This gap between theory and practice is the most prominent deficiency in the effectiveness of the human rights agenda. Multiple variables, such as lack of enforcement mechanisms, lack of a state, issues of nationalism and sovereignty, and even contradictions within the human rights agenda can account for this gap. As one can see, the international human rights issue is fraught with conflict.

Many theories attempt to explain human rights as well as attempt to remedy the problems faced by international human rights. Some of these theories will be discussed in more detail later. I do not believe humanity should be complacent or apathetic towards human rights issues. Nor do I beli

If rhetoric stopped suffering, I would be behind universalism one hundred and ten percent. However, regardless of the best intentions, saying that a right is universal does not make it universally practiced, which is one of the biggest problems in the human rights agenda today. Why is there a gap between theory and practice? Perhaps some of the problem lies in western liberal doctrine being forced on non-western states by the UN. Maybe by forcing a theory that has not been proven in practice yet alienates states with different cultures, histories, and traditions. In any case, the fact remains there is a gap between theory and practice, and thus far, the theory that human rights are universal has not alleviated this problem.

Earlier I stated that I do believe human beings are the same on some basic level and I believe Bhikhu Parekh's identification of four common characteristics are accurate. However, I believe that the list of similarities and common traits ends there between different cultures. My conclusion is that, yes, humans are a species with common traits unique only to humans, and thus have some common 'general moral standards.' Can these 'general moral standards' be the foundation for universal human rights? I do not think so. As stated by Chris Brown: "such a lowest common denominator is likely to be vacuous because customs vary considerably and any formula designed to cover all the possibilities is likely to end up devoid of real content." He goes on to say that "...more importantly, if general moral standards are defined in this way they lose their critical cutting edge - it ceases to be possible to use such standards to criticize existing practices if the former are defined in terms of the latter" (Brown, p. 108)

Allow me to give a brief and simple example, which may illustrate better what it is I am attempting to explain. A very good friend of mine, who is from India, was just married. The two families arranged the marriage when he was young, still living in India. After living in the United States for almost 18 years, and all of his adolescent and adult life, my friend is, in almost every way a complete product of western society. So why did he accept the unacceptable practice, by our standards, of an arranged marriage? As he explained it to me, because of his deeply rooted religious beliefs, coupled with the long history and defined culture of where he came from. It would be a fruitless endeavor on my part to try to convince him otherwise. More importantly, it is not my place to criticize and denounce his beliefs simply because I have been molded by a different set of beliefs and traditions. On a global level, I believe this task to be imperialistic, closed-minded, and impossible.

I would like to begin my conclusion with a quote from the liberal scholar, Ernest Gellner in order to re-emphasize my position on universalism:

Finally, advocates of the Universalist theory will point to several UN declarations and covenants, which support their stance that human rights are universal. One example is in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action which states: "All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated....While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms." (Donnelly, p. 88) Many of the more recent products of the UN include this same verbiage, indicating an acceptance of the universal principles of human rights.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Bhikhu Parekh, Ken Booth, Bhikhu Parekh's, Human Rights, Civil Society, Bill Rights, human rights, Programme Action, Hitler Amin, Chris Brown, China CD, rights violations, human rights violations, cultural relativism, human rights theories, rights theories, universal human rights, universal human, cross-cultural dialogue, 'ethical community', international human rights, gap theory, gap theory practice, civil society, theory practice,
Approximate Word count = 3882
Approximate Pages = 16 (250 words per page double spaced)