Natural Law Theory

According to Jenkins, The natural law conjecture begins with theories ab push through the tempera custodyt and conception of the world and moves on to ask about the take of every action or object. The good thing to do is that which fulfils the natural purpose. Natural law was developed by Thomas doubting Thomas, in which he believed that in that compliancy is much(prenominal) a thing as natural chaste law. Natural law ethics awaits on the belief that the world was designed by a creator, God. It teaches everything God made has a purpose, including every aspect of gracious life, and everything should work towards the purpose assigned to it.If we fulfil this purpose we do hefty, for example it is corking to preserve life (Do not kill). If we frustrate the purpose for which aboutthing has been created then it is mor eithery wrong, to destroy life is against the pull up stakes of good. In addition, military man sexuality was designed for the reproduction of the species. Any action which helps towards the fulfil custodyt of this purpose is good anything which hinders this fulfilwork forcet is bad. Aquinas believed in that respect were four primary precepts, Gods aims for charitables, which we ar to fol beginning to live according to natural law.These argon to reproduce, learn and develop potential, live harmoniously in society and worship god. These precepts argon moral absolutes and down the stairs no circumstances stool be broken. Natural law is therefore a deontological theory. According to Aquinas natural law was the, moral code which mankind beings argon naturally inclined towards. There argon also the secondary precepts to take into account, which are the rules and regulations which help us achieve these aims. These are actually man made laws which are based on Gods principles.Natural law is a fusion of the secular philosophy of Aristotle (who claimed that everything had a purpose and therefore the fulfilment of these purposes was goo d, e. g. a good knife cuts well) and the apparitional tradition of the church by Aquinas. Natural law was to be a supplement of the laws given in the scriptures and draws much inspiration from the bible. Paul in Romans 1-3 argues that the moral law of God is evident from the nature of worlds and the world, Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature, has been intelligibly perceived in the things that have been made. (Romans 120) In Matthew 193-9, Jesus observes that natural law should make it clear that disarticulate is wrong, For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wife, but from the beginning it was not so. Marriage was designed for the building up of the married couple by each other and for birth and secure fostering of children divorce goes against Gods aim. Peter Mullen, Working with Morality, states, Reason and the regularities of the natural world should be your guide. Though are ability to soil we can originate a sense of right a nd wrong.We can think superfluously for ourselves and discover Gods intention and follow natural law. In other haggle we must use our flat coating powers in order to work out what is moral. This helps us deal with ethical issues which are not dealt with in the scripture e. g. euthanasia. In his book, Summa Theologiae, Aquinas maintained that we have four cardinal virtues (cardo meaning a hinge) on which are morality hinges and these four things inform as reason as well as the Decalogue. It has also maintained that we have seven capital vices. The cardinal virtues are prudence, justice, fortitude and self control.Pursing what is morally right exit help us to develop these virtues and vice versa. The seven sins of morality are just the vices of pride, avarice, lust, envy, gluttony, anger and sloth. Aquinas maintains that these, in contrast with the four virtues are altogether opposed to achieving the goals set out for pityings in natural law. These natural virtues are expanded by the revealed virtues of faith, try for and charity derived from St Paul in Corinthians and Aquinas held that the greater the extent to which these are developed by the individual, the greater the obedience will be to natural law. (Vardy and Grosch) When people sin according to Aquinas, it is because they are pursue what they think is good. benignant nature is generally good and therefore if we do wrong it is because we are in hunting of an imagineming good, e. g. abortion, can seem ilk at a good thing at times. According to Vardy and Grosch, military personnels seek apparent good, but this is not true good only apparent good because it does not conform to the perfection of benignant nature which all humans share. A diachronic example would be that of Hitler and Stalin, who did not seek out evil but sought what they thought, was right.The theory of natural law states that you are only responsible for the immediate consequences of your actions not for the secondary or un intended set up of your action. This adds flexibility to the theory of natural law in much(prenominal) areas as just war and etopic pregnancy. According to Thompson, Natural law is based on nature as seen by human reason enlightened by Christian faith. In the light of Jesus teaching and belief in God, reason can decide, by looking at nature, what is right. Natural law however has some faults. It depends on the belief that the world was designed by a creator.Aquinas assumes that all men must seek to worship God, atheists not taken into consideration. According to Thompson, if someone does not believe in God, then the natural law theory loses its foundation. The theory also suggests that reproduction is one of Gods natural purposes of creating humankind, not considering those who are biologically incapable of having children. Thirdly, naturalistic fallacy, there is a problem with the guess that just because something is a matter of fact in nature does not mean it ought to be obe yed by everyone. Hume argued that what is the case and what ought to be the case are