If we investigate the concept of the universality of human rights, we realize that it is limited and invalid, and that it fails because it is too utopian and unreal. It is not a question of denying that there is a generic human essence, or criticizing human rights from a moral standpoint, but of showing that ‘human rights’ do not really have a universal basis. They are a part of history, and as such they vary according to societies and develop (...) differently across space, time and moment. The values that underlie human rights are relative and evolving. They take distinctive forms according to cultures and social context, and are likely to be modified according to societies and periods. In other words, in this area there is no universal societal code that would be approved and recognized everywhere. Therefore the statement of rights cannot fail to be marked by their context. Each civilization has its codes and keywords influenced by its Weltanschauung. This paper attempts to place human rights texts in their historical and geographical context, and thereby demonstrate that there is nothing constant about them. They are dependent on cultures and collective imaginaries, national representations and social determinants, and rely heavily on their instrumentalization by states. For this reason we need to rethink the relationship between the particular and the universal in order to widen their humanistic base. (shrink)

This paper provides a rich reconstruction of the notion of dignity and rights of people and individuals in its Assyrian origins in ancient Mesopotamia. It analysis several particular positions. Among them, Bardaisan, Yacoub Aphraates (Aphrahat), Michael the Syriac, as well as, much later, the missionary policy of the Eastern Church in Asia and the influential of the Nestorian church in Asia.

Given the excessive moralization of human rights and their universal ideologization, which has led to unfortunate consequences such as erasure of cultural differences and standardization, given the right, and even the duty, to intervene (the right of the strongest), and the craze for ‘democracy’ despite the will of peoples, the time has come to undertake an academic analysis of the founding texts in order to make them intelligible, in spite of the fact that human rights have become a bible. Even (...) the revealed word of the Bible is scrutinized by exegetical analysis, historical criticism and hermeneutics, which have not stopped it surviving. It should be the same for human rights. (shrink)

Résumé En interrogeant le concept d’universalité des droits de l’homme, on constate qu’il est limité et non valide, pêche par excès d’utopie et irréel. La question n’est pas de nier une essence générique de l’homme, ni de critiquer les droits de l’homme d’un point de vue moral, mais de montrer que les « droits de l’homme » n’ont pas véritablement une base universelle. Ils s’inscrivent dans l’histoire et, comme tels, varient selon les sociétés et se déploient différemment à travers l’espace, (...) le temps et le moment. Les valeurs qui sous-tendent les droits de l’homme sont relatives et évolutives. Elles se déclinent distinctement selon les cultures et le contexte social, et sont susceptibles de modification selon les sociétés et les époques. Autrement dit, il n’existe pas en la matière un code sociétal et universel qui serait agréé et reconnu partout. Par conséquent, l’énoncé des droits ne peut qu’être empreint par leur contexte. Chaque civilisation a ses codes et ses mots-clés marqués par sa Weltanschauung. Ce travail cherche à insérer les textes des droits de l’homme dans leur contexte historique et géographique, et montrer par là qu’ils n’ont rien de constant. Ils sont tributaires des cultures et des imaginaires collectifs, des représentations nationales et des déterminants sociaux, et dépendent largement de leur instrumentalisation par les États. Aussi, faut-il repenser le rapport entre le particulier et l’universel pour élargir leur assise humaniste. (shrink)