Ali Nazari Farsani - L.L.M in Public International Law, ATU
2025/02/04
This article explores the intersection of liberalism and human rights, focusing on liberal conservatism—a philosophy that balances individual freedoms with societal stability. Liberal conservatism blends classical liberal values such as individual liberty, rule of law, and limited government with conservative principles emphasizing tradition, social cohesion, and incremental change. In the international context, this perspective advocates a rules-based global order and respect for state sovereignty, promoting evolutionary rather than revolutionary changes to global governance. Against the backdrop of pressing global challenges, such as the resurgence of nationalism and its implications for human rights, this article examines how liberal conservatism contributes to the discourse on international human rights.
Key Liberal Principles of International Human Rights
Universality
Universality, a cornerstone of liberal human rights theory, asserts that human rights are intrinsic to all individuals, regardless of culture, nationality, or political beliefs. Enlightenment thinkers like Immanuel Kant laid the groundwork for universality, proposing inherent human rights respected by all states (Kant, Perpetual Peace, 1795). This principle was formalized after World War II with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948), which states, “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (UDHR, Article 1).
Universality’s implementation is evident in treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966), which obligates states to uphold equal rights standards. Advocates argue that universality fosters global cohesion, promoting consistent rights protection. However, critics highlight its Western-centric origins, arguing it marginalizes non-Western traditions (Mutua, Human Rights: A Political and Cultural Critique, 2002). The tension between universalism and cultural pluralism is further exacerbated by socio-economic inequalities, which hinder the realization of universal rights. Addressing these issues requires robust international dialogue and practical measures to mitigate inequalities while respecting cultural diversity.
Equality
Equality builds on universality by emphasizing that all individuals deserve equal protection and opportunities, irrespective of background. Structural inequities, such as those rooted in race, gender, and class, pose significant challenges to achieving equality. Treaties like the ICCPR and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, 1966) reinforce non-discrimination obligations.
Liberal theorists like John Stuart Mill advocate for legal structures that address inequality while promoting individual autonomy (On Liberty, 1859). Modern frameworks such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW, 1981) aim to combat gender inequality. Nevertheless, economic disparities and systemic barriers continue to undermine equal access to rights and opportunities globally. Tackling these challenges demands a combination of policy innovation, international cooperation, and grassroots advocacy to ensure inclusivity and fairness in the application of human rights principles.
Individual Autonomy
Central to liberal human rights theory is the principle of individual autonomy, which upholds personal freedom as essential to human dignity. This principle advocates for minimal state interference, allowing individuals to make choices free from oppression (Mill, On Liberty, 1859). Contemporary dimensions of autonomy include digital freedoms and privacy, with protections enshrined in instruments like the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, 1950, Article 8).
The rise of digital technology underscores the importance of safeguarding autonomy in the face of surveillance and data breaches. Autonomy-focused rights also empower individuals to participate in governance, advocate for beliefs, and shape their communities. Further, addressing challenges to autonomy in the digital age requires updating legal frameworks to account for new technologies while preserving fundamental freedoms.
Rule of Law and Legal Accountability
The rule of law ensures that all individuals and state actors are subject to legal frameworks, preventing abuses of power and guaranteeing fair treatment. Liberalism emphasizes the importance of predictable legal systems where individuals can seek redress for rights violations. Instruments like the ICCPR mandate judicial safeguards, including fair trials and due process (ICCPR, 1966, Articles 14–15).
Contemporary challenges include the erosion of judicial independence in certain states and selective application of the rule of law at the international level. By fostering accountability, the rule of law supports the ideal of a just and orderly society while addressing systemic injustices. Strengthening legal accountability mechanisms requires collaboration between domestic and international institutions to uphold justice consistently across borders.
International Cooperation
International cooperation addresses transnational challenges like climate displacement and human trafficking. Liberal theorists argue that collaboration among states is vital for promoting and protecting rights (Ishay, The History of Human Rights, 2008). Kant’s vision of cooperative global governance (Perpetual Peace, 1795) finds modern expression in the United Nations Charter (UNC, 1945, Articles 1 and 55). However, geopolitical rivalries often undermine collective efforts. Effective cooperation requires balancing sovereignty concerns with the need for coordinated action, ensuring that shared goals align with diverse cultural and political contexts. Promoting a shared commitment to universal standards, while respecting national priorities, is essential for addressing complex global issues effectively.
