UNSW | Master of Human Rights Law and Policy 2018 | Essay submitted by Sonja Duncan
IS INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW A NEW FORM OF CULTURAL IMPERIALISM? I INTRODUCTION This essay argues that international human rights law is not a new form of cultural imperialism on the basis of three points: the doctrine of national sovereignty; the lack of obligation on states to abide by and enforce human rights laws; and the power of cultural and religious customs to override the rights of the individual on the grounds of cultural relativism. Human rights law is governed by the international law doctrine of national sovereignty: that each nation retains sole power over its internal affairs. The proposition that human rights law is a new form of cultural imperialism does not hold true given that, by definition, cultural “imperialism” implies more powerful nations imposing values on other nations. International human rights law, grounded in treaties and conventions, cannot be imposed on individual countries. The United Nations has no power to impose treaty obligations on nation states1 and the terms of treaties do not create obligations on nation states unless ratified and adopted in domestic legislation. One could argue that human rights laws, and their enforcement globally, are “not imperialistic enough”.2 Cultural relativism, which supports each culture’s right to variation, is used to justify human rights abuses and to claim non-required adherence to international human rights laws. That international human rights law is neither imperialistic nor powerful enough in its attempt to protect vulnerable peoples is argued further below.
Gareth Evans, ‘International Treaties: Their Impact on Australia’ (Speech delivered at the International Treaties Conference, Canberra, 4 September 1995). 2 Guyora Binder, ‘Cultural Relativism and Cultural Imperialism in Human Rights Law’ (1999) 5 Buffalo Human Rights Law Review 211, 221. 1
1