天易网

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 7428|回复: 5

[辩论] 亚洲价值可以对抗普世价值吗?

[复制链接]
发表于 12/24/2010 23:02:37 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
亚洲价值可不可以对抗普世价值在此辩论。

结束时间: 3/24/2011 23:01

正方观点 (0)

亚洲价值可以对抗普世价值。

反方观点 (0)

亚洲价值不可以对抗普世价值。

辩手:0 ( 加入 )
     
    辩手:1 ( 加入 )
    发表于 12/28/2010 20:36:17 | 显示全部楼层
    本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 12/28/2010 20:11 编辑

    Asian value and human rights perspective from Chinese Lawyer
    By Guoting Guo
    I.
    Introduction
    Authoritarian East Asian political leaders have argued against the wholesale importation of Western democracy and human rights. The human rights practices of the West are said to be unsuited to Asian soil and to the particular cultural and historical conditions of the East. Asian values claim generalizes that Asian cultures, particularly Confucian cultures, are undemocratic or positively anti-democratic, and that authoritarian forms ofgovernance are more suitable to Asian states. East Asian leaders point to theWestern origin of liberal democracy and the high levels of crime and social problems in the West and question the merits of principles they claim are contrary to “Asian values”- Advancing the group over the individual, authority over liberty and responsibility over rights, a term in which they seem to include “authoritarianism, cooperation, harmony, and order as the predominant values of Asian culture”.[1]

    Professor Yash Ghar ask following questions[2]: Are human rights determined by the culture or economic development of acountry, contingent on history, or do they represent universal values true for all time and places? Are some rights more basic than others? How do civil and political issues relate to economic and cultural rights? Is there a order in the development and achievement of human rights? How do human rights, the rule of law, and democracy relate to each other? How are human rights and democracy linked to economic and social development? What is the role of civil society?

    If human rights are those rights which everyone has simply by being human; Yet, cultural diversity is also a reality.As a matter of empirical record, rights, order and justice are obtained in diverse ways in different countries at different times. Almost fifty years after the Universal Declaration was adopted as a “common standard of achievement,” the debate over the meaning of many of its thirty articles continues. The debate is not just between the West and Asia. Not every country in the West will agree on the specific meaning of every article. Not everyone will agree that all articles are fundamental rights. Nor will every one of the fifty states of the U.S.interpret the Universal Declaration in the same way.[3]

    Lower achieve for civil and political freedoms among East Asian countries and higher attain for social and economic rights as well as good governance, law and order, crime control and social stability, the studies suggest that even in Asian democracies the liberal emphasis on the individual will often take a back seat to collective interests and social stability. [4]
    The evolution of human rights back to the Classical period, through the development of natural law and natural rights and to the re-emergence of natural law during the Second World War, the English, American and French constitutional revolutions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and their accompanying declarations of rights are frequently described as the
    ancestors of modern human rights documents, while the writings of Locke and Montesquieu are seen as providing the intellectual ballast for these developments.[5]The evolution of human rights is almost exclusively of Western origin. This become seven more apparent when one examines their pragmatic rather than theoretical foundations. In essence, human rights were conceived as instruments by which to combat tyranny by autocratic rulers and exclusion from the political process.[6]
    Bill of Rights were designed not only to free the American colonies from an English parliament in which they had no political representation, but also to protect future generations from the abuse of political power by any native government. Similarly, the French Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man was aimed at curtailing repression by future governments. Intimately associated with these ideas was the concept of self-determination rooted in the notion of democratic participation in government. Human rights were thus initially the direct product of the evolution of the modern democratic state, and the modern democratic state is undoubtedly of Western origin. There may have been limits on rulers in other polities, but these were largely based upon their sense of moral constraint in the interests of harmony and good governance or from fear of being violently deposed, rather than notions of democratic governance and the normative restraint of individualised rights.[7]Mao Zedong(1957) said that “Our socialism’s democracy is the greatest democracies which any capitalist country impossible have”[8] .Jiang Zemin(1990) claimed that “ Our democracy is the most widespread people’s democracy, Chinese government most respect for human right, Chinese people enjoy true democracy, freedom and rights”.[9] Chinese representative Sha Zukang (2003) stated “This is the best time of human rights in Chinese history” [10].

    These were irony statement as severe human rights abuses,against justice and Chinese law, are taking place throughout China. As a Chinese Human rights lawyer, I had handled following International high profile cases, reported internationally, concern Chinese lawyers and journalists, such as:
    • Lawyer Zheng Enchong, who faxed an article reporting     the situation of Shanghai residential eviction to the Human Rights of     China organization, was sentenced to prison for three years.
    • Oversees student Huang Jingqiu organized an Internet     party and essay stating a peaceful government overturn is justified, and     was sentenced to prison for 12 years.
    • Journalist Shi Tao e-mailed an online Democracy Forum,     involving information about the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre and Falun     Gong (a spiritual practice based on Buddhist and Daoist beliefs), and was     sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
    • Lecturer, Yang Tianshui, wrote several essays     criticizing the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) regime, and was imprisoned     three times totalling 22 years.
    • Chinese democracy fighter, Zhang Lin, wrote eight     essays criticizing the CCP's regime, and was jailed and put into a forced     labour camp three times in 12 years.
    • University student, Qi Yanlai, downloaded and edited     Internet essays about Falun Gong and imprisoned for five years.
    All of these were illegallysentenced, imprisoned, and tortured by the CCP. In addition, since 2003 atleast 75 writers and journalists, writing on the Internet, were imprisoned form any years. [11] Only in 2006 Chinese official recognized that there were 604 people arrested for threatening State security[12].All were denied appropriate legal defence. No media within China and fewoutside of China reported these situations. Therefore, the truth is rarely told. There are 150,000 lawyers in China currently , but only 15 human rights lawyers. However, since February 2005 seven (Guo Feixiong, Gao Zhisheng, Chen Guancheng, Liu Ruping, Zhu Yubiao, Li Heping and Li Fangping) were tortured by police, secretly arrested, sentenced and imprisoned.Four
    were forced to leave their law firms (Yang Zhaixing, Zhang Jiankang, Guo Yeng, and Tang Jinglin). I (Guo Guoting) was detained and under house arrested for 75 days then driven out of China. In another word, 90% of Chinese human rights lawyers were secretly arrested, beaten, sentenced, and tortured.
    Additionally, large numbers of Chinese people have little faith in Chinese courts making appeals to the Chinese government. In 2005, there were 76,000 demonstrations throughout China against the CCP, and in 2006 there were 87,000. If Chinese human rights lawyers have no fundamental human rights and cannot protect themselves how ordinary can Chinese citizens have human rights and protection?
    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the several ensuing legal treaties setting out civil, political, cultural, and economic rights as well as the rights of children, women, ethnic groups, and religions,were meant to create a global safety net of rights applicable to all persons,everywhere. Although these legal instruments allow some restrictions in time of national emergency, they tolerate no cultural exceptionalism.[13]
    The purpose of this paper is to discuss the definition, history, arguments in favour of and against of the Asian Value and human rights from the perspective of Chinese, to demonstrate what the Chinese government is saying is totally nonsense propaganda going against reality and factual evidence of severe human rights abuses.International evidence is mounting proving unjustified torture and cruel actions, against humanity and traditional Asian character, by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) jeopardizing China’s stability and rule of law practices.There are four part of the paper:
    I.history and definition of the Asian values
    II.argument in favour of the Asian values
    III.argument against of the Asian values
    IV.conclusion


    [1]Michael C Davis, “ Constitutionalism and Political Culture The Debate over Human Rights and Asian Values”. Harvard Human Rights Journal / Vol. 11.p. See also Huntington, supra note 2, at 15.

    [2]Yash Ghar, Human Rights and Governance The Asia Debate,Australian Year Book of international Law[1996]p.2.

    [3]BilahariKim Hee P.S. Kausikans, An East AsianApproach To Human Rights,1995-1996,Buffalo Journal of International Law Vol. 2.p.267.

    [4]Randall Peerenboom, “The Dominance of Wealth in DeterminingRights Performance in Asia”. Duke Journal of Comparative & InternationalLaw 2004 Vol. 15.P.80.

    [5] JS DAVIDSON, “ East Versus West Human Rights and Cultural Difference”, Canterbury Law Review [Vol 8, 2001] p.39.

    [6] JS DAVIDSON, “ East Versus West Human Rights and Cultural Difference”, Canterbury Law Review [Vol 8, 2001] p.39.

    [7] JS DAVIDSON, “ East Versus West Human Rights and Cultural Difference”, Canterbury Law Review [Vol 8, 2001] p.40.

    [8] Mao Zedong, on February 27, 1957"Correctly to handle the Contradictions among the people".

    [9] Jiang Zemin, on November 2, 1990 “In nation foreign propaganda work conference's speech”.

    [10] At the 59th United Nations Human Rights Committee conference,Mr. Sha’s statement.

    [11]All above victims are my clients and their essays never have chance published in any traditional media, because the Communist Party of China totally control all media, they simply published their opinion online and thus were
    putted intojail. Media control in China is extremely strict, no independent media could set up or survived.

    [12] “90% arrested do not know by outside world, the Chinese Communist Party arrest Chinese discidents figure to increase suddenly”. "in 2007 Chinese Law Yearbook" said that in 2006, China altogether has 604 people to be a suspect to harm the national security crime arrested by the police and the National security Department. Apollo news net2007-11-28 news

    [13]Thomas M Franck, “ Are Human Rights Universal?” Foreign Affairs-Volume8.No.1January/February 2001.p.192.
    回复

    使用道具 举报

    发表于 12/28/2010 20:43:27 | 显示全部楼层

    II.History of Asian Value

    本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 12/28/2010 19:48 编辑

    In this section, I will discuss twoquestion, first what is the Asian value? Second brief of history evolution of the Asian values.
                   
