Essay, Research Paper: Human Rights

Most people, no doubt, when they espouse human rights, make their own mental reservations about the proper application of the word "human."
Suzanne Lafollette (1893-1983), U.S. editor, author. Concerning Women, "The Beginnings of Emancipation" (1926).

The concept of human rights seems to be such a noble idea that all rational members of society would agree to its necessity within any civilized society. However, within the implementation of a system of human rights into different societies, many problems are encountered. The main problem being that the system of human rights which is often imposed on many countries is one which is centered on 'Western' values and as such does not allow for the existence of some legitimate societies who follow a collectivist political system. Thus, it would seem that one state could not rightfully expect another state to respect human rights with regards to domestic affairs, for this would be tantamount to imposing Western beliefs on the rest of the world.
John Rawls, in his essay entitled The Law of Peoples, attempts to explicate the way in which this dilemma may be resolved. Rawls attempts to accomplish this by beginning with a blank state and systematically creating a law of peoples which holds true and just for all societies. Furthermore, Rawls attempts to avoid instilling Western ideals into his law of peoples by avoiding the use of any preconceived notions of human rights, which would find themselves based in Western values.
Rawls begins his essay by stressing the point that all societies are not liberal and that these other types of societies (he specifically mentions hierarchical societies) must be included within the law of peoples. In his attempt to define the law of peoples, Rawls begins by stating that such a social contract doctrine must be universal in its reach; meaning that, this doctrine must be able to include all members of the society as well as all other societies. Rawls comes to the conclusion that in many societies prevalent throughout the world universality is brought about through the source of authority, whether it is the church, human reason or some other source. In contrast, Rawls suggests a constructivist view for his law of peoples, which starts with a few basic principles and subsequently builds upon those principles so as to provide for every possible situation which may arise. Rawls asserts that this type of political system achieves its universality from its very nature. By continually constructing new principles for situations that arise, it can be said that such a doctrine may (if not now, then at some point in the future) universally address every issue.
This section of Rawls' essay was rather unfulfilling at best. His valiant attempts to avoid imposing Western ideals unto others, forces him to be extremely vague in his recommendations and thereby seeming to often avoid the question altogether. However, this section does provide a few important points. Firstly, the fact that a social doctrine must not only pertain to all members of its society but that it must also pertain to other societies which may or may not be similarly situated. Furthermore, in this section we see the first attempt by Rawls to deal with the problem of a collectivist political system when he says,
I add that in developing a conception of justice for the basic structure or for the law of peoples, or indeed for any subject, constructivism does not view the variation in numbers of people alone as accounting for the appropriateness of different principles in different cases…. Rather, it is the distinct structure of how social framework, and the purpose and role of its various parts and how they fit together, that explains there being different principles for different kinds of subjects. (p.40)
Thus, Rawls says that in his law of peoples it is to be understood that there may be principles which put the good of the collective ahead of the good of the individual, without violating human rights, depending upon the role each plays within the society as a whole.
Rawls proceeds with his essay and attempts to rectify his law of peoples with liberal societies and their view of justice which he sees as holding three tenets,
I understand these ideas of justice to contain three main elements (I) a list of certain basic rights and liberties and opportunities; (ii) a high priority for these fundamental freedoms, especially with respect to claims of the general good and of perfectionist values; and (iii) measures assuring all citizens adequate, all-purpose means to make effective use of their freedom. (p.43)
Rawls then explains that in his attempt to form the law of peoples he will first address liberal societies, then he will rectify those principles with hierarchical societies (which encompass collective societies). Next, he will attempt to rectify this system with both societies and members of societies who do not believe in a just system of rights, meaning tyrannical societies and those members of just societies who refuse to obey the law. With this process in mind Rawls lays out a list of seven rights which he includes in his law of peoples and that he finds to be consistent with liberal societies,
1. Peoples are free and independent, and their freedom and independence is to be respected by other peoples. 2. Peoples are equal and parties to their own agreements. 3. Peoples have the right of self-defense but no right to war. 4. Peoples are to observe a duty of nonintervention. 5. Peoples are to observe treaties and undertakings. 6. Peoples are to observe certain specified restrictions on the conduct of war. 7. Peoples are to honor human rights. (p.46)
Rawls then qualifies this set of rules by stating that there must be a great many more than this included, and that each of these must be explicitly defined in order to ensure the correct interpretation. Finally, Rawls ends the section referring solely to liberal societies by stating that in order for these principles to be accepted they must be reasonable and able to be accepted by the people.
In this part of his essay Rawls does attempt to become more detailed in what his law of peoples should include. However, his list of acceptable human rights is vague and wanting. But his method of obtaining his law of peoples is admirable in that he attempts to rectify his principles with the beliefs of all rational societies rather than rectifying all societies towards a common set of priciples. I believe this is where the truth of Rawls essay lies, not in his particular law of peoples (meaning the tenets which he sets forth) but rather in the method he uses to attempt to include all reasonable societies within the tenets.
Rawls then adapts his law of peoples to hierarchical societies by listing numerous exceptions that must be allowed for; including, collective societies, religious exemptions from the law and many others. After this reconciliation between liberal and hierarchical societies Rawls spends some time dealing exclusively with human rights and attempting to define them within his system of a law of peoples. With regards to human rights Rawls comes to the conclusion that they can exist in liberal as well as hierarchical societies as long as it is understood that human rights differ from constitutional rights, democratic citizenship, or any other rights that belong exclusively to political institutions. Thus, Rawls finds human rights holding three specific roles,
Human rights have, then, these three roles: 1) Their being fulfilled is a necessary condition of a regime's legitimacy and of the decency of its legal order. 2) Their fulfillment is also sufficient to exclude justified and forceful intervention by other peoples, say by economic sanctions or, in grave cases, by military force. 3) "They set a moral limit to pluralism" among peoples (p.59) This is the defining moment in Rawls attempt to set up a system of human rights which does not instill Western ideals into non-western societies. He has rectified his law of peoples between liberal and hierarchical societies and asserts that a system of human rights that does not include items which are tied to a particular political institution can be accepted by all, and that these rights fulfill the above mentioned three conditions.
This article was very well laid out and clearly presented a method by which to acquire a law of people under the given circumstances, which would be a social doctrine that could be applied to all societies equally without imposing Western ideals unto others. However, it was my belief that Rawls did not fully answer the question of how to accomplish such an admirable goal as to apply human rights universally. First, Rawls spent a great deal of his essay setting conditions which must be satisfied by the many societies in order for his law of peoples to work. In most cases these conditions made it so that each and every society had to be an ideal society sans political corruption. Furthermore, Rawls merely glanced over the problem of dealing with uncooperative members of society as well as unreasonable societies all together, saying that this problem necessitated much more depth than he could provide in this essay. For the most part, Rawls applies his law of peoples to societies in which all of the people are just, fair, follow the laws and respect other societies. In my belief, if all societies were the model of such perfection then the debate over human rights would not be necessary. Despite this qualification Rawls puts upon his law of peoples, his point remains clear. If we are to attempt to institute human rights which apply fairly and equally to all mankind then we must begin with a blank slate and work through an entire system which allows for different ideologies yet brings the inalienable rights of man to the forefront.