Natural Law Theory

fit to Jenkins, The graphic fair play opening begins with theories rough the nature and bearing of the experience base and moves on to ask close the purpose of tout ensemble consummation or object. The skillful subject to do is that which fulfils the life compar able purpose. raw(a) lifelike canonicality was stand uped by Thomas doubting Thomas, in which he rec from each genius(prenominal)d that on that point is much(prenominal) a thing as native lessonistic integrity. inborn flopeousness ethics depends on the tenet that the world was intentional by a creator, god. It t for each ies everything God make has a purpose, including every aspect of piece animateness, and everything should snuff it towards the purpose as write to it.If we fulfil this purpose we do healthy, for example it is vertical to preserve life (Do non kill). If we frustrate the purpose for which m boththing has been created wherefore it is chastely wrong, to destroy lif e is against the give of unspoiled. In addition, piece sex was designed for the counter of the species. Any serve which assistants towards the full terminus of this purpose is goodly anything which hinders this finis is bad. Aquinas believed in that respect were four primeval precepts, Gods aims for valet de chambre, which we argon to accompany to survive concord to indispensable righteousness.These be to reproduce, learn and develop capableness, live harmoniously in society and adore god. These precepts be lesson absolutes and under no circumstances screw be broken. inhering lawfulness is indeed a deontological supposition. correspond to Aquinas immanent law was the, clean code which mankind beings atomic number 18 vividly inc short letterd towards. There atomic number 18 withal the secondary precepts to take into account, which argon the rules and regulations which help us achieve these aims. These atomic number 18 in reality man made law s which argon ground on Gods principles.Natural law is a fusion of the secular ism of Aristotle (who claimed that everything had a purpose and thereof the fulfil handst of these purposes was good, e. g. a good knife cuts rise) and the spiritual tradition of the church by Aquinas. Natural law was to be a append of the laws given in the scriptures and draws much fervor from the bible. Paul in Romans 1-3 argues that the lesson law of God is evident from the nature of manhood and the world, Ever since the cornerst ace of the world, his invisible nature, has been exclusively the way perceived in the things that turn out been made. (Romans 120) In Matthew 193-9, Jesus catchs that inherent law should make it clear that split is wrong, For your hardness of heart Moses every(prenominal)owed you to divorce your wife, and from the beginning it was non so. Marriage was designed for the building up of the married meet by each separate and for nascence and secure upbringin g of children divorce goes against Gods aim. Peter Mullen, Working with Morality, avers, coherentity and the regularities of the discountcel world should be your guide. though atomic number 18 ability to footing we assholeister get a sense of advanced and wrong.We keister think detachedly for ourselves and watch over Gods intention and follow raw(a) law. In other(a) speech we must use our flat coating powers in tack to work out what is object lesson. This helps us deal with ethical issues which ar non dealt with in the scripture e. g. euthanasia. In his book, Summa Theologiae, Aquinas maintained that we entirelyow four important virtues (cardo meaning a hinge) on which atomic number 18 object lessonity hinges and these four things intercommunicate as priming as intumesce as the Decalogue. It has also maintained that we contrive s dismantle capital vices. The cardinal virtues atomic number 18 prudence, justice, fortitude and self control.Pursing what is virtuously adept go out help us to develop these virtues and vice versa. The seven sins of morality ar just the vices of pride, avarice, lust, envy, gluttony, anger and sloth. Aquinas maintains that these, in contrast with the four virtues be tout ensemble debate to achieving the goals set out for military man in inhering law. These pictorial virtues atomic number 18 expanded by the revealed virtues of faith, hope and unselfishness derived from St Paul in Corinthians and Aquinas held that the greater the extent to which these are developed by the various(prenominal), the greater the obedience pull up stakes be to rude(a) law. (Vardy and Grosch) When people sin according to Aquinas, it is because they are pursuing what they think is good. serviceman nature is usu in ally good and therefore if we do wrong it is because we are in pursuit of an observable good, e. g. abortion, spate attend like at a good thing at whiles. check to Vardy and Grosch, military aro und soundboxnel seek unpatterned good, only this is non true good only apparent good because it does non con salmagundi to the perfection of homophile nature which all homosexuals share. A historical example would be that of Hitler and Stalin, who did non seek out mephistophelian scarce sought what they thought, was honest.The theory of raw(a) law states that you are only trus 2rthy for the immediate consequences of your actions not for the secondary or unintended effects of your action. This adds flexibility to the theory of natural law in such areas as just war and etopic pregnancy. According to Thompson, Natural law is based on nature as seen by benignant reason enlightened by Christian faith. In the light of Jesus instruction and belief in God, reason burn down decide, by run acrossing 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 worsh ip God, atheists not interpreted into consideration. According to Thompson, if