    II.History of Asian Value
    In this section, I will discuss twoquestion, first what is the Asian value? Second brief of history evolution of the Asian values.
    A.What is the Asian Values?
    Violations variety over the whole conspectus of humanrights: civil and political rights, as well as cultural, social and economicrights. There are mass killings and widespread disappearances, torture, widedisplacements of communities from their traditional abode, arbitrarydetentions, and extensive censorship of thought and expression.[1]Torture, Cruel, and Unusual Punishment includes mental suffering, degradation, and consecutive hours of interrogation in a heavily air-conditioned room, caning, hand amputation,capital punishment, and lengthy incarcerations consisting of rape or violencefrom other prisoners[2].
    Western and Asian criminal law varyregarding approval of warrants and arrests, search and seizure policies, andarbitrary detention and interrogation concepts. Examples are, access to alawyer, right to silence, and tainted evidence admission. Compared to westerncountries, Asia provides police greater power for arrest and detention;[3] therefore, greater harm exists to Asian society. In Western theory the marketis autonomous, and the safeguarding of that autonomy requires a number of civiland political rights (property, freedom of movement, association andorganisation, expression and an independent and rational legal order). [4]
    Asian values, supported by Singapore’s expired minister LeeKuan Yew and Malaysia’s expired minister Mahathir, strengthened by the ChinaCommunist Party regime, has been used to deny democracy and civil and politicalfreedom under their rule. Through this concept elections were rigged, criticssilenced and corruption reigned.
    The main contention are whetherhuman rights are universalism or relativism; the priority or level of rights,the compatibility of Confucianism, Buddhism and Islam with democracy and humanrights, economics; whether authoritarian or democratic regimes are better ableto achieve sustained economic growth and whether Asian capitalism are betterthan the liberal democratic capitalism. Does human rights implementation haveany preconditions?
    Inoguchi and Newman argue that identifiableand distinct and which transcends national, religious and ideologicaldifferences. East Asia is presented as a value system in the context of anEast-West dichotomy.[5]
    AnthonyMilner said that “Asianvalues include a stress on the community rather than the individual, theprivileging of order and harmony over personal freedom, refusal tocompartmentalize religion away from other spheres of life, a particularemphasis on saving and thriftiness, an insistence on hard work, a respect forpolitical leadership, a belief that government and business need notnecessarily be natural adversaries, and an emphasis on family loyalty”.[6]
    Asian miracle and it gave birth to the argument that Asiawas flourishing because of certain “Asian values”: deference to authority,strong government, diligence, and the primal concerns of the community over theinterests of the individual. The core values of the Asian society arewell-known as placing society above self, upholding the family as the elementof society, and resolving major issues through consensus instead of contention.[7]
    The virtues of individual sacrifice to theneeds of society, obedience to authority, emphasising duties at the expense ofrights and maintaining social harmony, is constructed by elites and is oftenaimed at maintaining the pre-eminent position of those elites.[8]Whilepraised the Confucian values of hard work, thrift and family responsibility,attacked the Western liberal political culture of too much individualism andliberty. Behind these claims was governmental advocacy for economic rather thanpolitical rights; several governments preferred to foster “bread and rice”inherent in economic, social, and cultural rights rather than “ballots”inherent in civil and political rights.[9] Macro-economic growth was also a fantasy given that it was based on corruption,collusion, and cronyism. It has always been the glare of political tyranny,authoritarianism, and obscure rather than transparent government in manycountries.[10] This combination of authoritarian rule and family and kinship networks lies atthe root of economic success.[11]

    China claim that ‘domestic jurisdiction’ over human rights,Human rights are summarized within state sovereignty, the national treatment ofhuman rights is no concern of other states or the international community.Self-determination, a concept which has been used to advance claims of humanrights, is regarded as irrelevant to independent states. This position runscontrary to the contemporary view that human rights are a matter ofinternational concern and that its gross violations entitle the internationalcommunity to intervene in domestic situations to rectify violations. [12]
    Asian values is a concept that usedto explain the lack of personal freedoms permitted in countries like Singaporeand Malaysia. It claims Asian people consider the stability and prosperity ofthe family, corporation or nation take precedence over the freedoms of theindividual. Free speech, thought, press, and assembly are denied on the basisthat they may hamper development or cause rifts in society in general. Asianvalues are supposedly less inclined towards freedom and more inclined tostability and discipline.
    Theconcept of “Asian values” rests upon a number of assumptions, which haveserious methodological problems. In fact the phrase “Asian values” implies thatthe social, economic and political characteristics of certain Asian countriesare based upon a shared value system which is professor Amartya Sen used ThomasPaine’s words stating “Freedom has been hunted around the globe. Asia andAfrica have long expelled her. Europe regards her as a stranger in England hasgiven her warning to depart. Political freedom and democracy were valuableanywhere, though they were being violated nearly everywhere”[13].
    Currant Asian values are defined byusing beautiful concepts, found in Confucianism (such as honesty, trust, andgood faith), as a mask for the real selfish actions practiced. This definitionis in sharp contrast to what Western people consider Asian values. Many Westernpeople think Asian values are that which is derived from Confucianism orBuddhism, such as honesty,trust, faith, and justice. Instead, that is Ancient Chinese character,beliefs, and practices. Western people think this is truly practiced when inreality it is a mask for what is really being practiced to obtain power andmoney. Thus, Asian values are a concept of distorting the real picture to makeit look good when it is appalling and are like being told you are in heavenwhen you are in hell. A good example of this in China is the current situationof human rights lawyers.It is the CCP always defending their actions assomething that is kind and caring for the people when, in reality, they areseverely harming their people and lying about it. For instance, in response tothe Tiananmen Massacre and world criticism, the CCP stated the truth wassoldiers opened fire on already violent students as a sort of self-defence. Thereality was the soldiers were not defending themselves against violentstudents, but rather were ordered by the CCP to kill the innocent students, whowere calling for democracy and freedom. True rule of law is completely ignored.

    B.The brief History of Asian Values
    It seems the phrase “Asian values” was mentioned in 1977 by LeeKuan Yew[14].Mr. Lee, a Confucianism, believed authoritarian is suitable for Asia country.Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohammed [15]isa famous supporter. Asian values were a natural outgrowth of the growingimportant of the movement; it may also be a response to globalization. Economicrise of some Asian countries such as: Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan,gave them the confidence to stand up for their traditions and to argue that they succeeded by combining western institutions and indigenous East Asian values.
    Deng Xiao ping said in “Insists on the Four Fundamental Principles”, on March,30,1979 , “ truly speaking, the country right is much more important than thehuman rights.This is the historical summary. Various countries’ historicalbackground, the cultural tradition, the social development, the religiousbelief and so on are very difference, the values are also extremely difference.The western’s value is only the Westerns but ours”. [16]Deng’s statementclearly show he also support the Asian value, although he did not mention theterm.
    Nevertheless, the General Assembly of the United Nationsadopted, in the face of abstentions by most Western states, a Declaration onthe Right to Development on December 4, 1986.The Declaration ties therealisation of human rights in the developing countries to international economicaid for them and gives to ‘peoples’ (presumably meaning ‘states’) the right to‘participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural andpolitical development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms canbe fully realised.’ In return for these, several concessions are made inemphasising the indivisibility of rights and the claims of individuals to fullparticipation in development and in the fair distribution of the benefitsresulting from it.[17]

