Defensive Relativism: The Use of Cultural Relativism in International Legal Practice

Governments use defensive relativism to oppose international human rights law, arguing that it interferes with cultural traditions. This tactic is used in international courts, human rights treaty committees, and the United Nations Human Rights Council. Defensive relativism aims to exempt a state from having to apply international human rights law or to stop its evolution. This book provides a comprehensive survey of defensive relativism, arguing that it is a reflection of unresolved tensions about the nature of universal rights.

Format: Hardback
Length: 328 pages
Publication date: 25 October 2022
Publisher: University of Pennsylvania Press

Defensive relativism is a concept that governments around the world employ in legal arguments to oppose international human rights law. It manifests itself in various forums, including international courts, committees established by human rights treaties, and the United Nations Human Rights Council. The primary objective of defensive relativism is to exempt a state from the obligation to apply international human rights law or hinder its evolution, arguing that it would interfere with cultural traditions that the state deems essential. This phenomenon is prevalent in international human rights law and is utilized by diverse types of states. Defensive relativism serves as a means for states to present themselves as compliant with human rights standards while simultaneously disregarding international human rights law.

In his book, Defensive Relativism, Frederick Cowell delves into the intricacies of this concept. He emphasizes that defensive relativism is not about alternative practices of human rights law or debates about the origins or legitimacy of human rights as a concept. Rather, it is a variety of tactical arguments employed by states to justify their disregard for international human rights law. Cowell argues that defensive relativism cannot be simply eradicated from the legal framework, as it reflects unresolved tensions about the nature of universal rights.

One of the key arguments put forth by defensive relativists is that international human rights law is inherently Western and colonial, and therefore, it does not adequately address the unique cultural and historical contexts of non-Western states. They argue that international human rights standards should be tailored to reflect the particularities of each state, taking into account its cultural heritage, religious beliefs, and traditional practices. Defensive relativists contend that imposing universal human rights standards on non-Western states would be disrespectful and undermine their sovereignty.

Another argument employed by defensive relativists is that international human rights law is coercive and undemocratic, as it imposes obligations on states that may conflict with their domestic laws and policies. They argue that states should have the autonomy to determine their own human rights practices and that international human rights bodies should respect their sovereignty and independence. Defensive relativists contend that international human rights law should be more flexible and accommodating, allowing states to prioritize their own interests and needs.

Despite these arguments, defensive relativism has faced significant criticism from human rights advocates and scholars. One of the main concerns is that it undermines the universality and integrity of human rights. Human rights are universal principles that apply to all individuals, regardless of their race, gender, religion, or cultural background. Defensive relativists argue that these principles should be tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of each state, which undermines the principle of equality and non-discrimination.

Moreover, defensive relativism can lead to the erosion of human rights protections and the violation of the rights of individuals. When states use cultural relativism as a justification for ignoring international human rights law, they can justify acts of discrimination, violence, and oppression against marginalized communities. This can have devastating consequences for the individuals and communities affected, as well as for the broader society.

In conclusion, defensive relativism is a concept that governments use to oppose international human rights law. It seeks to exempt states from the obligation to apply international human rights law or hinder its evolution, arguing that it interferes with cultural traditions. Defensive relativism is prevalent in international human rights law and is utilized by diverse types of states. While it may be appealing to some states due to its perceived cultural sensitivity, it undermines the universality and integrity of human rights and can lead to the violation of the rights of individuals. It is essential to challenge defensive relativism and promote the universal application of human rights principles to ensure the protection and promotion of the rights of all individuals, regardless of their background.

Weight: 650g
Dimension: 158 x 237 x 26 (mm)
ISBN-13: 9781512823318