varied ideas.According to Jenkins, sex does produce babies by this does not necessarily mean that people ought to have sex only for this purpose. In some situations it may be needful to against natural law to achieve a better end result, natural law is too flexible. According to Peter Mullen, it may be prerequisite, for example to spin an innocent person to save the lives of thousands. Finally, how do we define what is natural and what isnt, there are some introductory ideals but these are too vague to nurse to specific situations. For example should we try to prolong the life of someone who is ill, for death is the natural result?Natural law also puts too much strain on human reason. Human reason can be corrupted by sin, e. g. holocaust. However there are strengths of the natural law theory. First of all, it is a public guide. It provides humanity with a set of common moral principles an d can be sued if you are religious or not (Aristotle). Secondly it is a simple, unbiased set of rules we look at the evidence of the natural world and lend oneself our reason to consider if something is right or wrong. And thirdly, the principles of natural law can be applied to solve pecific moral problems casuistry. In conclusion, The natural law is written and en weighed d protestd in the soul of each and every man because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to do sin. (Pope Leo XIII) It is claimed that everyone holds legitimise fundamental rights simply by virtue of being human. Some argue that rights are a modern western invention, rights are something constructed by a historical culture, seeking self justification for its own purpose to expand the notions and even to impose them on other cultures regardless of their traditional ways.The words human rights have come to mean the political norms and prescriptions that are found in international hu man rights documents such as the European Convention of Human Rights(1950) or the United Nations firmness of Human Rights(1948). They deal with the way in which people should be treated by their government and its institutions. This paper proposes to develop the argument that making human rights universal is problematic, this will be done by firstly looking at the historical development of the concept of human rights, secondly the approaches taken towards questioning the validity or justification of the precept.Finally, to explore cultural, religious as well as sex differences which interact making human rights difficult if not problematic to universally enforce. Historical Origins and development and creation of the theory and utilisation The roots of human rights doctrine can be traced back to the times of Aristotle and Stoics. In his Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle creates the basis for the existence of a natural moral order. This would provide a potentially universal criterion for evaluating the authority of man made legal clays.Aristotle tracees natural justice and legal justice, Natural justice is that which has same value everywhere and does not depend on acceptance But the concept of rights akin to that of the contemporary idea of human rights most clearly emerges during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Europe and the so called doctrine of natural law. The doctrine of Natural Law held belief in the existence of a natural moral code based upon the identification of certain fundamental and objectively identifiable human goods. John Locke argued that individuals possess natural rights, ndependently of political recognition given to them by the state. He posits the idea that people held such rights one by one of and prior to the formation of any political community, natural law thus is to perceive Gods will which truly gave an authentic moral code. Locke provided the precedent of establishing legitimate political authority upon a rights fou ndation. Compassionate to the works of the Ancient Greeks and earlier philosophers such as Pufendorf, 18TH century German Philosopher Immanuel Kant, who held that, moral reasoning relied upon the develop that all rational individuals are bound to assent.His notion of the categorical imperative, doing the right thing is not determined by acting in pursuit of ones own interest or desires but acting in agreement with the maxim which all rational individuals are to accept. So the act the maxim of which your will can at the same time be universal law The philosophical ideals defended by Kant and Locke come to be associated with general enlightenment project during the seventeenth and 18th centuries. Ideals such as human dignity and equality enshrined in the US Declaration of independence and the French National Assemblys Declaration of Man.Similarly continued through the 19th century in various political movements to extend the political suffrage to those that were denied political and civil rights. The full answer of the doctrine of human rights occurred in the 20th century in response to the atrocities epitomized by the holocaust. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, enshrining fundamental human rights was adopted by the normal Assembly on the 10th of December 1948. One should note that the modern doctrine of human rights is not a mere expression of the natural rights concept rather it goes beyond it in some respects.James Nickel promotes three ways in which contemporary concept of human rights differs from and goes beyond that of natural rights. Firstly, modern human rights are more interested in viewing equality as requiring positive action by the state for instance providing welfare assistance. Whereas natural rights promoters were sharp to view equality in more formalistic terms, fundamentally requiring the state to refrain from interfering in individuals lives.Secondly, where promoters of natural rights tended to conceive of human beings as m ere individuals, advocates of contemporary human rights are far keener to accept the importance of family and community in