    Professor Yash Ghai comment that the Declaration is a vague document, trying tobe all things to all persons. So while there are sections of it which can beused to advance the (more traditional) cause of human rights, the gist of itseeks to establish reason for the failure of the realisation of human rights inthe international economic and political systems (including encroachments onthe principle and practice of self-determination), while affirming that theprimary responsibility for human rights is vested in states as part of theirsovereignty. In other words, the rich countries must provide economicassistance to the poor countries, but must not question their human rightssituation.Mr. Ghai make further analysis : The Declaration is also an attemptto provide an alternative framework for the international discourse on humanrights. It shifts the focus from domestic arenas (where most violations ofhuman rights take place) to the international, and takes attention away fromspecific rights – such as speech, assembly and social welfare - to an ambiguousright of development, for which, in the nature of Third World affairs, thestate must take the responsibility for definition and implementation. Throughthe Declaration, Asian governments seek to promote the ideology ofdevelopmentalism, which justifies despotism at home and the avoidance ofresponsibility abroad.[18]
    After the 1989 Tiananmen massacre,the China Communist Party government was highly criticized internationally forviolence against students democracy movement. In response, China issued the White Paper on Human Rights[19] supporting “Asian values” and the CCP used its political influence leading the 1993 Bangkok and Vienna Declaration. [20]
    Jiang Zeming said on Oct 29, 1991, that “humanrights are human in society’s right to subsistence and the right todevelopment. I thought that leaves social progress and economical developmentdiscussing democracy, freedom and human rights do not have significance. Theyare adapts with each nations actual situation. In brief, if does not havesociety’s stability, it is impossible to have economical development; does nothave the economical development then no society’s progress; without entiresociety’s progress it is impossible to realize the humanity to control owndestiny truly, thus, human rights will become an empty talk. I thought whenobservation various countries human rights situation, cannot leave thatnation’s historical and cultural traditions, economic development condition andsocial system. Therefore, does not exist absolute sense of human rights”. [21] HereJiang’s speech essential same as Deng’s as above quoted which of course simplya mask for the CCP hold on power and persist on totalitarian rule.
    Chinese White Paper (1991)which states that “the evolutionof the situation in regard to human rights is circumscribed by the historical,social, economic and cultural conditions of various nations, and involves aprocess of historical development. Owing to tremendous differences inhistorical background, social system, cultural tradition and economicdevelopment, countries differ in their understanding and practice of humanrights.” “ To eat their fill and dress warmly were the fundamental demands ofthe Chinese people who had long suffered cold and hunger.”[22]
    The first relates to conditionalities of politicalstability, and the other to the primacy of economic development. Theimplications of the first represent restrictions on civil and political rights.
    The White Paper says that “thepeople’s right to subsistence will be threatened in the event of social chaosor other disasters, and that it is the fundamental wish and demand of theChinese people and a long-term, urgent task of the Chinese government tomaintain national stability and concentrate their efforts on developing productive forces”.[23] “Civil and political rights are neither meaningful nor practicable inconditions of want or poverty. Therefore, the first priority of state policymust be to promote economic development”. It is implied that economic development may well require restrictions on human rights, both to provide asecure political framework in which it can be pursued and to remove obstaclesin its way.[24]Inthe White Paper, the Chinese government stated that “ Despite its internationalaspect, the issue of human rights falls by and large within the sovereignty ofeach state.”[25]TheChinese delegation to the UN Commission on Human Rights at its meeting inFebruary 1993 urged that the World Conference in Vienna should “reiterate theprinciple of state sovereignty contained in the UN Charter and internationallaw which is the basis for the realisation of human rights. Only when the statesovereignty is fully respected can the implementation of human rights be reallyensured.”[26]
    At a Vienna World Conference onHuman Rights, Chinese ambassador Liu Huaqiu (1993) stated: “The concept ofhuman rights is a product of historical development. It is closely associatedwith specific social, political and economic conditions and the specifichistory, culture and values of a particular country. Different historicaldevelopment stages have different human rights requirements… Thus, one shouldnot and cannot think the human rights standards and model of certain countries asthe only proper ones and demand all other countries to comply with them... Forthe vast number of developing countries, to respect and protect human rights isfirst and foremost to ensure the full realization of the rights to subsistenceand development”. [27]
    In April 1993 the BangkokGovernmental Declaration article 7 recognises that while human rights areuniversal in nature, but article 8 state that they must be considered in thecontext of a dynamic and evolving process of international norm-setting, bearingin mind the significance of national and regional peculiarities and varioushistorical, cultural and religious backgrounds.[28]
    article 18th provided that “in view ofthe fact that between north and south expands day by day with the gap between rich and poor, the implementationdevelopment right’s chief obstacle exists in the international macroeconomiclevel.”Article 4 emphasized that “did not approve anybody using human rights asthe condition to provide development assistance. ”Article 5 appealed that eachcountries “do not using human rights as exert political pressure method”. Thearticles quotes above show that the contents are contradictory, because takehistory, culture, religious background and economic development as reason torelativist the “human rights” concept, means weaken, even negative humanrights’ universality and objectivity; However,More than 240 spokesmen for Asian nongovernmental groups also turned up tochallenge the “Asian concept ”of democracy as a “disguise” for the suppressionof democratic aspirations[29]. In 1993 the Asia-Pacific (Governmental) Declaration of HumanRights which implied that “particularities” may have to prevail over“universality” in its stipulation that:

    [The Asia-PacificGovernments] “Emphasize the principles of respect for national sovereignty andterritorial integrity as well as non-interference in the internal affairs ofStates, and the non-use of human rights as an instrument of political pressure.They do not accept human rights advocacy when it impinges on nationalsovereignty. In their mind set, the claim of national security and stabilityprevails over international human rights standards: civil and political rightsmay have to be constrained and democracy not allowed flourishing; the priorityshould be economic development first and political liberalization later”.

    In June 1993 Vienna World Conference was to reaffirm theuniversality of human rights as follows: “All human rights are universal,indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally and in a fairand equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While thesignificance of national and regional particularities and various historical,cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty ofstates, regardless of their political, economic and cultural system, to promoteand protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms”.[30] Almost all Asian governments stated in effect that they would not support anydocument (to be issued at the Vienna conference) which did not specificallystate that States’ and societies’ rights always prevail over that of theindividual. (See Asiaweek, June 30, 1993, 24.) the Vienna Declaration AndProgramme of action states that since human rights are “indivisible andinterdependent and interrelated” the international community must treat them “ina fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis”. Thismeans that not only are human rights universal in their application, but alsothat there is no hierarchical relationship between the various rights: oneright must not be granted at the expense of another.

    The Bangkok and Vienna Declarations conceptualized rightsequity that was strongly promoted by rights advocates was a notable success inthe fight against Asian values. Asian values opponents wanted it to counteractAsian governments arguments and Asian values advocates who stated the mostfundamental right was subsistence and ensuring economic growth requiredtemporary abolition of civil and political rights.
    Since a 1997 Asian financial crisisAsian values disappeared for a period of time. Lee Guan Yew seems also gave upAsian values. In the 2001 Swedish World Economic Forum he said that some ofspoke of Confucianism is out of date, the cronyism and familial networks shouldbe abolished. Singapore survived the crisis through British colonized values,particularly economic and rule of law transparency, and not Asian values.[31]
    Through two round debates of Asianvalues, the core issues became academic instead of political. Arguments becamemore elaborate. The second round debate, stimulated by the Asian financialcrisis, discussed economic, human rights, and democratic issues. Asian valuesopponents blamed the crisis on Asian values claiming victory for universal, notrelative, human rights. However, after financial crisis Asian value advocatesraised arguing either a strong or soft authoritarian regime would produceeconomic growth and stable societal control. Second round debate main issuesare sufficient common grounds within Asian values, human rights, and economicissues and whether or not the term “Asian values” is applicable. The questionwas should Asia move beyond Asian values? Recent Asian values discussionconcerns whether or not Confucianism relates to modern hallmarks as incapitalism, democracy, rule of law, and human rights. Postponement of democracyfor economic growth is discussed between first-generation civil and politicalrights activists, second-generation social/economic/cultural rights activists,and individual freedom and group rightsactivists in the name of social stability. The CCP declared most aspects associalist, democratic, political, and human rights as Chinese character,essentially same as Asian values.



    [1]Yash Ghai, “ Asian Perspectives on Human Rights”, HUMAN RIGHTS IN ASIA, VOL 23,No 3 HKLJ1993.p. 352.

    [2] See MarkusG.Schmidt, The Death Row Phenomena: A Comparative Analysis, in TheJurisprudence of Human Rights Law: A Comparative Interpretive Approach, at47-72.

    [3] See ErikaFairchild & Harry Dammer, Comparative Criminal Justice Systems(2ed. 2000).

    [4]Yash Ghar, Human Rights and Governance The Asia Debate,AustralianYear Book of international Law[1996]p.11.

    [5]Inoguchiand Newman Introduction:"Asian Values" and Democracy In Asia p5,http://www.unu.edu/unupress/asian-values.html#INTRODUCTION access on March 25, 2008.

    [6] Anthony Milner “What'sHappened to Asian Values?
    Faculty of Asian Studieshttp://dspace.anu.edu.au/html/1885/41912/values.html Access on March 14,2008

    [7]Yash Ghai, “ Asian Perspectives on Human Rights”, HUMAN RIGHTS IN ASIA, VOL 23,No 3 HKLJ1993.p. 349.

    [8]J S DAVIDSON, “ East Versus West Human Rights and CulturalDifference”, Canterbury Law Review [Vol 8,2001] p.50.

    [9]Vitit Muntarbhorn,Asia Human Rights and the NewMillennium Time for a Regional Human Rights Charter?TransnationalLaw & Contemporary Problems Fall 1998] [Vol. 8:p.407.

    [10]Vitit Muntarbhorn,Asia Human Rights and the NewMillennium Time for a Regional Human Rights Charter?TransnationalLaw & Contemporary Problems Fall 1998] [Vol. 8:p.408.

    [11]Yash Ghai, “ Asian Perspectives on Human Rights”, HUMAN RIGHTS IN ASIA, VOL 23,No 3 HKLJ1993.p. 350.

    [12]Yash Ghai, “ Asian Perspectives on Human Rights”, HUMAN RIGHTS IN ASIA, VOL 23,No 3 HKLJ1993.p. 344.

    [13] Amartya Sen, “ HumanRights and Asian Values What Lee Kuan Yew and Le Peng don't understand aboutAsia” http://www.indowindow.com/sad/article.php?child=23&article=18 access on March 14, 2008

    [14] Lee Kuan yew, Culture is Destiny, in Dealing withHuman Rights: Asian and Western Views on the Value of Human Rights, at 75,79.(Martha Meijer ed. 2001) Lee used the term “ Asian values” at an seminar in1977. He
    contrasted Asian Values withWestern values. He and Mahathir share a preference for communitarianism,emphasize the family, value democracy but a nonligeral version of it, lamentthe corrupting influence of excessive individualism associated with liberalismand stress the Confucian values of hard work. Both also maintain that a strongstate is necessary for economic development. Mahathir, has placed greaterweight on the right to development and played up in the particular theneo-colonialist theme of Western exploitation of the developing world. Howeverin 2001 Sweden world economic Forum, Lee seems give up his conception of Asianvalues.


    [15] Michael D.Barr,Cultural Politics and Asian Values: the Tepid War (2002) p. 39

    [16]Deng Xiaoping onInsists on the Four Fundamental Principles, on March, 30,1979.

