Can someone give me feedback on this LNAT essay pleaseee!!!!!!!!!Watch this thread
The fundamental purpose of the Law is to protect society and this is achieved through Human Rights. Without ensuring Human Rights are tailored to different problems faced by each culture we are unable to fulfil this purpose. Human rights are necessary to today’s society. Currently, human rights are applied on an international basis however; do we now require human rights to be applied culturally? I believe we should apply human rights culturally in order to resolve culture-specific issues, consider cultural normalities and gain support from all individual of human rights.
Applying human rights internationally lacks specificity, force and leaves problems unresolved. International human rights law applies the same human rights to all individuals across the world. In less developed areas these human rights are often not enforced and do not resolve problems faced in such areas. For example, despite human rights law attempting to maintain equality between genders why are some females in less developed countries still being abused by men? In order to resolve certain issues faced by specific cultures we must apply human rights culturally. By developing culture specific human rights, a greater emphasis will be placed upon them by each citizen who will be aware of such a development and thus they will be enforced. Through this enforcement we will be able to resolve specific issues faced in different cultures and fulfil the purpose of the Law: protecting individuals across the world. Some may argue developing culture specific human rights is a direct contradiction of human rights itself since every individual should be subject to the same laws. However, I believe it is not an act that limits equality and consistency but an act that recognises diversity and resolves inequality.
International human rights do not recognise the presence of cultural normalities. Within each culture there are different societal ‘norms’ that consider some actions morally acceptable and some actions as morally unacceptable. For example, in the UK it is quickly becoming a social ‘norm’ that homosexuality is acceptable. However, in other countries like Saudi Arabia the social norm would be that homosexuality is unacceptable and forbidden. In such cultures it will be difficult to introduce and enforce a human right that allows homosexuality and this will inevitably cause protests and uprisings. Therefore, we must consider each culture exclusively and develop human rights that allow a culture to progress but not be forced to change. Some may argue this method will take years to be successful and will therefore argue that international human rights are a better approach. However, I believe international human rights are a paradox as general human rights will never be accepted internationally and through my approach we are able to achieve human rights worldwide in every culture.
Culture specific human rights allows us to gain the support of each and every individual worldwide. Currently, international human rights are criticised and contradicted in various cultures and therefore do not have the support required for them to succeed. In order to develop successful human rights we must develop culture-specific human rights. This will ensure each citizen supports the human rights offered within their culture and therefore allows it to be enforced. Whereas, if human rights are applied internationally, a culture may not support a specific human right and no longer enforce it, without offering any replacement. Thus, it is necessary to employ cultural specific human rights in order for human rights law to succeed.
In conclusion, human rights law is a crucial mechanism to protecting individuals; a fundamental purpose of the law. In order to fulfil this purpose we must apply human rights specific to each culture. Applying human rights internationally causes human rights to gain limited support and lack enforcement.