جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « جهان شمولی » در نشریات گروه « علوم سیاسی »

The Cultural Relativism Doctrine is a challenging concept that questions the universalist claims made in international human rights documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. According to this doctrine, human rights, as interpreted and conceived in the West, may not be universally acceptable for non-Western societies. Within cultural relativism, a subset called “Africanism” seeks to present its own acceptable narrative of human rights by emphasizing the principles and cultural commonalities specific to the African continent. Africanism has different views on cultural relativism, ranging from minimal to moderate and maximal perspectives. These views raise questions about the legitimacy of the global human rights paradigm. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights also reflects this theoretical tension to a certain degree. Considering the modern African context and culture, it can be inferred that a middle-ground perspective based on intercultural cooperation and dialogue is the best way to address the challenges arising from this issue. During the post-colonial era, the traditional mechanism of safeguarding human dignity has proven ineffective and insufficient in Africa. Additionally, the interconnectedness of civil-political rights with social-economic rights appears to be a valid prioritization of various human rights types.

This academic paper delves into the tension between cultural relativism and the universality of human rights, with a significant focus on the African perspective. The dominant human rights paradigm, rooted in Enlightenment philosophy, strongly emphasizes universality. However, cultural relativism challenges this notion, suggesting Western-centric values may be interpreted differently in non-Western societies. Africanism, a branch of cultural relativism, seeks to establish an alternative human rights narrative deeply rooted in African principles and shared cultural values. A spectrum of Africanist viewpoints on cultural relativism, ranging from minimalist to maximalist, is revealed in this debate, which finds partial reflection in the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. The paper asserts that a middle-ground approach, which places intercultural dialogue and collaboration at its core, holds the most promise for addressing the challenges posed by cultural relativism in contemporary Africa. Traditional mechanisms for upholding human dignity are considered insufficient in the post-colonial era. Moreover, the prioritization of various human rights suggests a potential convergence between civil and political rights with social and economic rights.The prevailing human rights paradigm stems from Enlightenment philosophy, particularly the ideas of Immanuel Kant. This framework emphasizes inherent and inseparable characteristics that define human rights. Belief in universal human nature, without cultural particularities, has resulted in universal human rights, implying inherent rights held by all humans, irrespective of gender, race, or culture. These rights demand respect and protection from everyone, especially governments. However, the rise of post-Enlightenment thinkers challenged the concept of a universal human subject. They proposed the "empirical subject," a human defined by their relationship with the surrounding world. One such relationship is with culture. Cultural relativism seeks to redefine the dominant human rights narrative, often perceived as "Western," to suit the needs of diverse cultures better. Proponents of cultural relativism argue against the universality of human rights, suggesting that imposing Western values can be detrimental. They advocate for respecting cultural differences in norms, values, and interactions, even if it challenges the notion of universal human rights implementation. An example of cultural relativism is the concept of "Asian values," a political ideology that emerged in the late 20th century. It emphasized the shared societal, cultural, and historical elements of Southeast and East Asian nations. Similarly, Africanism strives to counter the perceived dominance of Western values and human rights principles by drawing on the African continent's unique principles and shared cultural values. Developing culturally informed human rights narratives, despite potential risks of government exploitation, can lead to broader acceptance and application when grounded in sound philosophical, historical, and theoretical foundations. By learning from different cultures' diverse theoretical and practical experiences, we can strengthen human rights narratives like the Islamic-Iranian perspective. This paper analyzes the relationship between human rights and cultural relativism, mainly focusing on Africanist claims. It examines the impact of African perspectives on the notion of universal human rights. We will explore the discourse of cultural relativism in the context of human rights globalization and the efforts to legitimize and achieve intercultural acceptance of the universal human rights regime. The paper will also analyze key arguments and trends in African discourse on cultural relativism.

Cultural relativism has been a focal point of substantial debate in human rights discourse for many years. Advocates of cultural relativism assert that human rights are not universal and that respecting unique cultural values and beliefs is necessary. They argue that imposing Western values on other cultures may have negative consequences and instead advocate for allowing cultures to develop their human rights norms. Conversely, opponents of cultural relativism argue that it can be employed to justify human rights violations. They support a core set of universal human rights that cross cultural boundaries. They caution that authoritarian regimes can employ cultural relativism to justify human rights abuses under the guise of cultural differences.

This study utilizes a qualitative research methodology that critically examines the current literature on human rights, cultural relativism, and African perspectives on these topics. The key sources of information are academic journals, books, and publications from international organizations and human rights advocacy groups.