    [17]Yash Ghai, “ Asian Perspectives on Human Rights”, HUMAN RIGHTS IN ASIA, VOL 23,No 3 HKLJ1993.p. 348.

    [18]Yash Ghai, “ Asian Perspectives on Human Rights”, HUMAN RIGHTS IN ASIA, VOL 23,No 3 HKLJ1993.p. 348.

    [19] It claim thatsome rights are universal, their interpretation and implementation depends onlocal circumstances, including the level of economic development, culturalpractices and fundamental values that are not the same in all countries; theargument that subsistence is the main right and the main problem is poverty.

    [20] The PRC did notexpressly make Asian Values the centerpiece of it post Tiananmen response tothe international community, many of the themes announced in the White Paperdraw on or fit nicely with some of the Asian values arguments of Lee andMahathir. It was China’s political power that allowed advocates of Asian valuesto force the issue onto the international human rights agenda, leadingultimately to the Bangkok and Vienna declaration in 1993.

    [21] Jiang Zemin, onOctober 29, 1991 spoke freely about the international domestic important matter.

    [22]Yash Ghai, “ Asian Perspectives on Human Rights”, HUMAN RIGHTS IN ASIA, VOL 23,No 3 HKLJ1993.p. 345.

    [23]Yash Ghai, “ Asian Perspectives on Human Rights”, HUMAN RIGHTS IN ASIA, VOL 23,No 3 HKLJ1993.p. 346.

    [24]Yash Ghai, “ Asian Perspectives on Human Rights”, HUMAN RIGHTS IN ASIA, VOL 23,No 3 HKLJ1993.p. 347.

    [25].HumanRights in China (Beijing: Information Office of the State Council of thePeople's Republic of China, 1991). The paper was published by the State Councilto refute the charges of human rights violations in China. The quotation occurson p II of the Preface.

    [26]Statement by Mr Zhang Yishan, AlternateRepresentative of the Chinese Delegation at the 49th Session of the Commissionon Human Rights (Feb 1993) 2.

    [27]Liu Huaqui, Head of Chinese Delegation at theWorld Conference on Human Rights,Remarks at the Meeting of the World Conferenceon Human Rights 2-3 (June 15, 1993)

    [28]Yash Ghai, “ Asian Perspectives on Human Rights”, HUMAN RIGHTS IN ASIA, VOL 23,No 3 HKLJ1993.p. 345
    [29]  see Time Asia, June 14, 1993, 112

    [30]Vitit Muntarbhorn,Asia Human Rights and the NewMillennium Time for a Regional Human Rights Charter?TransnationalLaw & Contemporary Problems Fall 1998] [Vol. 8:p.408.

    [31] US.News weekly,January 28, 2001.


    回复

    使用道具 举报

    发表于 12/28/2010 20:50:01 | 显示全部楼层

    III . Arguments in favour of Asian Values

    本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 12/28/2010 19:54 编辑

    Thereare four main ideas in favour of Asian Values.First, it is argued that contemporary human rights are theproduct of Western political thought and as such promote destructiveindividualism at the expense of harmonious communitarianism. Second, it iscontended that the West emphasises individual rights at the expense of duties.Third,because of the West's focus on individual rights, pre-eminence has beengiven to civil and political rights at the expense of economic, social andcultural rights, particularly the right to development. Fouth, it is allagedthat the West has used its view of individualistic human rights as aninstrument of neo-imperialism.[1]Wewill discuss the opinion more detail as follow.
                   

    III . Arguments in favour of Asian Values
    Thereare four main ideas in favour of Asian Values.First, it is argued that contemporary human rights are theproduct of Western political thought and as such promote destructiveindividualism at the expense of harmonious communitarianism. Second, it iscontended that the West emphasises individual rights at the expense of duties.Third,because of the West's focus on individual rights, pre-eminence has beengiven to civil and political rights at the expense of economic, social andcultural rights, particularly the right to development. Fouth, it is allagedthat the West has used its view of individualistic human rights as aninstrument of neo-imperialism.[1]Wewill discuss the opinion more detail as follow.
    The First,the Western-stylecivil and political liberties need to be sacrificed in order to meet more basicmaterial needs.
    Lee Kuan Yew argues[2] that political leaders in developing countries should be committed to theeradication of poverty above all else: “As prime minister, my first task was tolift my country out of the degradation that poverty, ignorance and disease hadwrought. Since it was dire poverty that made for such a low priority given tohuman life, all other things became secondary.”[3] Mr.Lee said that “there is a difference between Asian and Western values in thebalance each strikes between the individual and the community: Asian societiesemphasise the interests of the community, while Western societies stress therights of the individual.
    This balancehas strengthened social cohesion, and enabled Singaporeans to pull together tosurmount difficult challenges collectively and successfully than othersocieties, an emphasis on the community is a key survival value.”[4] Lee believe that Confucian “The concept of government by honourable men, whohave a duty to do right for the people, and who have the trust and respect ofthe population”,
    fits Asian better thanthe idea limited power government.[5] Lee and other Asian leaders have often been critical of the high crime rates,rampant drug use and social disorder in economically advanced Western liberaldemocracies. Rather, they stress family and communitarian values, socialstability and law and order.[6]

    Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad who is thestrong supporter of Asian Value. In 1997 the U.N. fiftieth anniversary of theDeclaration of Human Rights , he urged to revise or repeal it, for its humanrights norms focus excessively on individual rights while neglecting the rightsof society and the common good. Meanwhile, Australia's former Prime MinisterMalcolm Fraser dismissed the declaration as reflecting only the views of theNorthern and Eurocentric states. Former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt saidthat the declaration reflects “the philosophical and cultural background of itsWestern drafters”[7]

    However, theclaims seems not true, there are four Chinese scholars participated draftingthe Declaration, Mr. Wu Deyao, educator Mr.Zhang Pengchun,and another scholarinfluenced by Confucianism thought the human rights have the universal value.[8]

    Secondly, Civil and political rights are closely related to wealth.Nevertheless, studied show that East Asian states with a Confucian heritage andMiddle East states with an Islamic tradition are less supportive of civil andpolitical rights, even if wealthy. East Asian countries with a Confucianinfluence, even if democratic, tend to do poorly relative to income level.[9] Latin American states, with a history of corporatism, patron-clientrelationships, corruption and large income gaps, and African countries, withtraditions of collectivism, strong ethnic affinities and more recently dysfunctionaland corrupt leadership, are also less supportive of civil and political rights.[10]

    Professor Randall Peerenboom after studying believe that “promotingdemocracy in very poor countries may be putting the cart before the horse”. Hesaid that “when the conditions for a durable or stable democracy are notpresent, the transition to democracy often impedes economic development; atleast in the short term. Economic development is not sufficient for politicalreform and the emergence of democracy. Countries may develop economically andnot become liberal democracies, at least for a considerable period. Higherlevels of prosperity and economic development are likely to lead to a growingdemand for democracy. Democratization does not necessarily lead to an improvementin human rights”.He show China and Vietnam as example: both countries haveenjoyed the highest growth rates in recent years, explaining to some extent thelegitimacy of the authoritarian governments and the relative politicalstability despite severe restrictions on civil and political rights. Similarly,Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Malaysia enjoyed high growthrates during their authoritarian years.[11]However,China actually is a totalitarian rather authoritarian regime, economic growthin China, did not bring Chinese ordinary people same rate of grown and in verylarge extent basis on sacrifice heavy pollution and exploit works. In a longrun the GDP mark economic is a big disaster then achievement for China.

    It alleged that civil and political rights are neithermeaningful nor practicable in conditions of want or poverty. Thus the firstpriority of State policy must be to promote economic development. It is impliedthat economic development may well require restrictions on human rights, bothto provide a secure political structure in which it can be pursued and toremove obstacles in its way. Economic backwardness is also used to establishthe priority as between different kinds of rights, in which civil and politicalrights occupy a lowly position

    However, according to professor Amartya Sen, No evidence to justify the “general theory”that political and civil rights impede economic growth. [12]Systematiccross- national statistical studies do not support the claim that there is a connectionor a underlying link between authoritarianism and economic success , by thecontrary,
    civil and political rights mayhelp to protect economic security in the sense that such rights draw attentionto major social disasters and induce an appropriate political response.professor Daniel Bell point out that the notable facts in the history offamines in the world, no substantial famine has ever occurred in any democraticcountry with free press. [13] Infree market country, the economists can freely engage in research and to makenecessary recommendations to improve the economic situation of the country, andanyone can do business freely by travelling without restrictions and collectinginformation and conducting negotiations as they like, thus, there is a great opportunitythe economic grow rapidly.

    Actually,certain level of literacy and economic security are essential for the exerciseand enjoyment of civil and political rights. Equally, economic prosperity andhigh literacy without the freedom of expression or the right of associationfail to develop the full potential of the human person, and the denial of theserights will harm the human dignity and can be humiliating and degrading[14]relationshipbetween democracy and the market. The supporters of the market, made on bothlogical and historical grounds, argue that market inevitably leads todemocracy. The market is a system of private economy, it have massivedecentralisation of decision-making and a wide scope for choice. The core of market are private property, which ensures ameasure of autonomy for individuals and groups, and the freedom of contract,which enhances choice and secures rights (and limits the powers of the State),as well as Predictability and legal security, which lead to an expert andindependent judiciary, and thus to the separation of powers. The market givesrise to or strengthens civil society, and provides a countervailing force tothat of the State,thus the market is more dependent on rights than ondemocracy. Development of democracy in the West followed the rise of the marketand the market leads to certain forms of social formations which stimulatepressures for democracy.

