specific society. This concept is aimed at justification of States’ non-compliance with international obligations regarding human rights protection. The author analyzes various arguments of cultural relativism proponents and distinguishes two forms of cultural relativism: 1) narrative and 2) robust. Both seem to undermine universal system of human rights. Relativists’ views are partially revealed in 1993 Bangkok Declaration, which sets forth a bunch of so-called «Asian values», opposed to European concept of individual rights and freedoms. China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and other eastern countries support this approach. Afterwards the author proceeds to analyzing arguments of scientists, who uphold universal nature of human rights. They state that human rights are of the same character all over the world, because human beings have the same nature and needs despite of country or culture they are related to. Human dignity and need for good life appear to be a universal basis of human rights. Various facts testify to universality of human rights. Modern human rights regime shows no signs of washing out, but proves to be strong and actually evolving. Those countries which support cultural relativism have nevertheless joined universal human rights agreements. The author attempts to classify cultural relativism through two criteria: level of establishing and object pursued. Hence, the author distinguishes international and domestic relativism, on the one hand, and destructive and constructive relativism, on the other hand. Destructive cultural relativism contradicts jus cogens norms, therefore is illegal irrespective of level of establishing. Constructive relativism seems to be a useful concept, as it does not reject universal human rights, but merely offers to take cultural factors into consideration when looking for better ways of human rights’ implementation in a particular society.

Keywords: international law; domestic law; human rights; problems of interplay; cultural relativism

Bibliograficheskij spisok

1. Zor'kin V.D. Predely ustupchivosti // Ros. gazeta. 2010. 29 okt.

2. Kartashkin V.A. Prava cheloveka v mezhdunarodnom i vnutrigosudarstvennom prave. M.: Izd-vo IGiP RAN, 1995. 135 s.

3. Mingazov L.H. Problemy jeffektivnosti zawity prav cheloveka v mezhdunarodnom i rossijskom prave // Vseobwaja deklaracija prav cheloveka i aktual'nye voprosy ee primenenija v rossijskom i mezhdunarodnom prave: sb. materialov mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konf., 24–25 oktjabrja 2008 g., posvjawennoj 60-letiju prinjatija OON Vseobwej deklaracii prav cheloveka. Kazan', 2009. S. 89–104.

4. Torkunov A.V. Vseobwaja deklaracija prav cheloveka i kul'tura mira // Mosk. zhurnal mezhdunar. prava. 1999. №1. S. 8–11.

5. Chestnov I.L. Universal'ny li prava cheloveka? (Polemicheskie razmyshlenija o Vseobwej deklaracii prav cheloveka) // Izv. vyssh. ucheb. zavedenij. Ser.: Pravovedenie. 1999. №1. S. 73–82.

6. Binder Guyora. Cultural Relativism and Cultural Imperialism in Human Rights Law // Buffalo Human Rights Law Review. 1999. Vol. 5. P. 211–221.

7. Cerna Christina. [Recensio] // American Journal of International Law. 1994. Vol. 88, №1. P. 206–209.

8. Cumaraswamy D.P. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Is it Universal? // International Commission of Jurists Review. 1997. №58–59. P. 118–123.

9. Engle Eric. Universal human rights: a generational history // Annual Survey of International and Comparative Law. 2006. №12. P. 219–268.

10. Follesdal Andreas. Human Rights and Relativism // SSRN.COM: Social Science Research Network. 2005. URL: http:// www.ssrn.com/abstract=1682111 (data obrawenija: 09.02.2012).

11. Hoang Nghia. Human Dignity and Fundamental Freedoms – Global Values of Human Rights: A Response to Cultural Relativism // SSRN.COM: Social Science Research Network. 2008. URL: http:// www.ssrn.com/abstract=1314288 (data obrawenija: 09.02.2012).

12. Kielsgard M.D. Universal Human Rights and Cultural Relativism: A Fresh View From the New Haven School of Jurisprudence // SSRN.COM: Social Science Research Network. 2011. URL: http:// www.ssrn.com/abstract=1778124 (data obrawenija: 09.02.2012).

13. Ramcharan B.G. The Universality of Human Rights // International Commission of Jurists Review. 1997. №58–59. P. 105–117.

14. Shelton Dinah. An introduction to the History of International human rights law // SSRN.COM: Social Science Research Network. 2007. URL: http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=1010489 (data obrawenija: 09.02.2012).

15. Sloane R.D. Outrelativizing Relativism: A Liberal Defense of the Universality of International Human Rights // Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. 2001. Vol. 34, №1. P. 527–595.

16. Spaak Torben. Moral Relativism and Human Rights // SSRN.COM: Social Science Research Network. 2007. URL: http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=923445 (data obrawenija: 09.02.2012).