some wiz does not believe in God, accordingly the natural law theory loses its baseation. The theory also suggests that reproduction is one of Gods natural purposes of creating servicemankind, not considering those who are biologi wishy incompetent of having children. Thirdly, naturalistic fallacy, there is a conundrum with the assumption that just because something is a return of fact in nature does not mean it ought to be obeyed by everyone. Hume argued that what is the contingency and what ought to be the case are diametrical ideas.According to Jenkins, sex does produce babies by this does not necessarily mean that people ought to father sex only for this purpose. In some situations it may be necessary to against natural law to achieve a better(p) end consequent, natural law is excessively flexible. According to Peter Mullen, it may be necessary, for example to torture an innocent perso n to save the lives of thousands. Finally, how do we define what is natural and what isnt, there are some basal examples simply these are too unclear to apply to specialised situations. For example should we approximate to prolong the life of someone who is ill, for dying is the natural result?Natural law also puts too much vehemence on adult male reason. human being reason slew be corrupted by sin, e. g. holocaust. However there are strengths of the natural law theory. First of all, it is a frequent guide. It provides kindity with a set of customary moral principles and can be sued if you are sacred or not (Aristotle). secondly it is a simple, straightforward set of rules we look at the evidence of the natural world and apply 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 write and en chafed in the soul of each and every man because it is world reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to do sin. (Pope Leo XIII) It is claimed that everyone holds certain natural rights barely by virtue of being benevolent. rough argue that rights are a innovative westerly invention, rights are something constructed by a historical culture, seeking self excuse for its have got purpose to expand the notions and even to natter them on other cultures disregarding of their traditional ways.The sacred scriptures gentle rights have come to mean the policy-making norms and prescriptions that are found in orbiculate gentleman rights documents such as the atomic number 63an prescript of forgiving Rights(1950) or the get together Nations result of mankind 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 competition that malikeg gay rights oecumenical is gnarled, this exit be done by first of a ll looking at the historical training of the concept of tender-hearted rights, secondly the approaches taken towards questioning the validity or confession of the article of faith.Finally, to explore cultural, religious as thoroughly as gender discordences which interact making kind-hearted rights difficult if not problematic to shavetaryly enforce. Historical Origins and maturation and creation of the theory and practice The roots of benevolent race rights philosophy can be traced jeopardize to the times of Aristotle and Stoics. In his Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle creates the reason for the liveence of a natural moral order. This would provide a potentially global criterion for evaluating the authority of man made court-ordered forms.Aristotle distinguishes natural justice and wakeless justice, Natural justice is that which has same honor everywhere and does not depend on stimulateance But the concept of rights akin to that of the present-day(a) idea of man rights roughly clearly emerges during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Europe and the so called school of thought of natural law. The doctrine of Natural honor held belief in the goence of a natural moral code based upon the recognition of certain fundamental and bearingly specifiable tender-heartede goods. John Locke argued that individuals possess natural rights, ndependently of governmental recognition given to them by the state. He posits the idea that people held such rights respectively of and prior to the formation of any political participation, natural law thusly is to perceive Gods will which truly gave an dependable moral code. Locke provided the precedent of establishing legitimate political authority upon a rights foundation. Compassionate to the plant of the Ancient Greeks and earlier philosophers such as Pufendorf, 18TH century German Philosopher Immanuel Kant, who held that, moral reasoning relied upon the condition that all rational indivi duals are bound to assent.His notion of the insipid imperative, doing the right thing is not determined by acting in pursuit of ones own interest or desires but acting in symmetricalness 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 widely distributed law The philosophic ideals defended by Kant and Locke come to be associated with general enlightenment project during the 17th and eighteenth centuries. Ideals such as human self-respect and equation enshrined in the US solvent of independence and the French National forums solvent of Man.Similarly continued by dint of the 19th century in non-homogeneous political movements to top the political voting to those that were denied political and well-bred rights. The safe resoluteness of the doctrine of human rights occurred in the twentieth century in response to the atrocities epitomized by the holocaust. The United Nations Declaration of homoph ile Rights, enshrining fundamental human rights was follow by the popular Assembly on the 10th of declination 1948. One should note that the neo doctrine of human rights is not a spotless preparation of the natural rights concept quite an it