    Thirdly,it claims that the conceptionof cultural relativity weak the idea of universality. It is argue that sincethere is no universal culture, but rather a broad array of cultures, there canbe no single universally valid standpoint on any moral issue. Besides, becausehuman rights are a species of moral privilege, they cannot have a universalquality, but must vary according to the cultural background in which theyoriginate and function. Furthermore, since human rights are essentially theproduct of Western culture or, more specifically, Western political philosophy,their application to non-Western cultures or philosophies must be open toquestion.[15]

    Some Asian leaders claim that there is a different Asian approachto human rights, as if they represent the whole continent to pronounce on humanrights. They claim that their views are based on the Asian culture or Asianrealities to strengthen. The essence of their position is that human rights as yieldedin the West are founded on individualism and thus have no relevance to Asia,which is based on the dominance of the community. It is also argued thateconomic poor make most of the political and civil rights extraneous in Asia.[16] There is a major disparity between Asian and Western, values in the balanceeach strikes between the individual and the community; former emphasise theinterests of the community, while later stress the rights of the individual.[17]

    According to professor Yash Ghai, “the ‘communitarian’ argument suffers from at least twoweaknesses. First, it overstates the ‘individualism’ of Western society andtraditions of thought. Even within Western liberalism, there are strands ofanalysis which affirm claims of the community (for example, Rousseau); and mostWestern human rights instruments allow limitations on and derogations fromhuman rights in the public interest, or for reasons of state. Western courtsregularly hold the task of balancing the respective interests of the individualand the community. Moreover, liberalism does not exhaust Western politicalthought or practice. There is social democracy, which stresses collective andeconomic rights; and Marxism, which raises the community to a high moral order,is also reflective of an important school of Western thought.[18] Secondly, Asian governments fall into the easy but wrong hypothesis that theyor the State are the “community”. Nothing can be more destructive of thecommunity than this conflation. The community and State are differentinstitutions and to some extent in a contrary juxtaposition. The community, forthe most part, depends on popular norms developed through forms of harmony andenforced through mediation and persuasion. The State is an imposition onsociety, and unless humanised and democratised (as it has not been in most ofAsia), it relies on edicts, the military, coercion and sanctions”.[19]

    Fouthly. It is assert that “domestic jurisdiction” over humanrights. Human rights are summarized within State sovereignty; the nationaltreatment of human rights is no concern of other States or the international community.[20]Jiang Zeming put it “The human rights belong to a nation’s sovereignty, we firmly oppose uses human rights question to interfere in theinternal affairs of other countries”.[21]

    Fifthly, All the ChinaCommunist Party leaders certified the “Chinese hallmark” as disguise againstHuman Rights.1Mao Zedong said“class enemy has no human rights, people have full rights”. [22] The problem is that anyone who dare express his or hers true idea may betreated as class enemy.2Deng Xiaopingalleged that “Western’s human rights and ours human rights, are essentially two matters, the idea isdifferent”[23].“Stability overrides all other considerations, we must insist on dictatorship of the proletariat”.[24]Here Deng simply deny any human right by assumption that there are different idea of human rights, and Chinese hallmark human rights means dictatorship in his mind.


    (3) Jiang Zemin claimthat “
    Chinesemost important human rights are the right to subsistence and development. Wehave solved more than 1,100,000,000 people of food and shelter problems”.[25] He alleged that “The human rights cannot leave that nation’s historical andcultural traditions, economic development condition and social system. It doesnot exist the absolute human rights”.[26] He said that “The human rights belong to a nation’s sovereignty, we firmly oppose uses human rights question to interfere in the internal affairs of othercountries”.[27] From Jiang’s statement, we can easily see that he support Asian Valuevehemently.
    4Hu Jingtao said almost nothing aboutHuman Rights. He only mention that “ The constitution promoted our country’scause of human rights development”[28].It is because that the human rights conception nowadays are well known bypeople and Internet broken the strict information controlled in China, Hu,thus, dare not openly liar without danger reveal the true poor situation inChina.

    There are some survey seems support the argument of infavour of the Asian Value: One 1994 survey of Malaysians foundmost wanted limited democracy since the controlled society was threatenedfearing instability thinking Asian values barely supported democracy. Theysacrificed freedom of speech for social control. Additional studies foundChinese people prioritize controlled social order limiting democracy.[29]

    A 1998 survey summarized 55% of Chineseresponses prioritize a developed economy over democracy, with 30% prioritizingdemocracy . [30] Quantitative studies found democracy’s third wave didn't subdue politicalrepression. Rather, during the 1980s, political terror and personal rightsviolations skyrocketed the 1980s.[31] Democracy alone doesn’t obliterate terror and evidence lacks proof of improvedhuman rights.
    The US and western rightsorganizations, before 9/11, criticized Asian governments for extreme controlof
    dissidents, insurgents, terrorists,and social order threats considering national safety was not a concern. The CCPdecreased power occurred through ethnic strife, economic crisis, and opposinginsurgent movements.[32] This prompted a further totalitarian state through the use of torture.
    In East Asian countries seems there are higher priorityassigned to social stability and economic development over civil and politicalrights; in the greater willingness to accept limits on free speech; in the stresson education and the use of education to promote national goals;[33]theenjoyment of human rights must await a certain standard of economic developmentis often certified to Asians; however such survey are base on the conditionwhich lack free information for a long time, under long term liar propagandaand without proper education, Chinese almost has no idea of rights, not to sayhuman right or civil and political rights. In this situation, the date gatherthrough small area could not represent majority’s true and genius intention.




    [1]J S DAVIDSON, “ East Versus West Human Rights and CulturalDifference”, Canterbury Law Review [Vol 8,2001]p.38.

    [2].Nathan Gardels, Interview with Lee Kuan Yew, New Perspectives Q.(1992).

    [3]Daniel Bell, “ East Asian Challenge to Human Rights EastWest Dialogue”.Human Rights Quarterly Vol. 18(1996) pp.641.

    [4]Yash Ghai, “ Asian Perspectives on Human Rights”, Human Rights in Asia Vol 23,No 3 HKLJ 1993.p. 349.

    [5]Yash Ghai, “ Asian Perspectives on Human Rights”, Human Rights in Asia Vol 23,No 3 HKLJ 1993.p. 349.

    [6] Randall Peerenboom, “The Dominance of Wealthin Determining Rights Performance in Asia”. DukeJournal of Comparative & International Law 2004 Vol 15.P.90.

    [7]Thomas M Franck, “ Are Human Rights Universal?” Foreign Affairs-Volume8.No.1January/February 2001.p.196.

    [8] Du Weiming“there are differences then to have trueharmony ” http://www.sina.com.cn on December 27, 2007
    Sina finance and economics.

    [9]Randall Peerenboom, “The Dominance of Wealth in DeterminingRights Performance in Asia”. Duke Journal of Comparative &International Law 2004 Vol 15.P.84.

    [10]Randall Peerenboom, “The Dominance of Wealth in DeterminingRights Performance in Asia”. Duke Journal of Comparative &International Law 2004 Vol 15.P.98.

    [11]Randall Peerenboom, “The Dominance of Wealth in DeterminingRights Performance in Asia”. Duke Journal of Comparative &International Law 2004 Vol 15.P.101.

    [12]Id.note.64.

    [13]Daniel Bell, “ East Asian Challenge to Human Rights EastWest Dialogue”.Human Rights Quarterly Vol. 18(1996) pp.643.

    [14]. The caseof migrants provides an illustration. A large number of people migrate from therelatively democratic Philippines to work in States which are less protectiveof human rights, like Singapore, Malaysia and the Middle East, suggesting thatthey value economic advancement over rights. On the other hand, professionalsfrom Singapore are emigrating to countries in the West where personal andartistic freedoms are more highly valued, suggesting that economic wellbeing isnot sufficient for human happiness and fulfilment.

    [15]J S DAVIDSON, “ East Versus West Human Rights and CulturalDifference”, Canterbury Law Review [Vol 8,2001]p.40.

    [16]Yash Ghai, “ Asian Perspectives on Human Rights”, Human Rights in Asia, Vol 23,No 3 HKLJ1993.p. 343

    [17]
    Yash Ghar, Human Rights and Governance The Asia Debate,AustralianYear Book of international Law[1996]p.5.

    [18]Yash Ghai, “ Asian Perspectives on Human Rights”, Human Rights in Asia, Vol 23,No 3 HKLJ1993.p. 350.see also Yash Ghar, HumanRights and Governance The Asia Debate,AustralianYear Book of international Law[1996]p.6.

    [19]Yash Ghar, Human Rights and Governance The Asia Debate,AustralianYear Book of international Law[1996]p.8.

    [20]Yash Ghar, Human Rights and Governance The Asia Debate,AustralianYear Book of international Law[1996]p.3.

    [21] Jiang Zemin, onOctober 12, 1992 “ report of the 14th National reprehensive congressof the Communist Party of China”.

    [22] Our system notallow all counter-revolutionaries have freedom of speech, but only permits people to have the freedom. people are permitto express their opinion including criticize, publishes different opinions,propaganda freedom. ......But when the social class and the class struggleexists, working class and the masses,must suppress all counter-revolutionary social classes, stops their restorationactivity, forbids all counter-revolutionaries to serve their purpose using thefreedom of speech. (Mao Zedong, on May 24, 1955 "Refuted the same Publicopinion”).

    [23] Deng Xiaoping, “Bourgeoisliberalization Is takes Capitalist road", in May and June, 1985.