Similarities and Differences Between Liberal and Conservative Approaches
Universality vs. Cultural Sovereignty
Liberal ideologies emphasize universal human rights rooted in principles of dignity and equality (Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice, Jack Donnelly, p. 45, 2013). In contrast, conservative perspectives prioritize cultural sovereignty, warning that universal standards risk undermining local traditions (Where We Are: The State of Britain Now, Roger Scruton, p. 83, 2017). This tension is evident in debates over women’s rights in culturally conservative societies, where universal frameworks can clash with deeply entrenched norms (Do Muslim Women Need Saving?, Lila Abu-Lughod, p. 62, 2013). Cross-cultural dialogue that respects diversity while upholding fundamental rights can bridge these perspectives. For example, the global response to the treatment of the Rohingya highlights both the potential and challenges of balancing universal principles with cultural contexts (The Situation of the Rohingya and Myanmar: A Report by the UN Secretary-General, UN, p. 17, 2018).
Equality vs. Community Values
Liberals advocate for systemic equality and non-discrimination, as seen in affirmative action policies designed to address historical injustices (A Theory of Justice, John Rawls, p. 63, 1971). Conservatives, however, emphasize social cohesion and fairness within established hierarchies (Reflections on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke, p. 113, 1790). The U.S. Supreme Court's recent rulings on race-conscious admissions reflect this clash, underscoring the tension between individual merit and group equity (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 2023, Opinion Section). Finding common grounds —such as commitments to combating overt discrimination— can help reconcile these values and guide policies that integrate equality with respect for community dynamics.
Individual Autonomy vs. Communal Responsibility
Liberals prioritize individual autonomy, including freedoms such as speech, privacy, and choice (On Liberty, John Stuart Mill, p. 22, 1859). Conservatives, however, stress communal responsibility and caution against excessive individualism, which they argue undermines social cohesion (After Virtue, Alasdair MacIntyre, p. 91, 1981). This tension is evident in debates over data privacy versus national security, where liberal concerns about surveillance often conflict with conservative calls for stronger security measures (Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff between Privacy and Security, Daniel J. Solove, p. 37, 2011). Policies like transparent oversight mechanisms can balance these interests, ensuring trust while protecting individual freedoms.
Rule of Law
Both liberal and conservative ideologies uphold the rule of law but differ in focus. Liberals advocate for international mechanisms like the International Criminal Court (ICC) to ensure accountability for human rights violations (An Introduction to the International Criminal Court, William A. Schabas, p. 28, 2011). Conversely, conservatives emphasize national sovereignty and localized justice systems, arguing that international intervention often disregards the unique context of states (Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, Stephen D. Krasner, p. 49, 1999). This divergence is particularly evident in debates over universal jurisdiction and its implications for state sovereignty (International Criminal Law: Volume III, M. Cherif Bassiouni, p. 112, 2006). However, common goals, such as preventing impunity for atrocities, provide opportunities for cooperation through sovereignty-respecting mechanisms.
International Cooperation vs. Sovereignty Concerns
Liberals champion international cooperation through frameworks like the Paris Agreement (Paris Agreement, UNFCCC, 2016, Article 4). Conservatives, on the other hand, advocate for state autonomy, emphasizing the need to align international efforts with national priorities (Theory of International Politics, Kenneth Waltz, p. 79, 1979). The Paris Agreement exemplifies how diverse national interests can be integrated into global efforts to address shared challenges like climate change. Designing adaptable structures that respect sovereignty while promoting collaboration enhances the effectiveness of international initiatives.
Criticisms of Human Rights
Liberal Thinkers' Criticism of Human Rights
Criticism of the Right to Education (Hayek)
Friedrich Hayek, in The Constitution of Liberty (1960), argues against the notion of education as a guaranteed "right" provided by the state. He criticizes this concept for infringing on individual liberty and parental choice, positing that state-controlled education risks imposing ideological conformity and suppressing intellectual diversity. For Hayek, framing education as a state entitlement leads to centralized curricula, which undermines the freedom necessary for personal and societal innovation.
Criticism of the Right to Equality (Spencer)
Herbert Spencer, in The Principles of Ethics (1897), critiques the right to equality when interpreted as ensuring equality of outcomes rather than equality before the law. He argues that such a right requires redistribution of resources and privileges, violating the natural rights of individuals to property and labor. Spencer views enforced equality as a perversion of justice, as it necessitates coercion and disrupts individual autonomy and merit-based systems.