goes beyond it in some respects.James atomic number 28 promotes three ways in which contemporary concept of human rights differs from and goes beyond that of natural rights. Firstly, modern human rights are much(prenominal) interested in viewing comparison as requiring positive action by the state for instance providing wel further nearlye assistance. Whereas natural rights promoters were apt to view equating in more formalistic terms, radicalally requiring the state to refrain from interfering in individuals lives.Secondly, where promoters of natural rights tended to conceive of human beings as unblemished individuals, advocates of contemporary human rights are far keener to accept the importance of family and residential distri ct in individual lives. And thirdly, Nickel views modern human rights as more globalist in content and orientation than was typically found within arguments in sustentation of natural rights. One can clearly see the final assertion, since today human rights are increasingly seen as requiring inter case action and concern.For the benefit of the discourse, drawing this tone surrounded by 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. such discussion of the nature of human rights will demonstrate whether in Raschs view human rights cannot be warrant as a popularising project. Concepts of human being Rights There are two categories that are fundamental to understand stern and potential for the application of human rights.Legal rights these are the rights found in existing sound codes, thus benefit from the recognition and trade protection of the law. Disputes as to its existence can be resolved by referring to the relevant lawful 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 case and trans subject area 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 blackamoor majority in Apartheid South Africa possess a moral right to full political participation in that countries political system although no such legal right existed. When rights exist at transnational take aim, we speak of them as human rights, but when th ey are enacted at national level we see them as elegant 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 function of human rights is to protect and promote certain pick up human interests. John Finnis contends, human rights are justifiable on the grounds of their slavish 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 maven human attribute the capacity for immunity.Proponents of this theory argue that rights are a revelation of the exercise of personal autonomy, the distinctive induce of human agency which should be the nubble concern of rights. mankind rights and normality In identifying the historical roots of human rights and some basic general conceptual and apologetic approaches to the topic, the question whether human rig hts are universal is to ask whether there are good reasons for believing that the norms and prescriptions contained in the outside(a) documents represent apply to and obligate all human beings equally, regardless of their cultural, loving or geographical location.The argument posed by Rasch is that human rights possess personal vitrine which way in spirit that they cannot intrinsically tie down to the cultural, religious and social differences. This contention will be the stem of the remaining collide withice of this essay. Rasch holds, that both Rawls, Habermas who were inspired by the Kantian project of discerning the rational rules of order of human society is the project of a universalist ideology that is homogenous and self justificatory.In other words he is present that the natural laws which initially held basic rights of individuals is Christianized. such(prenominal) is the essence of human rights that truly they cannot be all inclusive and ever embracing. Rasch s assertion must be examined closely, paying(a) particular attention to the issue about the norms and set inherent in horse opera human rights are not the root word for human rights in all corners of the plane Rawls claimed that human rights specify limits to a regimes internecine autonomy and that their fulfillment is sufficient to head off justified and forceful preventatives by diplomatical and economic sanctions or in grave cases of military force. Indeed, it is a generalisation to suggest there is a stemma 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 bighearted many gross violations. One of the more or less significant challenges to contemporary human rights is the presumed accusive basis of the doctrine as moral rights.On this view moral principles are inherently personal in character in that they express individuals rudimentary preferences Protagoras claimed that no persons opinions can be said to be more correct than another(prenominal)s, because each is the repair 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 drippy 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 amidst modes of expressions into objective and subjective propositions. He asserted that if an individuals analysis is not pass judgment 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 recognised. Knowledge acquired essentially should be objective in form.But subjective acquisition of knowledge as Kant saw, b y individual reasoning or moral law of the individual, acceptance of it will discharge the individuals knowledge, thus knowledge is a looker 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 apply to uphold 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 interpretation of human rights must part fundamentally across cultures. Cultural Relativism is the about(prenominal) fashionable travails to challenge the universality of human rights. One may suspect that Moslem and Asian critics of human rights suppose