    [24] Deng Xiaoping,on December 24, 1990 and conversation with several central leaders.

    [25] Jiang Zemin, on April 14, 1991 “the conversation during the met with American former president Jimmy.Carter”.

    [26] Jiang Zemin, onOctober 29, 1991 “spoke freely about the international domestic important matter”.

    [27] Jiang Zemin, onOctober 12, 1992 “ report of the 14th National reprehensive congressof the Communist Party of China”.

    [28] Hu Jintao, on December 4, 2002,the speech in commemorates the Constitution of the P R China announcement to execute at the 20th anniversary congress.

    [29] See RandallPeerenboom, China’s Long March Toward Rule of Law pp. 53-56(2002).

    [30] See SeanCooney, The Application, and Non-application, of Rule of Law Principles inTaiwan, in The Construction and Deconstruction of Rule of Law in Asia: theoriesand Implementation of Rule of Law in Twelve Asian Countries, France and theU.S(Randall Peerenboom ed. 2004)

    [31] James A.McCannand Mark Gibney, An Overview of Political Terror in the Developing World,1980-1991, in Plicy Studies and Developing Countries, Vol.4, 15, 23,24(StuartNagel and David Louis Cingranelli eds. 1996).

    [32] RandallPeerenboom, Beyond Universalism and Relativism:The Evolving debates aboutvalues in Asia. 14 Ind.Int’l & Comp.L.Rev. 1. 2003-2004 at 30.

    [33].Randall Peerenboom, “ The Dominance of Wealth in Determining Rights Performancein Asia 76Duke Journal of Comparative & International law 2004[Vol 15.130.


    回复

    使用道具 举报

    发表于 12/28/2010 20:56:13 | 显示全部楼层

    IV. Arguments Against Asian Values

    本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 12/28/2010 20:00 编辑

    Asian values acturally is a fake reason only, it is for dictatorship and selfish purpose. human rights is same value of all human being.
                   
    IV. Arguments Against Asian Values
    Professor.ThomasM Franck point out three reasons that the culturalrelativism cannot stand. The first,
    those advance the exceptionalist claiming do not genuinely andlegitimately represent those on whose behalf that claim is made. Thesecond, human rights are grounded not ina regional culture but in modern transcultural social, economic, and scientificdevelopments. And the third, individual rights are not the enemy of the commongood, social responsibility, and community but rather contribute to theemergence of new, multilayered, and voluntary affiliations that can supplementthose long imposed by tradition, territory, and genetics.[1]Followinglet us analysis in detail.

    Firstly, politicians and scholars who strong opponents of Asianvalue process joined the Asian values debate. Considering certain Asiangovernments officials and elites loud allegation that societies’ right asalways prevail over that of individual rights , Taiwan President Lee Tenghui ,aConfucianism advocate, objected to extreme individuality, preferring a lesserdegree of individuality, feeling Western countries had decreased morality.South Korean president Jin Dazhong said while he was a human rights activistthat some people conclude that the Soviet fall was the result of the victory ofcapitalism over socialism. But “ it represented the triumph of democracy overdictatorship”. Without democracy, capitalism in Prussian Germany and MeijiJapan eventually met its tragic end. Many Latin American states hold capitalismwhile rejecting democracy in recent decades failed miserably. Conversely,countries practicing democratic capitalism or democratic socialism despite temporary setbacks have prospered.[2]

    Many prominent voices in non-Western societies reject theclaims of exceptionalists who assumedly speak for them. Sri Lanka's president,Chandrika Kumaratunga, points out that “the free market has become universal,and it implies democracy and human rights.” She dismisses talk about “aconflict of values” as “an excuse that can be used to cover a multitude ofsins.” Dato' Param Cumaraswamy, the former chair of the Malaysian Bar Counciland a U.N. special rapporteur on the independence of judges, points to widespread non-Western ratification ofhuman rights treaties as proof of their “universal acceptance.” Former U.N.Secretary-General Boutros Ghali bluntly states that there “is no one set ofEuropean rights, and another of African rights.... They belong inherently toeach person, each individual.”[3]

    Many of the exceptionalist claims made in the name ofcultural diversity have been challenged by others in the non-Western world.Radhika Coomaraswami, the U.N. special rapporteur on violence against women,says that practices such as female genital mutilation, flogging, stoning, andamputation of limbs, as well as laws restricting women's rights to marriage,divorce, maintenance, and custody, are all inauthentic perversions of variousreligious canons. Moreover, she insists that “cultural diversity should becelebrated only if those enjoying their cultural attributes are doing sovoluntarily.”In her landmark study of Islam and human rights, Professor AnnElizabeth Mayer concludes that much of the pedigree claimed by fundamentalistsdoes “not represent the result of rigorous, scholarly analysis of Islamicsources or a coherent approach to Islamic jurisprudence.” The Egyptian arthistorian Professor Nasr Abu-Zaid puts it simply: “It is the militants who are... hijacking Islam.”[4]
    In 1997, led by the non-governmentalAsian Human Rights Commission based in Hong Kong, a number of Asian non-governmental organizations adopted the Charter as their position on humanrights. At 2.3: “ Authoritarianism has in many States been raised to the levelof national ideology, with the deprivation of the rights and freedoms of their citizens, which aredenounced as foreign ideas inappropriate to the religious and culturaltraditions of Asia. Instead, there is the exhortation of spurious theoriesof “Asian values,” which are a thindisguise for their authoritarianism”.[5]

    Secondly, It assumes that since all people possess the sameessential human qualities therefore must be of equal dignity and worth and thus equal in rights.[6]

    The human rights norm is full of rules that, far from beingdeeply rooted in Western culture, are actually the products of recentdevelopments-industrialization, urbanization, the communications andinformation revolutions-that are replicable anywhere. If examined historically,traditional Western culture comes to look more like everyone else's fanaticalfundamentalism. [7]

    Professor Thomas M Franck provedthat Western Christian civilizationinsisted on much the same for most of its first two millennia.[8]

    He further take the United States as example, “criminalblasphemy convictions resulting in imprisonment, with solitary confinement andlarge fines, were imposed throughout the nineteenth century under state orcommon law. In New York in 1811, Chief Justice James Kent, a Unitarian nowadaysa rather liberal faith, admonished a convicted blasphemer “that we are aChristian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted uponChristianity and not upon the doctrines of worship of those impostors Mahometand the Grand Lama.” but he believed that religion was the bulwark of socialorder and that expressions of irreligiosity had to be punished because they “strikeat the roots of moral obligation, and weaken the security of the social ties.”[9]

    Franck point out that “freedom of religion is more claimthan other parts of the human rights principle. France did not extend thefranchise to women until the end of World War II. Harvard Law School beganadmitting women only in the 1950s. Thefirst American female candidate for a medical degree was Elizabeth Blackwell,who graduated from a rural medical college in Geneva, New York, in 1849 but hadto complete her training in Paris. Slavery, sanctioned by the Old Testament(Exodus 21: 2, 26, 27, 32), was abolished in the United States only in 1865,and the Supreme Court ruled in 1897 that sailors could be compelled, on pain ofcriminal penalties, to perform indentured labor because, as a class, they were“deficient in that full and intelligent responsibility for their acts which isaccredited to ordinary adults” and should thus be recommitted to ship-owners astheir assumed “parents and guardians.”[10]

    “The revolution to personal autonomy in religion, speech,and employment as well as equal legal rights for the races and sexes…were caused not by some inherent culturalfactor but by changes occurring, at different rates, everywhere: universaleducation, industrialization, urbanization, the rise of a middle class,advances in transportation and communications, and the spread of newinformation technology ”Franck concluded.
    “These changes were driven by scientificdevelopments capable of affecting equally any society. It is these trends, andnot some historical or social determinant, that-almost as a by
    product-generated the move to global human rights”.[11] He further point out “ Modern human rights-based claims to individual autonomyarise primarily not out of opposition to community, but from the desires ofmodern persons to use intellectual and technological innovations to supplementtheir continued traditional ties with genetically and geographically basedcommunities”.[12] “Theglobalization of human rights and personal freedoms is rarely an affront to anylegitimate interest in cultural self- preservation. Nor do human rightsrepresent Western cultural imperialism; instead, they are the consequence ofmodernizing forces that are not culturally specific”.[13]

    Thirdly, there is no such thing as one Asian perspective, sinceneither Asian culture nor Asian realities are homogenous throughout thecontinent. Professor Yash Ghar make it very clear that: in religions, political ideologies, economic and political systems, andeconomic systems are all quite diverse amount Asian States.[14] He point out that what conveys an apparent picture of a uniform Asian viewpointon human rights is that it is the perspective of a particular ruling Elites,which gets international attention. The political systems they represent arenot open or democratic, and their publicly expressed views on human rights arean discharge of these systems, of the need to justify authoritarianism and despotism.[15] Ghar focuses on the politics surrounding the conflict between universal rightsand cultural diversity, concludes that claims made in the name of culturaldiversity are often more melodramatic than real, and proposes a realisticapproach relying on universal human rights as useful tools againstauthoritarianism and tyranny,[16]becausehe regards much of the conflict between universal rights and cultural diversityas being, above all, rhetoric, and as a tool used in the pursuit of particularobjectives.[17]
    Democracy not merely select by ballot has to be renovated.The values of democracy provide the link to human rights. The strengthening ofhuman rights would then mean fortification democracy. But democracy, tolegalize and legitimise human rights, has to respond to the cultural and moralimpulses of the society. Western form of democracy has not been suitable forAsia. This may seem a route back to relativism. But it is the relativism offorms, not substance, and may be necessary for some sort of regime of universalvalues underpinning the dignity of women and men.[18]

