Universality Reconsidered: Cultural Relativism, Treaty Reservations, and International Human Rights

Abstract

The universality of international human rights is one of the most contested foundations of contemporary international law, particularly when confronted with claims of cultural relativism rooted in religion, tradition, and cultural values. Although international human rights law seeks to establish minimum standards applicable to all human beings, its authority is frequently challenged by arguments that moral values and legal obligations are culturally contingent. This tension is especially visible in debates involving non-Western and Islamic legal traditions, where human rights are often portrayed as externally imposed norms reflecting Western dominance rather than genuinely universal principles.

The central problem addressed in this article is the perception of international human rights as a Western construct incompatible with non-Western cultures, and the consequent reliance on cultural and religious relativism to justify resistance, selective compliance, or extensive reservations to human rights treaties. This perception is reinforced by historical misrepresentations that obscure the plural origins of human rights norms and by the structural flexibility of the human rights system itself, which permits limitations, contextual interpretation, and reservations. In practice, such flexibility has enabled states, particularly those invoking religious and cultural justifications, to dilute treaty obligations through broad and often object-defeating reservations, thereby undermining universality of human rights.

This article argues that the tension between universality and cultural relativism is neither inevitable nor irreconcilable. Through an examination of the historical development of international human rights, the adaptable nature of human rights standards, and comparative state practice in Shariah-influenced legal systems, it demonstrates that reconciliation is possible without sacrificing core principles. Drawing on experiences from Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco, the article highlights internal legal tools such as the principle of conduciveness, takhayyur, and purposive interpretation of religious norms as mechanisms for narrowing or withdrawing reservations, preserving universality through principled engagement with cultural diversity.