The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as it claims may not truly be Universal. The "Universality" has been declared on the agreement of only forty-eight countries in 1948. In today's date, with 195 nations of which 193 are UN identified, the representation on the declaration is evidently inadequate. Here, the drafting of the Universal Declaration was done by the representatives of Australia, Chile, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, China, France, Lebanon, and of course the United States. Suggesting that most countries that were in power, are a part of the Global North, or the Western nations, therefore representing mostly those values. Those western values would be the fact that these rights give excessive importance to an individual, thus to create an entire concept for just that. An example of an alternative value system could be Asian values, which would take a more communal and authoritative standard as compared to this one. Other ideas of cultural relativism also may play a role, therefore, coming up as a collective hundreds of cultures from all around the globe; which in no way is ever going to result in a truly Universal set of Human Rights. Regardless of whether the signatories for the decleration have been added upon, the universality of the western dominated idea of Human Rights is questionable. Lower, M. (2015, September 4). Can and Should Human Rights Be Universal? E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2013/12/01/can-and-should-human-rights-be-universal/ Human Rights. (n.d.). Retrieved January 11, 2021, from https://research.un.org/en/undhr/draftingcommittee#:~:text=Drafting%20Committee%20%2D%20Members&text=In%20February%201947%2C%20in%20accordance,International%20Bill%20of%20Human%20Rights.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) represents an inherently political doctrine. It outlines a code of conduct for all countries in an international setting. The Declaration should, for its purpose, be considered universal. A relativist argument against the UDHR seems tempting. There is no doubt that the doctrine has political biases: drafted by certain countries with their understanding of human rights. Logically, the rights outlined do not represent universality, because not all groups instinctively and culturally adopt these principles. However, this argument ignores the inherently political nature of human rights. One should not consider human rights as innate and pre-institutional claims to a certain freedom. Instead, they serve as agreed-upon rules of conduct. As philosopher Pablo Gilabert put it, human rights are “claims that individuals have against certain institutional structures, in particular modern states, in virtue of interests they have in contexts that include them.” [1] Thus, the UDHR serves as a necessary contract between nations as international engagement becomes increasingly common. Different countries and cultures do not have to have originally practiced the ideas in the doctrine. Their political consents (such as signatures) are sufficient to signal their acceptance of the doctrine. Thus, the UDHR processes at least a certain level of universality, because it is a part of an agreed-upon code of conduct in international politics. Such dynamics play out within cultures as well. It seems unreasonable to tie ethics entirely to cultural norms. “X culture believes in value A” does not mean everyone in culture X has an inherent tendency to believe in value A. Instead, it means that people with diverse and conflicting ideas in culture X, often collectively prioritize value A above contradicting values. [2] Similarly, the UDHR reflects an international consensus between diverse opinions as a common code of conduct. The consensus in no way requires a whole-hearted embrace. We feel comfortable saying “X culture believes in value A”, even though not everyone in X culture inherently and fully embraces value A. What, then, is different about saying “ the UDHR reflects a universal agreed-upon standard of human rights”, even though not all signatories originally held and practiced these rules? To be clear, the cultural critique of the UDHR reflects a legitimate concern. Perhaps the rules outlined in the doctrine could have incorporated more diverse ideas. Further amendments to the UDHR could empower a more balanced doctrine. However, to completely reject its universality is wrong. The rejection is wrong because it misunderstands the criterion for universality (a political rather than an innate agreement). It is wrong because it ascribes to a simplistic relationship between culture and ethics. It is wrong because it judges an international rule book by the standard of an ethnography. Most importantly, a relativist approach to the UDHR undermines its effectiveness. If pushed far enough, the approach would hinder effective inter-cultural judgments. It gives too much power to different national authorities to interpret the term “human rights.” It allows oppressive governments to equate their infringements of their citizens to mere cultural phenomena. That moral ambiguity can further complicate an already insufficient process for international bodies to intervene in human rights violations. For these reasons, the UDHR should process perceived universality as a political doctrine. [1]. Gilabert, Pablo. 2011. "Humanist And Political Perspectives On Human Rights". Political Theory 39 (4): 439-467. doi:10.1177/0090591711408246. [2] Li, Xiaorong. 2007. "A Cultural Critique Of Cultural Relativism". American Journal Of Economics And Sociology 66 (1): 151-171. doi:10.1111/j.1536-7150.2007.00502.x.

The document itself is not truly universal or ahistorical, but it did set the discourse that allowed us to accept it as universal. This can only be achieved with certain elements of cultural relativity. I don't think there is anything inherently universal about the UDHR, if anything it's a set of principles well put together into a document that we use to justify, compel, or denounce actions by international actors. The document by itself has no juridical nor legal power, but it functions as a loose social contract for what we ought to do. Although there were multiple consultations from multiple cultural entities before its creation including legal groups, religious organizations, and civil societies, the document largely represents western values (1). One could argue that this essentially means the document could be used as a tool for western imperialism as it claims to decide the rules of conduct through the consent of every party who agreed with the document. But this notion of the UDHR functioning as an instrument for the west might be proven too cynical looking at how it influences international law and intergovernmental organizations. The document itself claims to be Universal but it is also applied in a relativist fashion. The legally binding basis for human rights is nine different binding treaties inspired by the UDHR. These treaties define the international set of rules for political rights, cultural rights, rights of the child, and so on. Therefore we can more clearly define the ideas of the UDHR. Not every country signs into these treaties, for example, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is not signed by Saudi Arabia nor ratified by China. So the actual legal function of the declaration may not exist in a given country (2). Aside from international law, other regional organizations like the OAS, African Union, Arab League, and EU all have their separate conventions or treaties on human rights. These organizations essentially agree to certain parts of the UDHR or emphasize certain principles. A notable case of this was Arab League's human rights charter shifted away from the UDHR's values when the document included a loose interpretation of women's rights and a moderate position to child capital punishment (3). Nonetheless, most of these documents have some sort of resemblance to the UDHR. So the best way one could define the UDHR is relatively universal. Sources: (1) History of the Document. (n.d.). Retrieved January 27, 2021, from https://www.un.org/en/sections/universal-declaration/history-document/index.html#:~:text=The%20Commission%20on%20Human%20Rights%20was%20made%20up%20of%2018,chaired%20the%20UDHR%20drafting%20committee. (2) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (2020, December 30). Retrieved January 27, 2021, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights (3) The Arab Charter on Human Rights is incompatible with international standards - Louise Arbour. (2019, November 14). Retrieved January 27, 2021, from https://humanists.international/2008/03/arab-charter-human-rights-incompatible-international-standards-louise-arbour/