individual lives. And thirdly, Nickel views modern human rights as more internationalist in content and orientation than was typically found within arguments in support of natural rights. One can clearly understand the final assertion, since at once human rights are increasingly seen as requiring international action and concern.For the well-being of the discourse, drawing this distinction amongst natural rights and modern human rights allows one to distinguish the development of the concept of human rights. It will also be beneficial to see the different approaches to human rights a well as the categories of human rights. much(prenominal) discussion of the nature of human rights will demonstrate whether in Raschs view human rights cannot be justified as a universalising project. Concepts of Human Rights There are two categories that are fundamental to under stand basis and potential for the application of human rights.Legal rights these are the rights found in existing legal codes, thus benefit from the recognition and protection of the law. Disputes as to its existence can be resolved by referring to the relevant legal instrument, a legal right cannot exist prior to its passing into law, the limits of which its validity are set by the jurisdiction of the body which passes relevant legislation. Moral rights are not rights in the strict sense, better to see them as moral claims which have the potential to be incorporated into national and international law.For a legal positivist like Jeremy Bentham, there can be no such thing as human rights existing prior to or independently from legal codification. In contrast, Moral rights can exist independently from their legal foil. It has been argued that the black majority in Apartheid South Africa possessed a moral right to full political participation in that countries political system althoug h no such legal right existed. When rights exist at international train, we speak of them as human rights, but when they are enacted at national level we see them as civil or constitutional right.To develop this even further, one can question the validity of human rights. Firstly, the interests theory approach, which holds that the principle affair of human rights is to protect and promote certain key human interests. John Finnis contends, human rights are justifiable on the grounds of their instrumental value for securing the necessary conditions of human well being. The Choice or Will theory, on the other hand aims to establish philosophical validity of human rights upon a single human attribute the capacity for exemption.Proponents of this theory argue that rights are a manifestation of the exercise of personal autonomy, the distinctive feature of human agency which should be the total concern of rights. Human rights and Universality In identifying the historical roots of huma n rights and some basic general conceptual and justificatory approaches to the topic, the question whether human rights are universal is to ask whether there are good reasons for believing that the norms and prescriptions contained in the international documents symbolising apply to and obligate all human beings equally, regardless of their cultural, fond or geographical location.The argument posed by Rasch is that human rights possess personal character which means in spirit that they cannot intrinsically adhere to the cultural, religious and social differences. This contention will be the basis of the remaining space of this essay. Rasch holds, that some(prenominal) Rawls, Habermas who were inspired by the Kantian project of discerning the rational club of human society is the project of a universalist ideology that is homogenous and self justificatory.In other words he is arguing that the natural laws which initially held basic rights of individuals is Christianized. Such is the essence of human rights that truly they cannot be all inclusive and ever embracing. Raschs assertion must be examined closely, paying contingent attending to the issue about the norms and values inherent in western human rights are not the basis for human rights in all corners of the plane Rawls claimed that human rights specify limits to a regimes internal autonomy and that their fulfillment is sufficient to exclude justified and forceful interventions by diplomatic and economic sanctions or in grave cases of military force. Indeed, it is a generalization to suggest there is a line defined by human rights where national reign ends. The reason being, fulfillment of human rights is a very unclear idea, because no country fully satisfies human rights, all countries have human rights problems, some large many a(prenominal) swinish violations. One of the most significant challenges to contemporary human rights is the presumed objective basis of the doctrine as moral rights.On t his view moral principles are inherently essential in character in that they express individuals incomplete preferences Protagoras claimed that no persons perspectives can be said to be more correct than anothers, because each is the fix judge of his or her experiences In modern times, such arguments have been defended by the likes of Richard Rorty, who argues that human rights are based on sentimental vision of humanity, that human rights are not rationally defensible and fundamentally are emanated by sympathetic identification with others as opposed to reason.Kant differentiated between modes of expressions into objective and congenital propositions. He asserted that if an individuals analysis is not accepted universally then it remains the moral position of the individual, thus a distinction between law and morality. In other words, one cannot assert their moral views and principles on others and expect them to be accepted. Knowledge acquired essentially should be objective i n form.But subjective acquisition of knowledge as Kant apothegm, through individual reasoning or moral law of the individual, acceptance of it will raise the individuals knowledge, thus