This gap between theory and practice is the most prominent deficiency in the effectiveness of the human rights agenda. Multiple variables, such as lack of enforcement mechanisms, lack of a state, issues of nationalism and sovereignty, and even contradictions within the human rights agenda can account for this gap. As one can see, the international human rights issue is fraught with conflict.

Many theories attempt to explain human rights as well as attempt to remedy the problems faced by international human rights. Some of these theories will be discussed in more detail later. I do not believe humanity should be complacent or apathetic towards human rights issues. Nor do I beli

“But what point is there in vaunting our values, and condemning the commitment of others to absolutist transcendentalism or demanding communalism? They are what they are, and we are what we are: if we were them we would have their values, and if they were us, they would have ours. I am not a relativist – the existence of a culture-transcending truth seems to me the most important single fact about the human condition, and indeed one of the bases of Civil Society, for it made possible that cognitive growth and the denial of absolutism on which it is based. But all the same, preaching across cultural boundaries seems to me in most circumstances a fairly pointless exercise.” (Emphasis added), (Brown, p. 123)

The only concern I have over Parekh’s theory is that a cross-cultural dialogue may not be enough to facilitate actual results. I would suggest that by changing the way states discuss human rights and come to create new human rights agendas, the framework that the current human rights regime is embedded in must also be changed. “The contemporary human rights regime is in general, and, for the most part, in detail, simply a contemporary, internationalized and universalized, version of the liberal position on rights.” (Brown, p. 105) In order to allow any kind of change, this position must be altered first.

Cultural relativism, as a theory, has just as many if not more problems to overcome. Ken Booth describes cultural relativism as an argument in which “each culture or society possesses its own rationality, coherence and set of values, and it is in these terms only that one can properly interpret the organization, customs and beliefs (including ideas about human rights) of that culture or society.” (Booth, p. 37) Thus, cultural relativists believe that western solutions for human rights violations cannot be applied to other cultures because of the inevitable reality that cultures differ too much. This mentality leaves us nowhere to go. If all of humanity thought this way, I would be ashamed to call myself human. There are certain evils in the world that take advantage of people. States that treat it’s people as means instead of the end, to borrow Locke’s idea, and in the process create widespread suffering deserve only one thing: punishment. The extreme form of cultural relativism, a live and let live philosophy, cannot be an accepted theory while hundreds of thousands and even millions of people suffer. To say that the best solution when faced with massive human rights violations is to stand by idly because we cannot understand another society’s culture the same way they do is purely disgusting in my opinion.

But where do these capacities come from? Individuals, from the time of birth are raised and taught these capacities by society essentially, in the framework of their culture. Thus, from the time of birth, we are engraved with ideas of right and wrong, of who and what is God, of how to speak and so on. I am not implying that these ideas cannot be erased and replaced by better ones, but I am insisting that this is not an adequate solution for two reasons. First, I believe this is an overzealous ideal. Of course, the world would be a better place if it could sustain the kind of regional tranquility that the west has enjoyed. Therefore, one logical idea is to export the west’s proved systems of government, law, and rights to developing countries. This, unfortunately, raises critical issues regarding sovereignty and national loyalty, which will be discussed later. But on a more basic level, this task would prove to be overwhelming and as history has shown us, mostly unfruitful. Besides the impracticality of molding every society into the likeness of western society, I believe there is a basic right at stake. The right that we know as self-determination ties in with earlier mentioned ideas of sovereignty and nationalism.

While reading the theories at the beginnin

Some topics in this essay:
Bhikhu Parekh, Ken Booth, Bhikhu Parekh’s, Human Rights, Bill Rights, Civil Society, Programme Action, human rights, Hitler Amin, Chris Brown, China CD, rights violations, human rights violations, cultural relativism, human rights theories, rights theories, universal human rights, universal human, cross-cultural dialogue, ‘ethical community’, human rights agenda, civil society, gap theory practice, rights agenda, gap theory,