Criticism of Collective Rights Over Individual Rights (Constant)
Benjamin Constant, in The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns (1819), criticizes collective rights that prioritize the will of the majority at the expense of individual freedoms. For example, he argues against the notion that a majority can dictate cultural or religious norms, infringing upon personal liberties such as freedom of expression and association. Constant warns that emphasizing collective rights risks empowering oppressive majoritarian policies under the pretense of protecting the "common good."
Criticism of the Right to Economic Security (Hayek)
Hayek, in The Road to Serfdom (1944), critiques the concept of economic security as a universal right, arguing that guaranteeing such rights requires significant state intervention, conflicting with free-market principles. He contends that securing economic rights—such as employment or housing—creates dependency on the state, undermines personal initiative, and ultimately leads to the erosion of individual freedoms.
Criticism of the Right to National Sovereignty (Mill)
John Stuart Mill, in A Few Words on Non-Intervention (1859), critiques the right to national sovereignty when it is used to justify violations of individual rights within a nation. He argues that sovereignty should not shield oppressive governments from external criticism or intervention if they fail to protect their citizens' fundamental freedoms. Mill believes that national sovereignty must be subordinate to the principle of safeguarding individual liberty.
Criticism of the Right to Self-Determination (Mises)
In Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition (1927), Ludwig von Mises critically evaluates the concept of "self-determination of nations," arguing that its frequent misinterpretation leads to significant political and ethical problems. Mises contends that the phrase, as commonly understood, misrepresents the true essence of self-determination. He explains:
"To call this right of self-determination the 'right of self-determination of nations' is to misunderstand it. It is not the right of self-determination of a delimited national unit, but the right of the inhabitants of every territory to decide on the state to which they wish to belong. This misunderstanding is even more grievous when the expression 'self-determination of nations' is taken to mean that a national state has the right to detach and incorporate into itself against the will of the inhabitants’ parts of the nation that belong to the territory of another state."
Mises emphasizes a crucial distinction: self-determination is fundamentally an individual right, grounded in the autonomy of the people living in a specific region. It is not a collective entitlement granted to an abstract "nation" or state. By framing self-determination as a nationalist principle, political leaders can misuse it to justify territorial expansion, forcibly redrawing borders under the pretense of uniting ethnic or cultural groups. This, according to Mises, undermines the very liberties the principle is meant to safeguard.
He critiques the nationalist interpretation of self-determination as inherently dangerous because it privileges the supposed will of the "nation" over the actual preferences of individuals and communities. This can lead to oppressive policies where minority groups are coerced or marginalized in the name of national unity. For example, if a state claims parts of another country’s territory on the grounds that it shares a common national identity, it disregards the fundamental right of the people in that territory to choose their political affiliation.
Mises' analysis exposes a paradox within the nationalist use of self-determination. On the one hand, it is championed as a mechanism for promoting freedom and autonomy. On the other hand, its misapplication can result in authoritarian practices, including forced annexations and the denial of minority rights. By subordinating individual choice to the supposed interests of the nation, this interpretation risks perpetuating the very oppression it seeks to overcome.
Furthermore, Mises' argument calls attention to the broader philosophical tension between collective and individual rights. While the collective notion of self-determination appeals to ideals of unity and cultural preservation, Mises warns that such ideals must not come at the expense of individual freedom. For him, any legitimate application of self-determination must begin with the consent and will of the individuals directly affected, rather than being dictated by the abstract goals of national or state authorities.
Conclusion
This article underscores the enduring relevance of liberal principles in addressing contemporary human rights challenges. By integrating critiques and fostering dialogue between liberal and conservative perspectives, it is possible to strengthen the international human rights framework. Moving forward, the focus should be on bridging divides, addressing systemic barriers, and ensuring that human rights remain adaptable to an evolving global landscape. Balancing universality with cultural diversity, autonomy with communal responsibility, and cooperation with sovereignty will be key to advancing a just and equitable world order. Expanding cross-cultural dialogue and reinforcing institutional mechanisms can further enhance the resilience and effectiveness of human rights in the 21st century.
A more proactive approach to education and public awareness about human rights can also play a transformative role. Educating global citizens about the values and responsibilities underpinning human rights fosters a culture of respect and understanding. This foundation not only promotes tolerance but also empowers individuals and communities to actively participate in shaping their societies. Furthermore, leveraging technology and innovation can aid in addressing barriers to human rights, such as by improving access to justice through digital platforms or utilizing data analytics to identify and mitigate systemic inequalities. As the world continues to evolve, ensuring the adaptability of human rights frameworks to emerging challenges—whether technological, environmental, or geopolitical—remains paramount for building a sustainable future where dignity, liberty, and justice prevail for all.