knowledge is a steady cultural effort, In contrast, Michael Foucault argued that acquisition of knowledge should be subjective , he held that truth is the instrument of power which should be used to strengthen knowledge.Human rights are related to moral convictions moral convictions are determined by underlying cultural commitments underlying commitments differ fundamentally from one culture to another therefore, the comment of human rights must vary fundamentally across cultures. Cultural Relativism is the most fashionable attempts to challenge the universality of human rights. One may suspect that Islamic and Asian critics of human rights suppose that their own views are in fact superior to Western ideas, and that everyone would be better off if their views came to prevail universally. Because u ltures differ, and because human rights must vary accordingly, no one culture can go around trying to impose its view of human rights on others. Islams characterization of human rights is based on its followers holding true to the word of the religion. A Islamic sees rights much in the same was as a Hindu, a serial of duties to the creator, in order to attain the higher freedom of enlightenment at death. The publication of Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie which offended Muslims worldwide, highlights how the western concept of human rights, to free speech can be incompatible with Sharia law.It is undeniable that the international community derives its values from a liberal consensus that is in essence a secularized Christian ethic. The traditionalist Muslims have not been the only critics of the western standard of human rights, until very recently the Catholic Church has been a strong opposition to what it saw as a conquest over the values of Christian community. The hearts of mon otheistic religions are in conflict with the basis of human rights.Human rights doctrine is humancentric essentially based on the responsibility and autonomy of the individual, the doctrine takes its premise in the authority of the state i. e. secularism and as its primary aim, to prevent abuse of power by the state over the individual. While monotheistic religions emphasis the will of god through the community. A study of prominent religion and development journals revealed that religion and spiritualty are under represented in development literature and in the policies and programmes of development organizationsThe unique case of Re A (Conjoined Twins Surgical separation), where doctors wished to enjoin Siamese twins otherwise both would have died, the parents opposed the operating theater on religious grounds, though the hospital and courts were choosing the lesser of two evils in that if the operation was not carried out the twins would die but if the operation went ahead one would live, the operation was allowed. Such a judgment is clearly confrontational with the religious duty of individuals.Furthermore, cultural imperialisms impact on human rights Cultures are compelled to accept apparent universal standards because they are pressured to do so by more all-powerful cultures. Donnelly, contends that the American human rights regime can be explained by the power that lies within it, He believes that the dominant power of united states, in exercising its tyrannical power ensures support and creation of its interests. Essentially, human rights as an objective project is in reality established on subjective norms.The planetary institutions developed, in the hope to exercise their view of human rights through creation of instruments in the form of universal declarations or agreements, to which all cultures agree to, comply. The preamble to the United Nations accept, demonstrates the clear declaration of universal intention by all member states to agree to a universal set of standards and norms. Who were behind the utopian ideal? The creation of United Nations was a result of recommendations by United Kingdom and the United States, the new cultural imperialists. We the United States recognise and accept our deep involvement in the destiny of men everywhere Such was the sentiment expressed by President Eisenhower. During the creation of the UN and even today the membership is still increasingly western with a low presence of Asian, African or Arab membership. USA evidently believed it was responsible for peace, security and human rights over other cultures, naturally ensuring that their values and norms become universal and dominant.In addition, the mission for Saudi Arabia to the committee drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1947, expressed that the committee for the most part taken into consideration only standards recognised by western civilisation The delegation contended that the committee was not to procla im the superiority of one civilization over all others or to establish coherent standards for all the countries in the worldRawls argued that human rights are international and universal in that they apply to all individuals everywhere, however, such sentimental objections outlined are unremarkably expressed by not only Middle Eastern states but also Asian countries like China, the reason for this is that Asian Values place the good of the community over those of the individual, one can deduct that there isnt universal consensus on the subject of human rights. Western values inherent in international human rights documents such as the UDHR are in what one can term cultural conflict as there is a showdown of difference in values and norms.What can also be deduced from the lack of consensus, is that rights are culture specific, Human rights appear in the context of particular social, economic, cultural and political conditions. This is unquestionably true, since what circumstances brought about human rights in the west cannot be said to exist elsewhere. China has echoed such attitude in a 1991 white paper owing to tremendous differences in historical background, social system, cultural