Human Rights Issues in Tourism Development - Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues - page 385

(Tremblay et al. , 2008: 6). Similarly, human rights under 'Second Generation
Rights' (representing equality) are social and economic rights (e.g. rights to
family, water, housing, employment, education and health care) (Tremblay
et al. , 2008: 6). And 'Third Generation Rights' (representing fraternity or
solidarity) are collective rights (e.g. rights to development, a clean and safe
environment, preservation of cultural identity and self-determination)
(Tremblay et al. , 2008: 6).
Several debates have emerged after the classification of human rights into
these three categories. From one perspective, there is debate as to which
categories of rights constitute 'inviolable' rights that cannot be 'derogated',
even in crisis situations (Davidson, 1993: 40). From another viewpoint, there
is debate about which of these categories of rights may be derogated in crisis
situations under specific conditions (Davidson, 1993: 40). For instance, while
the right to life and freedom from torture may constitute 'inviolable' and
'non-derogable' rights (Davidson, 1993), in conditions of peace and war, the
same could not be said about the right to education, or in conditions of war
the right to association. Does this tell us that some human rights are more
'fundamental' than others ? Again, which of these categories of rights is/are
more likely to assume priority and under what conditions ? The classification
does not address these and other related issues/questions in any of the three
categories/generations of human rights considered previously.
The universalists versus relativists debate about international
human rights
Following the adoption of the UNUDHR (1948), the ICESCR (1966) and
the ICCPR (1966), there has been debate about the universal philosophies
espoused in these international human rights documents. For instance, Article
I of the UNUDHR (1948) states 'all human beings are born free and equal in
dignity and rights'. Thus, it is the universal content of the UNUDHR and other
subsequent international human rights documents that has attracted con-
trary opinions from the philosophical camp based in cultural relativism.
Those who accept the universal philosophy of human rights expressed
in the UNUDHR, ICESCR and ICCPR (the universalists) argue that human
rights are universal simply because they constitute our human nature
(Tremblay et al. , 2008), irrespective of the differences displayed by human
societies in geographical location, race, ethnicity, beliefs, religion, culture and
others. For the universalists, human beings have certain common universal
values which they share together, despite the above-cited differences. They
contend that human rights are rooted in universal values shared by all human
societies and, as such, human rights are universal.
Conversely, the cultural relativists assert the concept of human rights
emerged as a result of historical circumstances (Tremblay et al. , 2008).
According to this school of thought, historical circumstances vary from