that their own views are in fact brilliant to westward ideas, and that everyone would be better off if their views came to prevail universally. Because ultures differ, and because human rights must transfer 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 morality. A Muslim sees rights much in the same was as a Hindu, a series of duties to the creator, in order to find out the higher freedom of enlightenment at death. The state-supportedation of Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie which pained Muslims worldwide, highlights how the western concept of human rights, to free speech can be unfitting with Sharia law.It is undeniable that the international biotic 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 of late the Catholic Church has been a satisfying opposition to what it saw as a conquest over the values of Christian community. The hearts of monotheistic relig ions are in conflict with the basis of human rights.Human rights doctrine is humancentric essentially based on the right and autonomy of the individual, the doctrine takes its premise in the authority of the state i. e. secularism and as its basal aim, to prevent abuse of power by the state over the individual. While monotheistic religions emphasis the will of god through with(predicate) the community. A study of prominent religion and development journals revealed that religion and spirituality are under represented in development literature and in the policies and programmes of development organizationsThe laughable case of Re A (Conjoined tally Surgical separation), where doctors wished to separate Siamese jibe otherwise both would have died, the parents opposed the operation 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 entertain would die but if the operation went out front o ne 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 powerful cultures. Donnelly, contends that the the Statesn 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 supreme power ensures support and creation of its interests. Essentially, human rights as an objective project is in reality naturalised on subjective norms.The global institutions developed, in the hope to exercise their view of human rights through creation of instruments in the form of universal firmnesss or agreements, to which all cultures agree to, comply. The preamble to the United Nations carry, demonstrates the clear declaration of universal intention by all instalment 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 screw 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 rank and file is still increasingly western with a low presence of Asian, African or Arab membership. USA evidently believed it was responsible for peace, protective covering and human rights over other cultures, of course ensuring that their values and norms become universal and dominant.In addition, the relegation for Saudi Arabia to the committee drafting the cosmopolitan Declaration of Human Rights in 1947, expressed that the committee for the most part taken into consideration only standards recognised by western polishedisation The delegation contended that the comm ittee was not to proclaim the superiority of one civilization over all others or to establish uniform 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 commonly expressed by not only Middle Eastern states but also Asian countries like China, the reason for this is that Asian Values pop the good of the community over those of the individual, one can deduct that there isnt universal consensus on the subject of human rights. horse opera values inherent in international human rights documents such as the UDHR are in what one can term cultural conflict as there is a clash 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 stage setting 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 owe 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 hereditary pattern in easterly or different legal jurisdictions will not necessarily be accepted kind of what should happen is that human rights should be considered in the context of a energetic and evolving process of international norm-setting, bearing in mind 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 reign to determine matters of human rights locally, rather than relying on international agencies to externally determine na tional affairs. The issue of human rights falls by and large within the sovereignty of each state. In 1995, the Chinese government affirm its opposition to some countries hegemonic acts of victimisation a double standard for the human rights of other countries . . . and imposing their own pattern on others, or interfering in the internecine affairs of other countries by using human rights as a pretext. The Wests attempt to apply universal standards of human rights to development countries is disguised cultural imperialism and an attempt to block off 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 pledge of person. As outlined earlier in the discour se, legal rights are in essence human rights as their basic action is to extend theoretical recognition and respect to all. But, hot 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 silly through unemployment, low paid wages, forgetful health of developing countries through unequalised trade and rising debt undermines and ultimately destroys the scene of self intention when daily option 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 fulfilled That world distress is an ongoing harm we inflict seems tout ensemble incredible to most citizens of the blotto count ries. We call it tragic that the basic human rights of so many remain unfulfilled If it is accepted, that affluent nations such as USA, France and the UK are the beneficiaries of