When any given society debates a human rights question it requires to balance the needs of a stable harmonious society with the position of the individual. These choices are not always as stark as how to combat terrorism. They can deal with issues such as why in certain cases imprisonment is justified; who will receive health care and to what level; how education is distributed throughout a society - issues on which many societies clearly and visibly differ as to what is the correct balance, what meets the needs of their society and what reflects the stage of economic development of their society. And as each society makes its own choices it reflects the characteristics of its own society. Faced with the diversity of the world's societies, it becomes difficult to assert that there are obvious, commonly acceptable, universal answers applicable to all societies. The most basic of human rights – the right to life – as already observed, can result in very different outcomes in different societies.

Looking at the issue in another way, it is clear a modern secular society makes different choices from a traditional Islamic society - in such a context, identifying a shared view of human rights is not easy. It is usually agreed at a general level of discussion, not that one is correct and the other is wrong, but that they should be treated as both valid reflections of their own culture, traditions and history. But such a point of view - and it is a general view - raises a real obstacle to a conception of universal human rights. The modern secular society is unlikely to accept the values of the traditional Islamic society and vice versa. And even relatively similar societies have issues - the UK does not allow prisoners a vote, Switzerland does. Although subject to the same human rights law, governments in the UK delay in giving votes to prisoners citing its history, culture and so on whereas the Swiss have granted votes to prisoners for over 40 years. Is there a single correct answer? The UK's position has been that before an individual can claim a right to vote, that individual must meet the duty to support society by not committing crime. Failure to meet that duty entitles withdrawal of the right to vote. In Switzerland a right to vote is treated as unconnected with criminality. In this example two different , but not dramatically different, societies not unsurprisingly regard the relationship of individuals to their society differently.

The diversity of perception of the relationship of individuals to society is a major challenge to some universal rule of human rights. It goes far further of course, than relatively simple issues such as prisoner votes. The whole Western liberal perception is of each individual as acting separately and autonomously from society and as such entitled to assert rights against society. This is at odds with a number of different perspectives which for example, place a priority on the individual's contribution to their community or society above any claims or rights the individual may assert. These perspectives may be political, religious, cultural - where the individual is not accorded the Western liberal notion of a central entitlement to a set of rights to be enforced against society - and of course one may witness these different perspectives throughout many societies while noting they also exist in varying degrees within the West. It becomes difficult to assert a global set of human rights where such fundamental differences of perspective exist and flourish in various societies. In the absence of global norms, a statement of universal human rights that reflects accepted standards of all societies may be seen as an unreachable. It is sometimes argued that nonetheless such an ideal should be pursued. Many ideals can and should no doubt be pursued but their utility to the day-to-day decision-making of states is perhaps unclear.

And even were a system of global norms to be accepted globally, one is left with the problem of how the human rights guarantees are distributed. Different societies attach different priorities. The death sentence in one society - a just punishment; in another society, a barbarism. Abortion - in one society a woman's right; in another, murder. Changing or abandoning religion - an individual's right in one society; criminal apostasy in another. Even my own experience within even one relatively homogeneous society, the UK, revealed in but one example, the area of prisoners' human rights, widely disparate judgments from judges who are all culturally very similar and it may be thought, with broadly similar priorities for the ordering of society.

Thus in conclusion, while nearly all societies subscribe to human rights within their own jurisdictions, the claim for a universal consensus on human rights is at best premature. Those who seek today to impose their concept of human rights on other societies ignore and fail to respect the diversity of this world. Cultural arrogance is not a helpful means to developing understanding between states.

Lord Davison is currently Labour's shadow Advocate General sitting in the House of Lords.

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)