Importance of culture and law in human rights
When it comes to human rights projects, cultural practices and law are vital since they contribute to the realization of human rights by prescribing to citizens the “know how to carry on.” Cultural practices, on the other hand, have a number of flaws, including the fact that they are vulnerable to criticism, controversies, and are divisive. The law, on the other hand, is significant because it acts in the name of authority rather than in the name of a moral standard. Additionally, law is subject to the principles of coincidence, conformity, compliance, and obedience.
Because it leads to an intersubjective realization of a knowledge of human rights, cultural or practical approaches to social justice are extremely important in advancing social justice efforts. It is a sort of agreement among people on what is correct in this circumstance that is referred to as intersubjectivity. In the field of human rights culture, a fairly well-established idea that culture is critical to supporting the implementation of human rights in practice distinguishes itself. In particular, the state Helps a nation in realizing these rights by establishing parameters within its borders that define what is considered to be morally correct. It is the state’s responsibility to define the proper course for people’s actions and to administer appropriate sanctions in an international environment (Nash, 2012). The state’s rights, on the other hand, must first win over the minds and hearts of the people in order to be accepted. The practices must include a variety of social or cultural practices that govern how citizens “know how to get by” on a day-to-day basis (Nash, 2012). Among the cultural practices that come to mind are language, which is described as a communication system by a particular communication or country.
In addition, cultural practices play a significant part in human rights since they include a kernel of agreement that is universally recognized. As a result of the severe consequences that have resulted from the agreement, anyone who is against it will find it difficult to do so. The agreement states that every person must be respected and treated as an individual human being with entitlements, regardless of their gender, racial, ethnic, or religious background. Human rights are cultural in nature, and as such, they have an impact on political decisions. Cultural practices do not simply adhere to human rights; rather, they are themselves cultural practices. Because they are intertwined, the practices of the state and those of civil society are nearly indistinguishable. The state cannot act in conjunction with society in the same way that society functions. “Culture,” writes Jeffrey Alexander, “is not an item but a dimension, not an entity to be examined as a dependent variable but a thread that runs through, and one that can be peeled out of, every imaginable social form” (Nash, 2012). As a result, cultural practices play an important role in establishing a link between the state and society, a process known as cultural politics. Cultural politics is regarded as being responsible for the protection and upholding of existing human rights norms and principles.
Cultural practices and law in human rights projects are important because they lead to realizing human rights by dictating the “know how to go on” to the citizens. However, cultural practices are faced with various weaknesses like subject to criticism, controversies, and are contentious. On the other hand, the law is important because it acts out of authority rather than a moral norm. Law is also subject to coincidence, conformity, compliance, and obedience.
The importance of Cultural or practical approaches to social justice is that it leads to an intersubjective realization of an understanding of human rights. Intersubjectivity, in this case, is a form of agreement among people on what is right. Human rights culture marks out a fairly well-established understanding that culture is crucial to fostering the realization of human rights in practice. In particular, the state leads a nation to realize these rights by defining terms within its territories of what is believed to be right. In an international setting, the state is also responsible for setting the right path for people’s behaviors and punishments (Nash, 2012). However, the state’s rights come up with must-win the minds and hearts of people to be accepted. The practices have to comprise many social or cultural practices that determine how citizens “know how to go on” daily (Nash, 2012). A good example of such a cultural practice is a language defined as a communication system by a particular communication or country.
Additionally, cultural practices play an important role in human rights by having a kernel of agreement. It states that every person must be respected and treated as an individual human being with entitlements, regardless of their gender, racial, ethnic, or religious background. The agreement has made it difficult for anyone to against it due to the dire consequences experienced. Human rights are cultural hence influence political decisions. Cultural practices do not just follow human rights; rather, they are indeed cultural. Practices of the state have no much difference from civil society because they are interrelated. The state cannot function with society so as a society. As Jeffrey Alexander describes it, culture ‘is not a thing but a dimension, not an object to be studied as a dependent variable but a thread that runs through, one that can be teased out of, every conceivable social form’ (Nash, 2012). Therefore, Cultural practices are important in creating a link between the state and the society; a term referred to as cultural politics. Cultural politics is believed to be responsible for protecting and upholding existing human rights.
Further, as Hunt describes, cultural practices in human rights are important because they are adorned with three essential pillars; they are natural, equal, and universal. The pillars are put into practice through political involvement (Hunt, n.d.). Politics are responsible for incorporating natural, universal, and equal rights into society. Once the rights have been accepted by society, it’s when they gain value. Natural human rights are directed by moral, religious, and biological practices of people within a state. These rights are derived from a traditional belief that has existed since decades ago. They are led by empathy and autonomy- from an interior feeling that produces the deepest conviction. Leal traditions had to have these deeper emotions for human rights to be self-evident.
The strength of cultural practices in human rights is that they are autonomous hence encourages equality. People who have human rights are perceived differently as being capable of exercising independent moral judgment. To exercise such judgment, individuals ought to be empathetic towards each other by perceiving each other alike. Through this, equality is instilled in society (Hunt, n.d.). Some cultural belief inequality states that all normal individuals can live together in the morality of self-governance. Such beliefs in our cultural setting promote the protection of human rights.