African perspectives on cultural relativism and the universality of human rights encompass a wide range of views. Minimalist Africanists recognize the importance of some universal human rights principles but advocate for cultural adaptations in their implementation. Moderate Africanists support a core set of universal human rights but argue for including specifically African cultural values. Maximalist Africanists, on the other hand, entirely reject the universality of human rights and advocate for a human rights framework based solely on African cultural values. This range of views is well-reflected in the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. The Charter incorporates several universal human rights principles while also acknowledging the significance of African cultural values and traditions. For instance, the Charter recognizes human duties.

The concept of cultural relativism presents a significant challenge to the universality of human rights. While it is important to respect cultural diversity, extreme forms of cultural relativism may lead to justifying human rights violations. The African perspective provides valuable insights into navigating this challenge.

Certainly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one of the resources forhuman rights. Assessing the universality of the declaration is crucially important in this regard. It is concerned with investigating topics such as the universality of human rights in regard to studying the viewpoints of Iran and Saudi Arabia aboutthe universality of human rights, as well as the effects of culture, religion, and traditions in the Muslim countries in respect to accepting or not accepting the universality of human rights. The question that this study is seeking to answer is what is the position of human rights from the viewpoints of two centers of the world of Islam, i.e., Saudi Arabia and Iran? This is a descriptive-analytical study. The data were collected through the documentary method and library research. This article is concerned with the relationship between civil society and human rights organizations. A cause-and-effect relationship was considered in which civil society is the factor causing the efficiency of human rights organizations. In addition, the absence of civil society is the cause leading to the absence of human rights, and a lack of respect for this phenomenon, and prevents it from being executed and transformed into an effective institution in a country. As a factor and a platform for the development of human rights and the mechanisms related to it, this issue was investigated in the Middle East, i.e., in Iran and Saudi Arabia, each of which follows a different mechanism but of the same nature. The problem of human rights violations and failure to develop civil society is overlooked in all countries in the Middle East. However, Saudi Arabia lacks law governance in its legal system's structure. Due to this characteristic, Saudi Arabia is a case phenomenon and notorious in the new world. On the other hand, Iran has posed numerous challenges in this regard on account of its different interpretation of the foundation of human rights from the Universal Declaration.

The Universality of human rights is one of the most prominent contemporary issues and has been able to transform the traditional concept of governance to respond to developments that man in life in the world and proves the relative concept of sovereignty. Today's desires of the international community show how the expansion, learning and universal human rights are in line with the interests of all nations and members of the United Nations. The main question of the research is how does the world of human rights affect the sovereignty of governments? The results of the research show that, in spite of all pressures and restrictions that were created in the freedom and performance of a country, the universality of human rights has not been able to eliminate national sovereignty. But he has been able to evolve the concept and realm of governments. The progress of modern technologies and the expansion of mass communication means are very influential factors in this regard.

Three focal points in the subject of Islamic teachings and human rights can be considered: 1. What are human rights? 2. Where does Islam critique human rights? 3. How is the viewpoint of Islam about human rights? It is clear that human rights in the distant past could have been difficult to enter in religions (Tomuschat, 2008: 18). Islam, like all other religions, did not begin to reconcile with human rights at the outset. It seemed very natural for human rights advocates to extend the rules of freedom of thought, expression, religion, and confrontation with slavery, torture, harsh sentences and executions as a universal belief and value. On the other hand, instead of presenting better ways for the lives of individuals in every religion, a number of religious leaders and scholars from different religions have emphasized points of opposition to human rights. It became perceived that religious laws were in conflict with human rights and some discussed the contradictions of the Shari'a with human rights were raised. This research examines the hypothesis in response to the key question of how reconciliation between human rights and Islam takes place. The authors hypothesize that the shift in the interaction of the Islamic Sharia with Islamic civil law on human rights reduces the link between human rights and Islam. The researcher has used personal studies and research findings.

By replacing the Human Rights Council with the Human Rights Commission in 2006, one of the measures taken to examine and contribute to the promotion of the human rights situation at the international level was the UPR mechanism or a Universal Periodic Review of human rights. In UPR, each human rights situation of the United Nations Member States will be reviewed every four years and recommendations will be provided by other member states. Discussions on the status of women constitute one of the most important parts of countries’ report to the Council.
The issue of human rights of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been reviewed twice by the Council and recommendations have been provided by other countries. Discussions on women and girls are also part of the national report of Iran
The question posed here is how much the UPR mechanism has essentially affected the growth and advancement of women in Iran? The research in this paper is based on data from the Iranian national reports to the Human Rights Council and comparing the indicators of women's development as well as the recommendations of the countries. The present paper indicates that the status of women in Iran has improved in the two periods of the survey. However, the process of this improvement has been influenced by numerous domestic and international factors, and the World Health Assembly's periodic review of the Human Rights Council has been one of the factors influencing this trend.