tradition and economic development, countries differ in their understanding and practice of human rightsThe dominance of western thought or ideological heritage in eastern or different legal jurisdictions will not necessarily be accepted rather what should happen is that human rights should be considered in the context of a dynamic and evolving process of international norm-setting, bearing in intellectual the significance of national and regional peculiarities and various historical, cultural, and religious backgrounds In line with the last mentioned point, the issue of political reign is worth noting.A state has national sovereignty to determine matters of human rights locally, rather than relying on international agencies to out-of-doorly determine national affairs. The i ssue of human rights falls by and large within the sovereignty of each state. In 1995, the Chinese government confirmed its opposition to some countries hegemonic acts of using a double standard for the human rights of other countries . . . and imposing their own pattern on others, or interfering in the internal affairs of other countries by using human rights as a pretext. The Wests attempt to apply universal standards of human rights to developing countries is disguised cultural imperialism and an attempt to obstruct their development. It can be emphasized that human rights are harms which the law commits and heals through human rights. They are concerned with the terrible rather than with achieving the best. Their aim is achieving minimally good lives for all people, or so it is claimed. For instance, Article 3 Universal Declaration of Human Rights Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. As outlined earlier in the discourse, legal rights are in essence hum an rights as their basic action is to extend theoretical recognition and respect to all. But, New rights creating new ways of being in common with others else where open the boundaries of community. Karl Marx insisted that political community both upholds and denies universality of rights since rights support and are supported in turn by the inequalities of economy and culture.Economic exploitation of the urban poor through unemployment, low paid wages, poor health of developing countries through unequal trade and rising debt undermines and ultimately destroys the prospect of self determination when daily survival is the order of the day all aspirations for social improvement or cultural expression are quenched. Thomas pogge argues that basic human rights ambit of securing life, liberty and security has not been fulfill That world poverty is an ongoing harm we inflict seems completely incredible to most citizens of the affluent countries. We call it tragic that the basic human rig hts of so many remain unfulfilled If it is accepted, that affluent nations such as USA, France and the UK are the beneficiaries of advancing the universality of human rights and the doctrine is inherently favorable to them, then what Pogge argues is the nexus between our global institutional order and the persistence of severe poverty , then the injustice of such an order can also be accepted.It cannot be denied that the values of the consumer society cannot be applied to societies that have nothing to consume, since talking about universal rights is rather like saying that the rich and the poor both have the same right to fly first class and to sleep under bridges. What is justified in Britain in terms of legal rights cannot totally be the same in Malaysia. Clearly, there is a distinction of what law is and what is morally correct from the view of collective individuals, community and ultimately a nation.Rights promoting the equality of sexes are a contentious point The Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) was adopted by UN General Assembly in 1979, it codified womens right to equality in all spheres of life as a global norm. Article 2(f) of the convention imposes positive obligation on member states to modify or abolish customs and practices which discriminate against women. Cultural differences have practical implications. Whether womens human rights can be universal is at a moot point, since some cultures are seen as patriarchal like Islam and Buddhism.But a controversial but pertinent example of an approach that seeks to strengthen cultural integrity and individual freedom is Indias Muslim Women (Protection of Rights Upon Divorce) Act. This legislation was enacted after the case of Shah Banu, the Supreme Court of India upheld the right of a divorced Muslim woman to alimony, prompting outrage from Muslim traditionalists who claimed this violated their religious beliefs that divorced women were only entitled t o the return of the bride price paid upon marriage.The Indian parliament then passed a law to override the courts judgment, under which Muslim women married under Muslim law would be obliged to accept the return of the bride price as the only payment of alimony. F. Raday claims that the most widespread inequality women face is the treating of women as housewives or mothers and not being able to integrate fully in the public domain. Equality, despite assertions of Declarations and Constitutions that women are like men and that women are different from men is a political construct, as Hegel and Marx argued which is expressed through the legal.The law as Hegel argued is ill equipped to accommodate difference human rights claims therefore involve an inconsistent dialectic between an impossible demand for universal equality that is identifiable with the western man. From the above discussion, it has been expounded that human rights cannot be suddenly universal to accommodate societal d ifferences. What is universally different lies in the cultural as well as religious and gender dissimilarities that is the backbone to incomplete consensus on the subject of human rights.Common Western cultural roots are the basis of international treaties establishing so called universal human