Human Rights Issues in Tourism Development - Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues - page 386

society to society and different societies have different histories, traditions,
moral values, customs, religion and understandings of humanity, all of which
shape overall cultural understandings of human rights (Parekh, 1999: 128-
129; Tremblay et al. , 2008). Based on these assertions, cultural relativists
reject any universal cultural values shared by human societies and instead
contend the concept of human rights is relative from one society to another.
To supplement this point, the 1993 Bangkok Regional Preparatory
Meeting to the World Conference on Human Rights and the 1995 Carnegie
Council project 'The Growth of East Asia and Its Impact on Human Rights',
held in Hakone, Japan, identified Asian countries' view on the universality of
human rights. Many Asian nations do not embrace the UNUDHR, launched
by the Americas, Western Europe and the British Commonwealth with little
to no input from Asia (Bauer, 1995; Bell, 1996). George and Varghese (2007)
point out that Islamic scholars view the UNUDHR as a reflection of primar-
ily Judeo-Christian values. In the 1995 Hakone workshop, Onuma of Japan
expressed that 'universality is actually the Western approach in disguise'
(Bauer, 1995). Bell (1996) cautions that imposing universal human rights is
seen as Western imperialism, a negation of non-Western cultures and religions
and an expansion of capitalism in many Asian nations.
While each of these philosophical camps may offer plausible reasons to
support its position on human rights, the criticisms associated with them
require examination. For instance, cultural relativists' arguments that dif-
ferent societies have different cultural practices, making them immune to
any criticisms (Weinberg, 1996-1997), have been rejected by some anthro-
pologists. Edgerton (1992), as summarised by Weinberg (1996 -1997), asserts
that a society could be sick, especially when that society perpetuates and
institutionalises social injustices (e.g. slavery or the suppression of women)
and sees nothing wrong with those actions. Against this backdrop, some
scholars have labeled relativism as an 'immoral' movement because of its
rejection of universal standards (Weinberg, 1996-1997). Nevertheless, there
is also a criticism that the application of universal standards allows govern-
ments to avoid safeguarding particular cultural values, often allowing these
governments to ignore or fail to recognise the needs of minorities (Bell,
1996). Moreover, the decision by the American Anthropological Association
to reject 'the applicability of any Declaration of Human Rights to mankind
as a whole' (Preis, n.d., cited in Weinberg, 1996-1997) also exposes a major
defect of universalism.
Despite the raging debate, the UNUDHR (1948), the ICESCR (1966) and
ICCPR (1966) have been adopted and ratified by a majority of states across
the world. By 21 October 2012, 167 states had officially ratified the ICCPR
(Humanrights.ch, n.d.a) and 160 countries had also ratified the ICESCR as
of 3 August 2012 (Humanrights.ch, n.d.b).
This section has sought to clarify why human rights are such a contro-
versial concept prone to competing viewpoints. Having made attempts to