Human rights as an international political project are closely tied to claims of universality. Attacks on the universality of human rights, however, are also widespread. And some versions of universalism are indeed theoretically indefensible, politically pernicious, or both. This essay explores the senses in which human rights can (and cannot) be said to be universal, the senses in which they are (and are not) relative, and argues for the "relative universality" of internationally recognized human rights.

One of the most important theoretical concepts in international relations is the concept of ‘state’، in relation to which all of the theories and discourses reflect their viewpoints. However، sometimes there are said to be falls in state-nations. Islamic- Jurisprudential discourse and critical western discourse، admitting the role of state as a key element in international relations and respecting the independence and sovereignty of states in their teachings، do not limit their analysis to this level since some of their discussions move well beyond the concept and they question the pivotal role of government in their theorizations. This study is an attempt to discuss the nature of the criticism required in both Western and Islamic critical discourses as well as their alternatives. The main question here is what effects have the natures of the government''s criticisms in both discourses had on the alternatives proposed by each? And the tentative answer expressed as a hypotheses is that besides ontological differences، the criticism of the government in terms of its inefficiency in relation to the universal human nature has led these discourses to alleviate the problems in proposing their alternatives and find human excellence in benefiting their talents and instincts.

Western human rights have been based on merely «being mankind» and human''s divine nature and one''s talent to achieve worthy evolution have been ignored. In this viewpoint of human rights، concentrating the view on liberal thought، atheism، individualism and formalism and ignoring the beginning and the destination of the existence and the universe and then ignoring duties and personalities، what is not western is not considered as human rights and rather than paying attention to human sublimation، real human identity is ignored and therefore any ideological، political، cultural and racial differences will be changed to serious challenges. Because which of them، on this viewpoint، leads to formation of a new identity. Really western human rights discourse has not been universal both theoretically and practically. Neither it has been successful to achieve universal consensus or at least to involve a common area of different cultures and civilizations nor it could have been impartial than different cultures، religions and civilizations، kept out humanism and codified rights based on primary and innate requirements. Criticizing the bases of humanist western human rights discourse، this paper is supposed to explain that these rights have been based on atheist humanism and therefore cannot be universal.

Iranians’ reactions to globalization have caused a cause of an internal division. While the message of the locals has been that globalization is a modern-day ploy to homogenize the world’s diverse cultures by imposing a near uniformity of values and socioeconomic models on non-Western societies, the cosmopolitans have responded that the globalizing dynamics have heralded an era of change, requiring cultural and religious reformation. It is safe to say that the youth, the women, the intelligentsia, and the media have all advocated reform of the culture. Unlike the shah’s modernization plan, which was imposed from above and lacked domestic constituency, the globalizers’ drive toward social change is largely fueled by grassroots support and an internal reform movement. Today, for instance, some Iranian feminists have even called for adjusting domestic laws to the universal standards embodied in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, raising both ethical and legal questions concerning the nation’s all-too-familiar male-dominated gender formula. Moreover, many local and national women’s movements actively support gender equality around the globe, redefining the meanings of identities and interests. Not surprisingly, the locals have capitalized on contradictions inherent in globalization in a country like Iran where religion and highcontext culture continue to play a central role in people’s lives. While human rights are an integral part of the national discourse, fears and uncertainties associated with globalization inexorably generate resistance, keeping localizers’ message alive. As the debate rages on whether to embrace or refute globalization, reformers and their allies represent the best hope for change in the long term.

The trend of the events of previous decades and current demands of the international society reveals that the manner of development, comprehensiveness and universality of the global declaration of human rights and the UN human right conventions are in the same direction as the interests of all nations and country members of the United Nations. The thinking of the international society over a series of human rights rules such as the prohibition of torture, slavery, right to live, freedom of speech, etc., which are called fundamental rules of human rights, Noyau dur, are also inviolable. These two assumptions have impacts on institutionalization of human right norms and supporting human rights anywhere in the world including Iran. So what strategy would be applied by Iran against the process of universality of human rights? This is important since many scholars of International Relations and International Law believe that the universality of human rights is a bridge to security and development of countries. Putting this claim aside, we pose this key question that what is the optimal strategy of Iran against the process of universality of human rights? Our main hypothesis is that: since native/local culture as well as long-standing cultural, religious and national beliefs of every country about the subject of human rights, are relatively comprehensive and universal, the optimal strategy for Iran is to insist on cross cultural characteristics of the fundamental rules of human rights. To survey this issue and test this hypothesis, we will focus on the state of formation of human right conventions and Iran’s positions, cultural distinctions of Iran and various universalities, rights of reservation and special interpretations of human rights, theoretical and academic discussions over the universality of human rights, and finally cultural relativity and the impact of cross cultural strategy of fundamental rules of human rights on the conciliation between relativity and universality of human rights.