    J S DAVIDSON said that cultural relativity advanced by the leaders of Asiastates are wrongly conceived; they are not claims about real culture butstatements about the construction of an elitist doctrine designed to serve thegovernment’s view about the politically acceptable relationship between theindividual and the state. Indeed, one of the contradictions of the Asiancultural relativity debate is that those rights which support and coherentculture, meticulously the right to freedom of expression, in which these governmentsactively and severely curtail.[19]

    Fourthly, there are few Chinese scholars whohave been participate the debate, the most Chinese scholars opposes against theidea of Asian values and Chinese hallmark’s human rights. Chinese scholar Mr.Liu Junning put it that the “Asian values is only a password” which is hardunderstood by western, which being used indigenous cultural and economicdevelopment to pressure human rights.[20] The Asian valuesounds likely Asian government leader's values, which does not like the humanrights and the democracy, but is not the Asian people’s values. The freedemocracy is suit the Asian society, but does not suit the Asian ruler ofdictatorship.[21]Taiwan prominent writer Mr. Bei Yang saidthat the “Human Rights is an absolute rights”. [22] The “humanrights are one kind of absolute value”, region, spoken language, skin color, sex,economic condition, does not have a difference. the “human rights of theChinese characteristic” is simply a nonsense! Human rights are universality andall human being should enjoy the same. Another famous Taiwan writer Ms.Long Yingtai point out that“Whether idea of individualism or human rights belongs to the Chinese tradition has nological relations with whether Chinese should enjoy human rights. To simplifyculture is to distort the culture. If so-called cultural difference simplycannot establish, the cultural relativism is also unable to butt in. If thecultural difference is real, this cultural tradition is not worth respectingand should overthrow.
    Respecting thetrue cultural difference, not false difference which design for authority byruler, nor to satisfy tourist, thought out distorted difference.
    [23] Besides, Japanis affected by Confucianism, Japan’s China traditional culture’s research hasvery deep attainments, Japanese initiationthinker Fuzeyuji in his “Civilization Discusses Summary” put it Japan’s developmenthas nothing to do with “Confucianism”, but mainly study western.[24]



    [1]Thomas M Franck, “ Are Human Rights Universal?” Foreign Affairs-Volume8.No.1January/February 2001.p.197.

    [2]Myint Zan, “ Comparing the Views of Lee Kuan Yew and Aung San Suu Kyi on HumanRights and Democratic ‘Position of Power and Notions of Empowerment’Governance ”-Newc Law Review Vol 2 No1[1997]P356.See Law in Context,n 22 at 34.

    [3]Thomas MFranck, “ Are Human Rights Universal?” Foreign Affairs-Volume8.No.1January/February 2001.p.198.

    [4]Thomas MFranck, “ Are Human Rights Universal?” Foreign Affairs-Volume8.No.1January/February 2001.p.198.

    [5]Vitit Muntarbhorn,Asia Human Rights and the NewMillennium Time for a Regional Human Rights Charter?TransnationalLaw & Contemporary Problems Fall 1998] [Vol. 8:p.412.

    [6]J S DAVIDSON, “ East Versus West Human Rights and CulturalDifference”, Canterbury Law Review [Vol 8,2001]p.41.

    [7]Thomas M Franck, “ Are Human Rights Universal?” Foreign Affairs-Volume8.No.1January/February 2001.p.198.

    [8]St. Augustine, citing his favorite text (“Compel them tocome in,” Luke 14: 16-23), advocated death for heretics. According to ThomasAquinas, heretics “by right ... can be put to death and despoiled of theirpossessions ... even if they do not corrupt others, for they are blasphemersagainst God” and thus commit “high treason.”There was certainly no trace ofreligious toleration in Tudor England, where, during the first hundred yearsafter the establishment of the Church of England, There is nothing hundredswere executed by zealots. During the brief restoration of Catholicism underremotely Western about Queen Mary (1553-58), 273 subjects, including religious freedom four bishops and anarchbishop, were burned for heresy. Meanwhile, in Geneva, the reformer andtolerance, John Calvin was executing the anti-Trinitarian Michael Servetus.Back in Britain, under Cromwell's Protectorate, dissenting Protestants werejailed, whipped, hanged, or had their tongues bored through with hot irons atthe insistence of the Presbyterian establishment. And in the 1729 case of Rexv. Woolston, Sir William Blackstone, the great jurist of the common law,declared blasphemy a criminal libel, a “public affront to religion andmorality, on which all government must depend for support.” Nor are such eventslimited to ancient history. The last blasphemy prosecution to have succeeded inEngland was brought in 1979 against James Kirkup, a poet teaching at Amherstwho depicted Jesus as homosexual. In the House of Lords, his conviction wassustained by Lord Scarman, who thought it essential to protect “religiousbeliefs ... from scurrility, vilification, ridicule, and contempt.”please see .Thomas MFranck, “ Are Human Rights Universal?” Foreign Affairs-Volume8.No.1January/February 2001.p.199.

    [9]Thomas MFranck, “ Are Human Rights Universal?” Foreign Affairs-Volume8.No.1January/February 2001.p.199.

    [10]Thomas MFranck, “ Are Human Rights Universal?” Foreign Affairs-Volume8.No.1January/February 2001.p.199.

    [11]Thomas MFranck, “ Are Human Rights Universal?” Foreign Affairs-Volume8.No.1January/February 2001.p.200.

    [12]Thomas MFranck, “ Are Human Rights Universal?” Foreign Affairs-Volume8.No.1January/February 2001.p.200.

    [13]Thomas MFranck, “ Are Human Rights Universal?” Foreign Affairs-Volume8.No.1January/February 2001.p.200.

    [14]All the world’s major religions are represented in Asia, and are in one place oranother State religion (or enjoy a comparable status: Christianity in thePhilippines, Islam in Malaysia, Hinduism in Nepal and Buddhism in Sri Lanka andThailand). To this list we may add political ideologies like socialism,democracy or feudalism which animate peoples and governments of the region.Even apart from religious differences, there are other factors which haveproduced a rich diversity of cultures. A culture, moreover, is not static andmany accounts given of Asian culture are probably true of an age long ago. Norare the economic circumstances of all the Asian countries similar. Japan,Singapore and Hong Kong are among the world's most prosperous countries, whilethere is grinding poverty in Bangladesh, India and the Philippines. Theeconomic and political systems in Asia likewise show a remarkable diversity,ranging from semi-feudal kingdoms in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, through militarydictatorships in Burma and formerly Cambodia, effectively one party regimes inSingapore and Indonesia, communist regimes in China and Vietnam, ambiguousdemocracies in Malaysia and Sri Lanka, to well established democracies likeIndia. There are similarly differences in their economic systems, ranging fromtribal subsistence economies in parts of Indonesia through highly developedmarket economies of Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan and the mixed economy modelof India to the planned economies of China and Vietnam.see Yash Ghar, HumanRights and Governance The Asia Debate,AustralianYear Book of international Law[1996]p.343.

    [15]Yash Ghai, “ Asian Perspectives on Human Rights”, Human Rights in Asia Vol 23,No 3 HKLJ1993.p. 344.

    [16]Michel Rosenfeld, “Comment Human Rights Nationalism andMulticulturalism in Rhetoric Ethics and Politics: A Pluralist Critique”, CardozoLaw Review [2000] [Vol. 21:p.1230.

    [17]Michel Rosenfeld, “Comment Human Rights Nationalism andMulticulturalism in Rhetoric Ethics and Politics: A Pluralist Critique”, CardozoLaw Review [2000] [Vol. 21:p.1233.

    [18]Yash Ghar, Human Rights and Governance The Asia Debate,AustralianYear Book of international Law[1996]p.21.

    [19]J S DAVIDSON, “ East Versus West Human Rights and CulturalDifference”, Canterbury Law Review [Vol 8,2001]p.55.

    [20] Liu Junning“the Asian value and human rights spreads the coal Asia people's values”, in August, 1998 29- on September4 "Guangdong and Hong Kong Information Daily paper" weekend version,http://www.yanyu.net "Human rights Government by law"

    [21] Liu Junning“the human rights universality and opposing argument”"Opening Time" November, December1998 vol.

    [22]Bai Yang,” thehuman rights are an absolute right” [Guan Tian Cha She 2007-9-7

    [23]Long Yingtai, “whose culturaldifference respect - - the postscript of This Turbulent World ”, the unicorninformation, published 2008-6-8 13 http://www.unicornblog.cn/user1/unicornblog/15627.html..

    [24] Chen Lemin, “China in globalized advancement”, 2008-5-7 11 "Democracy AndScience"


    回复

    使用道具 举报

    发表于 12/28/2010 21:02:27 | 显示全部楼层
    本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 12/28/2010 20:04 编辑

    Chinesecharacter or Chinese hallmark is only a mask for the CCP totalitarian, tocurtail all civil and political rights, and it is sole will of the dictatorshipbut Chinese people. It tortuous through the CCP ideology and are used todisguise CCP’s true intention to catch the power forever, thereby, benefitingthe CCP and not Chinese people. These tortuous Asian values challenge democracyand traditional Chinese culture through a distorted ideology that justifiesextreme authoritarian practices, hence, ignoring common Chinese humanitarianand human rights desires. It is deformed ontology through unjustified ethics. Truesocial value development is exempt through elimination of practicing rule oflaw.Therefore, the CCP is using propaganda to dispel the real tragedies andharmful inflictions it carries out upon its citizens, thereby, painting a rosypicture of a sinister reality. This is current Asian values or so call Chinesecharacter ; a trickery of sorts.


