Universalism versus cultural
relativism
A major issue intertwined with the foregoing dis-
cussion that arises with respect to implementation
of international conventions is the debate between
universalism and cultural relativism, namely, whether
the convention is to be universal in its application
or relative depending on the culture. In other words,
even if a country signs and ratifies a convention
without reservations and passes implementing leg-
islation and is prepared to enforce the convention,
a provision will not mean the same thing in differ-
ent countries. For example, the ICCPR provision
on treating men and women equally may not mean
that women will have the same opportunities for
access to jobs, education, property, and health care
as men in two different countries.
The issue of universalism versus cultural rela-
tivism in implementation of international conven-
tions is a major one with respect to the Muslim
world and gender issues. Various human rights
organizations originating in the West as well as
Western governments point to practices in many
Islamic countries as violations of human rights con-
ventions. Most of the practices implicate women’s
rights. With respect to clothing, the veiling of
Muslim women is often the most prominent sym-
bol of Islam portrayed as a human rights violation
in the West. The practices range from wearing an
Afghani burqa≠to an Iranian chador to a mere
headscarf covering the hair. The Islamic practice of
polygamy, which permits a Muslim man to have up
to four wives who are either Muslim, Christian or
Jewish, but a Muslim woman to only have one hus-
band, who must be a Muslim, is often mentioned as
well. There have been internationally publicized
incidents of Muslim Nigerian women being faced
with the Islamic punishment for adultery of being
stoned to death for bearing a child out of wedlock,
while their partners go free for lack of four male
witnesses (Dowden 2002). Under Islamic inheri-
tance laws women only inherit a half share as com-
pared to men of the same degree of relationship.
Customary practices that predate Islam ranging
from female genital surgeries to dowries, arranged
marriages, and honor killings, may be mentioned
as well.
The notion is that human rights documents such
as the International Bill of Rights consisting of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the
ICCPR (1967), and the ICESCR (1967), were con-
ceptualized and drafted by Western countries. Some
Muslim nations and scholars claim that adhering to
these documents without violating Islamic law is
overview 309impossible, and thus making reservations is justi-
fied (Entelis 1997). Some scholars such as An-Naim
(1987) claim that it is possible to reconcile Islam
and international human rights. Al-Hibri (2000)
focuses on the need to omit patriarchal interpreta-
tions. Mayer (1995b) has pointed out that Western
nations are often hypocritical, criticizing Islamic
nations, while their own laws remain sexist. For
example, the United States signed CEDAW during
the Jimmy Carter administration, but has yet to rat-
ify it. United States feminist efforts to pass a gender
equality amendment to the United States Constitu-
tion failed decades ago, and have not been revived.
The Islamic world has begun to develop its own
human rights instruments. There is a Universal
Islamic Declaration of Human Rights (UIDHR),
which was developed in 1981 by the International
Islamic Council. While declarations are not binding
treaties, the UIDHR is clearly an attempt to present
an Islamic perspective as opposed to a Western
view on human rights issues. Western scholars have
found that it constrains Islamic women (Mayer
1995a). For example, article 19 states, “Within the
family, men and women are to share in their obli-
gations and responsibilities according to their sex,
their natural endowments.” Such a statement can
be interpreted as confirming the customary limita-
tions on Muslim women.Bibliography
A. Al-Hibri, Deconstructing patriarchal jurisprudence in
Islamic law, in A. K. Wing (ed.), Global critical race
feminism. An international reader, New York 2003,
221–33.
D. M. Andrews, Non-Muslim mothers v. Egyptian
Muslim fathers. The conflict between religion and law
in international child custody disputes and abductions,
in Suffolk Transnational Law Review 23 (2000),
595–630.
A. An-Naim, The rights of women and international law
in the Muslim context, in Whittier Law Review 9
(1987), 491–516.
K. Arnold, Are the perpetrators of honor killings getting
away with murder? Article 340 of the Jordanian Penal
Code analyzed under the Convention of the Elim-
ination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,
in American University International Law Review 16
(2001), 1343–1409.
B. Clark, The Vienna Convention reservations regime and
the convention on discrimination against women, in
American Journal of International Law 85 (1991),
281–321.
M. Brandt and J. A Kaplan, The tension between women’s
rights and religious rights. Reservations to CEDAW by
Egypt, Bangladesh and Tunisia, in Journal of Law and
Religion12 (1995–6), 105–42.
T. Buergenthal and H. G. Maier, Public international law,
St. Paul, Minn. 1990.
R. Dowden, Death by stoning, in New York Times Maga-
zine, 27 January 2002, 28.