|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
The conception of human rights as defined by the 1966 international covenants is not a western construct, as the articles in the covenants are broad and are open for interpretation. In what is to follow is a review with evidence, which will demonstrate that human rights is not a western construct through examining what the west is and what the rest is.
To begin to understand that the human rights covenants are not western constructs we need to define the term “western” because it is not so much geographic but is also cultural and economic. ...
Using this definition of the west the human rights covenants of 1966 do not reflect a western values and interests. ... Due to the fact that the covenants are broad it allows the articles to be open for interpretation according to Weston “if a right is to be determined a human right it is quintessentially general or universal in character, in some sense equally possessed by all human beings everywhere.” In Weston’s article Andrey Sakharov mades a solid statement about human rights, he says “the ideology of human rights is probably the only one which can be combined with such diverse ideologies as communism, social democracy, religion technocrarcy and those ideologies which may be described as national and indigenous.” This quote demonstrates the universality of the human rights covenants as they are broad enough to fit every nations __________.
Ratification
This question is controversial in the contemporary debate concerning human rights and democratization because although the covenants maybe broad and are open for interpretation, there is no clear definition of what the west is and what the rest is.
Approximate Word count = 1369
Approximate Pages = 5.5
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|