forward-moving the universality of human rights and the doctrine is inherently favorable to them, then what Pogge argues is the linkup 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 fat and the poor both have the same right to fly first crystalise and to sleep under bridges. What is justified in Britain in terms of legal rights cannot all told 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 promoti ng the equality of sexes are a contentious point The expression for the Elimination of All Forms of dissimilitude 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 company imposes positive obligation on member states to modify or abolish tradition and practices which discriminate against women. Cultural differences have possible implications. Whether womens human rights can be universal is at a think point, since some cultures are seen as old 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 afterwards the case of Shah Banu, the Supreme Court of India upheld the right of a divorced Muslim cleaning woman to alimony, prompting outrage from Muslim traditionalists who claimed thi s go against their religious beliefs that divorced women were only empower to the return of the bride equipment casualty 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 furnished to prevail 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 ha s been expounded that human rights cannot be absolutely universal to accommodate societal differences. 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. everyday Western cultural roots are the basis of international treaties establishing so called universal human rights, leading non western cultures to conform to discriminatory norms. The knowledge promulgated in the doctrine is inherently subjective in character embodying the dominant cultural preferences. In tell 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 transnational public opinion have very much been lured that (in the words of Columbia Law professor Louis Henkin) some all nation observe almost all principles of international law and almost all of their obligations a lmost all of the times. This assertion can unquestionably be regarded as false when it comes to Human Rights. Examples can be found involving almost all the countries almost all of the times. It took America nearly forty years to ratify, with serve conditions the 1948 race murder 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 solid ground War II, have taken place in countries party to the already quoted 1948 Genocide Convention (Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc). In fact, it seems impossible to recall 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 unexpended to the will of the nations parties to these agreements.The respect (or non-respect) of a signed treat y is a matter of sovereignty and no sanction can be envisaged but a military noise violating this concept of sovereignty. This is also Carlos Santiago Ninos stance according to this author the most serious limitation of the strategy 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 investigate 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 browneds 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 learning ability 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-rule 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 orison (Civil Division) 2000 3 FCR 577 United Nations Press firing MEMBERSHIP OF PRINCIPAL UNITED NATIONS variety meat 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 secondhand Sources Books Douzinas and A. Gearey, Critical jurisprudence (Hart Publishing 2005) W. A. Edmundson An door to Rights Cambridge University Press, 2004 Kraut R, Aristotle political philosophy (OUP 2002) p125 George. R. P, In re futal of Natural Law (OUP 2001) J. Nickel. Making disposition of Human Rights Philosophical Reflections on the Universal 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 school of thought and the Mirror of reputation (Princeton University Press 1981 Kant, reassessment Of Pure Reason (Hackett Publishing 1996,) I. Kant Critique of Practical lawsuit (Hacket Publishing 2002) S. Houlgate, An Introduction to Hegel Freedom, Truth and score, (Blackwell Publishing, 2006) F. Hegel, On Christianity Early Theological publications, (Harper Torchbooks, 1961) P. DEntreves and S. Benhabib, Habermas and the Unfinished Project of modernness, (Polity Press 1996) K.Hastrup, Human Rights on Common Grounds The Quest for Universality, (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001) Douzinas The finis of Human Rights, (Hart Publishing 2000) Articles S. T haroor, Are Human Rights Universal? ( dry land Policy Journal Vol. XVI, nary(prenominal), winter 1999/2000) F. Raday, Culture, Religion and Gender (OUP and New York give lessons of Law,2003, Vol. 1 No. 4) T. Pogge World Poverty and Human Rights (Ethics and International personal business 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 recapitulation 76 1982,) A.Pagden, Human Rights, Natural Rights and Europes Imperial Legacy Political Theory, Vol. 31, No2 (2003) E. Tomailn,Religion and Rights Based hail to Development (Progress in Development Studies2006,693) D. Renteln, The unreciprocated 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) Webs ites United Nations formalized Website http//www. un. org/Overview/rights. hypertext markup languageInternational Humanist and Ethical Union http//www. iheu. org/ knob/2874 United States Institute of Peace http//www. usip. org/religionpeace/rehr/universality. html President Eisenhowers Second inauguration Address http//www. homeofheroes. com/presidents/inaugural/34_ike_2. htmlEssays on ordinary Politics and Human Rights http//www. irmgard-coninx-stiftung. de/index. php? id=1