rights, leading non western cultures to conform to discriminative norms. The knowledge promulgated in the doctrine is inherently subjective in character embodying the dominant cultural preferences. In reply to William Rasch, human rights cannot totally be justified as they are not completely and entirely impartial so as to accommodate cultural disparity.To paraphrase Oona Hathaway International public opinion have often been lured that (in the words of Columbia Law professor Louis Henkin) intimately all nation observe most all principles of international law and almost all of their obligations almost all of the times. This assertion can definitely be regarded as false when it comes to Huma n Rights. Examples can be found involving almost all the countries almost all of the times. It took America nearly forty years to ratify, with qualifying conditions the 1948 Genocide Convention.France has never transcripted in its national law the UN Charter for the Rights of Children (which has never been ratified by the USA). Last but not least, most of the genocides that have been perpetrated since the end of World War II, have taken place in countries ships company to the already quoted 1948 Genocide Convention (Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc). In fact, it seems impossible to imagine a way of enforcing Human Rights when one reckons that it is already impossible to enforce the principles of international law. Indeed, the respect of international agreements is completely left to the will of the nations parties to these agreements.The respect (or non-respect) of a signed treaty is a matter of sovereignty and no sanction can be envisaged but a military intervention violating this co ncept of sovereignty. This is also Carlos Santiago Ninos stance according to this author the most serious limitation of the system of enforcing Human Rights is that the still current conception of sovereignty of states impose severe restrictions on the obligations that governments accept by their commitment and on the forms of intervention available to external organs for investigating and punishing Human Rights violations.The conception of a potential international normative system has to clash with the ideal of self determination because there is no global civil society. Or in Chris Browns words properly understood, civil society requires an effective state, while global civil society is characteristically seen as a substitute for such a political order. Furthermore, it may be doubted that the mind-set required to make a civil society work actually exists in the world today.For that reason, the application of treaties in the different countries stayed a matter of self-determinati on and self-policing, leading, of course, to consequent opportunities of Human Rights breaches, and impeaching nearly all attempts in enforcing Human Rights.5754 wordsBibliography Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) European Convention of Human Rights (1950) The Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979) Re A (2002) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) 2000 3 FCR 577 United Nations Press Release MEMBERSHIP OF PRINCIPAL UNITED NATIONS ORGANS IN 2005 http//www. un. rg/News/Press/docs/2005/org1436. doc. htm Charter of The United Nations http//www. un. org/News/Press/docs/2005/org1436. doc. htm Secondary Sources Books Douzinas and A. Gearey, Critical jurisprudence (Hart Publishing 2005) W. A. Edmundson An Introduction to Rights Cambridge University Press, 2004 Kraut R, Aristotle political philosophy (OUP 2002) p125 George. R. P, In defence of Natural Law (OUP 2001) J. Nickel. make Sense of Human Rights Philosophical Reflections on the Univ ersal Declaration of Human Rights, (Berkeley University of California Press, 1987) Rawls The Law of Peoples 1999, p 70- 80 Cambell, Ewing and Tomkins, Sceptical Essays on Human Rights (OUP 2001) p297-315 R. Rorty doctrine and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton University Press 1981 Kant, Critique Of Pure Reason (Hackett Publishing 1996,) I. Kant Critique of Practical Reason (Hacket Publishing 2002) S. Houlgate, An Introduction to Hegel Freedom, Truth and History, (Blackwell Publishing, 2006) F. Hegel, On Christianity Early Theological Writings, (Harper Torchbooks, 1961) P. DEntreves and S. Benhabib, Habermas and the Unfinished Project of Modernity, (Polity Press 1996) K.Hastrup, Human Rights on Common Grounds The Quest for Universality, (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001) Douzinas The closing of Human Rights, (Hart Publishing 2000) Articles S. Tharoor, Are Human Rights Universal? (World Policy Journal Vol. XVI, No4, WINTER 1999/2000) F. Raday, Culture, Religion and Gender (OUP and Ne w York School of Law,2003, Vol. 1 No. 4) T. Pogge World Poverty and Human Rights (Ethics and International Affairs 19, no1. 2005) X. Li Report from the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy Volume 16, No. 2, Spring 1999 J Donnelly, Human Rights and Human Dignity, (American Political Science Review 76 1982,) A.Pagden, Human Rights, Natural Rights and Europes Imperial Legacy Political guess, Vol. 31, No2 (2003) E. Tomailn,Religion and Rights Based Approach to Development (Progress in Development Studies2006,693) D. Renteln, The Unanswered Challenges of Relativism (Vol. 7 Human Rights Quarterly,1985)Yimga, Andre Marie (Human Rights League, Cameroon) Are Human Rights universal a common heritage shared among cultures? Rasch. W. Human Rights as Geopolitics (Cultural Critique 54 spring 2003) Websites United Nations Official Website http//www. un. org/Overview/rights. htmlInternational Humanist and Ethical Union http//www. iheu. org/node/2874 United States Institute of rest http//w ww. usip. org/religionpeace/rehr/universality. html President Eisenhowers Second Inaugural Address http//www. homeofheroes. com/presidents/inaugural/34_ike_2. htmlEssays on Popular Politics and Human Rights http//www. irmgard-coninx-stiftung. de/index. php? id=1