                   
    Asian Values or “Chinesecharacter ”are hallmarks for dictatorship and selfish benefits only


    “Asianvalues have been a balm for the cultural wounds inflicted by westerncolonialism. Talking about Asian values has alsobeen a way to disguise the failure of some Asian societies to modernize”.[1] The Egyptian art historian Professor Nasr Abu-Zaid puts it simply: “It is themilitants who are ... hijacking Islam.”[2] “Asian values which are a thin disguise for their authoritarianism”.[3] So do Chinese scholars, they believe the Asian values do not exist but as acamouflage for restraining the human rights of citizen.Francis Fukuyamadeclared a halt of the Asian values debate due to recent lack of interestregarding Asian values as the basis for distinct political/economicinstitutions. He rationalized it was like “beating a dead horse”.[4]
    Liberty exchange concedes economicdevelopment takes precedence over civil and political freedoms. Equity is nonexistent.Economic growth doesn’t produce a equality, but rather increases humaneinequality producing greater differences between haves and have-nots.
    East Asian governments contend basicuniversal rights are limited. Instead, they choose a controlled orderly society, controlled through their perception of harmony, and public valuesaccountability with the latter as the third important social value.Contrastingly, the West prioritizes freedom of expression, personal, and individual rights. [5]
    Some contend democracy is unsuitablefor Chinese governing justifying CCP totalitarianism and lack of human rightspractices. This comes out of a fear of losing power although in the fake nameof social chaos undermining economic growth. On the other hand, they state thegovernment unreasonably restricts civil/political rights. This comes from anintricate idea of Asian values in China everything, political system,socialist, human rights, all are called hallmark. People want utilitarianism ofcombined faith, trust, honesty, beneficence, and justice. In the Western worldthis produced a free mind and personal growth, adding to greater economicperformance outcomes. Both people and government are happier. It includes butnot limited to the freedom to vote for a government leader. The CCPdictatorship regime scares these basic human freedoms and brutally punishesthose that request them.
    Andrew. Nathan said that Chinese have favoredsocial and economic rights over political rights, aspart of their minbentradition of governance, which emphasizes the people as a basis.[6] Some might conclude from this minben tradition that civil and political rightswould be willingly sacrificed for the sake of benevolent rulership and socialwelfare. But this alleged connection between Chinese concern with benevolenceand a willingness to sacrifice civil and political rights is questionable. “Mostof the earlier Chinese writings on the modern notion of human rights focused oncivil and political rights”. Michael C Davis wrote.[7]Chinesewriters, influenced by John Stuart Mill, especially focused on the importanceof freedom of thought, speech, and publication.

    As to Confucianism, the famous quote such as: “do not impose on others what youdo not desire,” and “helpothers to achieve their goals as you wish to achieve your own.” Undersuch norms, the government is there to serve the people and to provide order.Therefore, as under human rights principles, the government is not completelyimaginative by higher principles in the execution of power. In this sense,Confucianism does not intimidate human rights. Mencius concerning the exerciseof the ruler’s power: “Thepeople are of the greatest importance, the state comes next, and the ruler last. The ruler treats his
    subjects as his hands and feet, they will treat him as the heart; if he treats them asdogs and horses, they will treat him as a mere fellow countryman; if he treatsthem as dirt and grass, they will treat him as an enemy.[8] Some Chinese scholar thought that is originate of Chinesedemocracy, however, it is not. Because it only stress the ruler should love his people or thepeople will not respect and obey the ruler, but it does not mean that theruler’s power come from people or the government is the contract empower to theruler which can be withdraw according vote, actually in ancient China,government power come from the havens the ruler are called the son of thehavens.

    To sum up the main points, first, the Asian values argument, as achallenge to the implementation of constitutional democracy, is exaggerated andfails to account for the richness of values discourse in the East Asianregion-local values do not provide a justification for harsh authoritarianpractices;
    second that thecultural prerequisites arguments fail because they ignore the discursiveprocesses for value development and they are tautological, excessivelydeterministic and ignore the importance of human agency- therefore, it makeslittle sense to take an entry test for constitutional democracy;
    third, thedifficulties of importing Western communitarian ideas into an East Asianauthoritarian environment without adequate liberal constitutional safeguards; Inadequateconstitutional safeguards hamper implementing human rights into East Asianauthoritarianism.
    fourth, thepositive role of constitutionalism in constructing empowering conversations inmodern democratic development and as a venue for values discourse; Constitutionaloptimism within modern democratic development considers high moral valuesprocesses.
    fifth theimportance, especially in a cross-cultural context, of indigenization ofconstitutionalism through local institutional incarnation;
    Traditions and constitutionalism, includehuman rights, argue an increase importance to local institutions, thereby,benefiting society.
    sixth, thevalue of extending research focused on the positive engendering or enablingfunction of constitutionalism to the developmental context in general and EastAsia in particular.[9]
    Seventh, personalautonomy in religion, speech, and employment as well as equal legal rights forthe races and sexes were caused by changes occurring, at different rates,everywhere: universal education, industrialization, urbanization, the rise of amiddle class, advances in transportation and communications, and the spread ofnew information technology ”as Franck concluded.
    “These changes were driven by scientificdevelopments capable of affecting equally any society. It is these trends, andnot some historical or social determinant, that-almost as a by

    product-generated the move to global human rights”.[10]
    Eighth, Asian States in religions, politicalideologies, economic and political systems, and economic systems are all quitediverse, thus there is no Asian values share by majority of Asian States. Traditionalculture is except from current Chinese culture through the current twistedunderstanding of Asian values that has veered away from Confucianism. Futureresearch must focus on the value of optimal democratic constitutionalimplementation and sustainability, in a general context within East Asia.
    Ninth, Chinesecharacter or Chinese hallmark is only a mask for the CCP totalitarian, tocurtail all civil and political rights, and it is sole will of the dictatorshipbut Chinese people. It tortuous through the CCP ideology and are used todisguise CCP’s true intention to catch the power forever, thereby, benefitingthe CCP and not Chinese people. These tortuous Asian values challenge democracyand traditional Chinese culture through a distorted ideology that justifiesextreme authoritarian practices, hence, ignoring common Chinese humanitarianand human rights desires. It is deformed ontology through unjustified ethics. Truesocial value development is exempt through elimination of practicing rule oflaw.Therefore, the CCP is using propaganda to dispel the real tragedies andharmful inflictions it carries out upon its citizens, thereby, painting a rosypicture of a sinister reality. This is current Asian values or so call Chinesecharacter ; a trickery of sorts.




    [1]BilahariKim Hee P.S. Kausikans, An East AsianApproach To Human Rights,1995-1996,Buffalo Journal of International Law
    Vol. 2.p.275.

    [2]Thomas MFranck, “ Are Human Rights Universal?” Foreign Affairs-Volume8.No.1January/February 2001.p.198.

    [3]Vitit Muntarbhorn,Asia Human Rights and the New MillenniumTime for a Regional Human Rights Charter?TransnationalLaw & Contemporary Problems Fall 1998] [Vol. 8:p.412.

    [4] FrancisFukuyama, Asian Values in the Wake of the Asian Crisis in Democracy, MarketEconomic & Development, 2000 p. 151.

    [5] See Susan Sim,Human Rights: Bridging the Gulf, Straits Times (Singapore),Oct. 21, 1995, at32. A survey of academics, think tank experts, officials, business people, journalists,and religious and cultural leaders found significant differences between Asiansand Americans.

    [6].The ancient Chinese minben tradition asserts that good government should bebenevolent and concerned with the people’s welfare. This could be distinguishedfrom the liberal notion of democracy which emphasizes the people’s control overgovernment. If early modern Chinese thinkers had interpreted democracy inminben terms, they might have emphasized social welfare concerns, which wouldhave advanced the power of the state and thus emphasized social and economicrights over civil and political rights. See Andrew J. Nathan, Chinese Democracy127-28 (1985).

    [7]Michael C Davis, “Constitutionalism and Political CultureThe Debate over Human Rights and Asian Values”. HarvardHuman Rights Journal / Vol. 11,[1998 ] p.10.

    [8].Michael C Davis, “ Constitutionalism andPolitical Culture The Debate over Human Rights and Asian Values”. HarvardHuman Rights Journal / Vol. 11[1998].p.8.

    [9]Michael C Davis, “Constitutionalism and Political CultureThe Debate over Human Rights and Asian Values”. HarvardHuman Rights Journal / Vol. 11,1998p.45.

    [10]Thomas MFranck, “ Are Human Rights Universal?” Foreign Affairs-Volume8.No.1January/February 2001.p.200.


    回复

    使用道具 举报

    您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

    本版积分规则


    站内文章仅为网友提供更多信息,不代表本网站同意其说法或描述,也不构成任何建议。本网站仅为网友提供交流平台,对网友自由上传的文字和图片等,本网站
    不为其版权和内容等负责。站内部分内容转载自其它社区、论坛或各种媒体,有些原作者未知。如您认为站内的某些内容属侵权,请及时与我们联络并进行处理。
    关于我们|隐私政策|免责条款|版权声明|网站导航|帮助中心
    道至大 道天成

    小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|联系我们|天易综合网 (Twitter@wolfaxcom)

    GMT-5, 12/12/2019 11:17 , Processed in 0.153430 second(s), 15 queries , Gzip On.

    Copyright 天易网 network. All Rights Reserved.

    © 2009-2015 .

    快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表