The weaknesses of using cultural practices in human rights are; culture is not stable, coherent, and enduring. Culture is by a greater chance of prone to change. Any change that happens in an institution, society, or state brings with it a culture change. If we rely so much on cultural practices to shape our human rights, they might experience inconsistency (Nash, 2012). Culture cannot also endure difficulty when there is a way out. It is, therefore, an unreliable means to fight human rights violations.
Another weakness is that; cultural practices are prone to judicial torture. The courts have used cultural torture in making a suspect confess or another person related to the case to confess. They use a psychological approach meant to instill pain in the suspect, which is a means of torture for information (Hunt, n.d.). Cultural practices have supported torture, which is not a good thing to do to an individual despite their criminal nature.
Also, cultural practices are subject to controversies, criticism, and are contentious. Criticism occurs by the claims that they are traditional means that have to be eradicated. The claims are specially to eradicate some traditional practices, especially of torture to the criminals. They are also contentious in the sense that they are learned through apprenticeship (Donnelly, 2016). You do what you have seen someone else do; hence they are unreliable. They are also built under false controversies due to their dynamic nature, making them unworthy of protecting human rights.
The importance of using the law in projects of human rights and social justice
Donnelly outlines the importance of using the law in human rights projects by arguing that law has made all human rights universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. The universality of rights is depicted where principles and rules governing human beings’ conduct are universal in their acceptability, applicability, translation, and philosophical basis are considered most legitimate. Indivisibility is seen where human rights laws cannot be separated because their institution considers political, civil, social, cultural, and political perspectives (Donnelly, 2016). Human rights laws are also interdependent and interrelated in that one right cannot be fully enjoyed without another.
Another importance, according to Donnelly, is that law makes human rights to have political legitimacy. A government is legitimate to the extent that it implements and protects citizens’ human rights (Donnelly, 2016). Although other legitimacy issues like sovereignty and national interest continually compete, human rights laws have made another favorable for citizens’ sake.
Additionally, Donnelly argues that law plays an important role in social values and practices with a distinctive character and normative force. It is not watered down by morality nor dressed up by self-interest (Donnelly, 2016). It works under the condition of ‘that’s illegal’ rather than ‘I don’t like that,’ which is an important factor in dealing with human rights issues. Also, the law in human rights is important because it represents a matter of authority. It is not just led by power or self-interest; rather acts out of the authority of right. Human rights are prone to selfish drives due to moral and religious norms (Donnelly, 2016). Law is therefore important in dealing with such cases of selfish interests by acting with authority, leading to the right decisions.
Further, another importance of law in human rights projects, as described by Donnelly, is that law is ideal in dealing with human rights. It represents a legal right that is separate from and only partially overlaps with the moral right. Legal norms and moral norms operate in different domains and have different normative forces. Therefore, the law does not act under moral norms, rather acts under legal actions. Human rights deserve to be dealt with legally, which law permits (Donnelly, 2016). Therefore, the legalization of human rights remains an irreplaceable resource for national and international human rights advocates.
Koh and Nash have also talked in length on the law in human rights projects, although their views differ from Donnelly’s’ in that they believe that law in human rights depends on how we understand law works.
Nash claims that law works due to social movements and human rights are imagined concerning international law. Social movements are central to the inter-disciplinary and approach to human rights and law. Social movements are divided into global constitutionalism- the view that there is a single human rights movement creating international law and subaltern cosmopolitanism- states that what is important is the diversity of movements and law for progressive human rights. Global constitutionalism seems to be especially relevant when human rights are in question beyond the advanced industrial capitalist societies where they became part of political culture (Nash, 2012). For subaltern cosmopolitans, legal pluralism opens up the possibility of alternative forms of legality developed by marginalized and oppressed peoples against hegemonic globalization.
Additionally, Nash believes that human rights are imagined concerning international law. People imagine that bureaucratic elites and professional legal experts create human rights (Nash, 2012). The rights created are nevertheless democratic because they involve universality needs rather than a nation’s needs. Human needs tend to differ in different states; hence as much as we have the international perspective of human rights, we should also have national rights.
On the other hand, Koh adds that law in human rights projects is enforced through a transnational legal process of institutional interaction, interpretation of legal norms, and attempts to internalize those norms into domestic legal systems (Koh, 1999). Further, he adds that law is a result of coincidence, conformity, compliance, and obedience. It is coincidental how people in a country might follow a certain path as others follow another. Through the legalization of law, conformity is realized as people adapt but are not obliged to do so at all times (Koh, 1999). Compliance with the law is experienced when rewards are offered to those who conform to the law. Obedience is when people develop a notion to adopt a behavior that is prescribed by the rule because they have internalized that rule.
In a nutshell, human rights projects benefit a lot from law, and some accepted cultural practices universally. Culture supports human rights through its pillars of nature, equality, and universality. It also subjects to criticism, controversies, and its contentious. Law is important in that it acts with authority, and it is not affected, not self-interests. Therefore, the legalization of human rights is affected by coincidence, conformity, compliance, and obedience.
References
Donnelly, J. (2016). The virtues of legalization.
Hunt, L. (n.d.). Inventing Human Rights.
Koh, H.H. (1999). How Is International Human Rights Law Enforced? Indiana Law Journal.
Nash, K. (2012). Human Rights, Movements and Law: On Not Researching Legitimacy. Goldsmiths University, UK. Sage Pub.
