Chapter 11: International Law & Human Rights – Aliens, Asylum, and Humanitarianism

11.3: Human Rights—Universal vs. Culturally Relative

Few topics spark as much debate in international politics as human rights. At first glance, it seems obvious that all human beings should be entitled to basic protections—freedom from torture, access to fair trials, and the right to express opinions without fear of persecution. But the question of whose definition of human rights prevails is far more complicated. Should human rights be universal, applying equally to all people regardless of culture or history? Or should they be culturally relative, shaped by the traditions, religions, and values of individual societies? These questions are not just theoretical—they shape global policies, international conflicts, and real-world struggles for justice. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) attempted to establish a global human rights standard, but many nations argue that their cultural, religious, and political contexts must shape how these rights are applied. The 2009 sci-fi film District 9 serves as an unexpected but insightful case study for these debates. The film depicts a world where the alien population, known as “prawns,” is subjected to discrimination, forced displacement, and systemic abuse. Their mistreatment mirrors real-world struggles over group rights, self-determination, and the conflict between universalist ideals and cultural justifications for oppression. By analyzing these debates through both history and fiction, we can better understand the challenges of enforcing human rights in a divided world. First, let’s review the concept of human rights with a video below.

Some principles seem so fundamental that denying them feels almost absurd. The right to life, freedom from torture, and equal treatment under the law are widely regarded as essential, forming the core of universalism—the idea that certain human rights apply to all people, regardless of nationality, culture, or historical background. This philosophy is the foundation of modern international human rights law and has been used to justify international interventions against oppressive regimes. For example, the international community condemned apartheid in South Africa, arguing that racial discrimination violated universal human dignity. However, universalism is easier to advocate in theory than to enforce in practice. In District 9, universalist principles are entirely absent—the aliens are treated as subhuman, denied access to legal protections, and subjected to violent evictions. Their suffering highlights a key critique of universalism: rights mean little without enforcement. Even in the real world, many nations that officially endorse universal human rights often fail to uphold them when political or economic interests are at stake. The tension between lofty ideals and harsh realities is where the debate over cultural relativism begins.

Not all societies agree on what constitutes a human right. Cultural relativism challenges the universalist approach by arguing that rights should be understood within the historical, religious, and cultural contexts of each society. This perspective warns against imposing a single set of values on diverse cultures, arguing that what is considered a right in one country might not be relevant or appropriate in another. For example, some governments defend restrictions on press freedom or gender roles as necessary for maintaining social harmony. Critics of cultural relativism, however, argue that it can be used to justify human rights abuses, such as restrictions on women’s rights in conservative societies or the criminalization of LGBTQ+ identities in certain countries. As one sees in District 9, cultural relativism takes the form of human authorities justifying their abuse of the aliens by portraying them as dangerous, uncivilized, and unworthy of equal treatment. Just as apartheid-era South Africa justified racial segregation under the guise of maintaining cultural order, the film’s government claims that harsh measures are necessary to control the alien population. This reflects a broader global trend in which cultural arguments are used to rationalize discrimination and exclusion. However, human rights debates are not always about individuals—sometimes, they focus on the collective rights of specific groups.

Throughout history, marginalized communities have fought not just for individual rights but for group rights, which protect the collective interests of ethnic, religious, and indigenous populations. While universalist approaches tend to emphasize individual freedoms, group rights recognize that some communities need special protections to preserve their culture, language, and identity. For example, Indigenous peoples in Canada and Australia have demanded legal recognition of their land rights, arguing that standard property laws fail to protect their historical claims. However, group rights can also create conflicts—especially when they clash with universalist principles. The aliens in District 9 exist as a marginalized group with no legal protections, much like stateless populations in the real world. If a universalist approach were applied, the aliens would receive equal treatment under the law as individuals. But if a group rights approach were taken, they might be granted autonomy, allowing them to govern themselves and make decisions as a collective. The film forces us to consider which approach is more just: integrating oppressed groups into existing systems, or granting them the right to self-rule? This question leads directly into the debate over self-determination.

For centuries, oppressed peoples have fought for the right to govern themselves and shape their own destinies. The right to self-determination asserts that nations, ethnic groups, and other distinct communities have the right to freely determine their political status and pursue their own economic, social, and cultural development. This principle was a driving force behind the decolonization movements of the 20th century, as countries across Africa and Asia demanded independence from European rule. However, self-determination remains a highly controversial issue in modern politics—whether in the fight for an independent Palestinian state, the push for Kurdish autonomy, or the debate over Scottish independence from the UK. Christopher, the alien scientist in District 9, represents a resistance movement seeking to free his people and reclaim their autonomy, much like real-world independence leaders such as Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Gandhi. The film raises critical questions about whether oppressed populations should integrate into existing societies or break away to form their own self-governing entities. These are the same questions that fuel international disputes over sovereignty, human rights, and intervention.

The debate between universalism and cultural relativism is not just an academic exercise—it influences policies, international law, and the daily lives of people worldwide. While universalists argue that human rights should apply equally to all people, cultural relativists warn against imposing external values on societies with different traditions. The UDHR set the foundation for modern human rights law, but its effectiveness depends on enforcement and acceptance. Meanwhile, debates over group rights and self-determination continue to shape conflicts over Indigenous sovereignty, ethnic minority protections, and national independence. District 9 serves as a powerful metaphor for these struggles, demonstrating how laws, cultural justifications, and power dynamics determine who is protected and who is excluded. Ultimately, the challenge for international law is finding a balance—ensuring that fundamental human rights are upheld while respecting the diverse traditions and histories that shape societies. Whether on Earth or in a world where extraterrestrial refugees fight for survival, the question remains: How do we create a global order where justice is not just a principle, but a reality?