ABSTRACT

As has been indicated in Chapter Three, some of the critique of the universalist conception of human rights is that it is based on western liberal ideas which are unacceptable in the Pacific, partly because they are associated with the imperial dictates of a colonial past and partly because they are incompatible with the cultural traditions and values of the Pacific region. However, adherence to a relativist approach to human rights, especially one based on cultural distinctiveness, can itself jeopardise human rights.While it is a universal principle that all peoples should be free from oppression and that everyone is entitled to respect for their language, beliefs, cultures and traditions, there are some cultures and traditions which do not respect and value all persons equally. Cultural relativism and claims of state sovereignty versus rights imperialism may therefore be used as a cloak to conceal human rights abuses and protect human rights violators from international scrutiny. When that happens then an appeal to universal standards of human rights may indicate that certain cultural practices or attitudes should not be sanctioned by a misplaced respect for the sanctity of all cultures. Similarly, claims of cultural relativism and state sovereignty may enable the state or other power bases to restrict, crush or obliterate certain cultures, languages or practices, while avoiding international condemnation.