UNIVERSALISM AND RELATIVISM: A DISCURSIVE ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS

Abstract

The United Nations Human Rights (UN) emphasizes that impediments to freedom of expression against marginalized groups, forced displacement, arbitrary arrests, torture and ill-treatment, including the death penalty, in various parts of the world, are characterized as violations of international human rights, which occur when fundamental rights are denied. Thus, the objective of this study was to critically analyze and understand the dialectical tension between the universalist and relativist perspectives in the field of human rights, from a discursive approach. In this context, the debate between universalism and relativism is pertinent, concerning the fundamental inherent rights of human dignity. Thus, Human Rights either apply to everyone (universalism) or are defined by local cultural norms (relativism). Universalism asserts that human rights are inherent to all people, regardless of their culture, providing a standard for judging violations such as genocide. Cultural relativism, on the other hand, suggests that different cultures have their own valid system of morality and values, which can be used to justify or interpret human rights differently, although this is often criticized for justifying violations that even local norms would not permit.