WWII devastated one international order to recreate another, the liberal order. This order was defined by the winners of the war, and is mainly based on a so-called universal definition of human rights, to be applied equally to all states. Yet, according to Foucault, the ability to define what is universal is held by those who possess power. Thus, the many states that have joined the liberal international order, following their decolonisation, are obliged to comply with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

But are these really universal and compatible with the culture of each state? This is the question we examine in this episode, through the perspectives of Taiwan, the United States and Argentina.

NOTE: This podcast would like to acknowledge the place of subjectivity and promotes it: every person has a different vision of what they experience. The three different participants were asked to speak in the name of their country and how they see the situation, but any other person from the same countries may view things very differently. This podcast welcomes variations of visions on the same topic, and for this reason, there will be another episode on Human Rights in the future with different speakers from the same countries, to compare and increase perspectives and our knowledge.

---

REFERENCES

• Beitz, C. R., "Human Rights as a Common Concern" in The American Political Science Review, Vol. 95, No. 2, 2001, American Political Science Association
• Elshtain, J. B., "Just War and Humanitarian Intervention" in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting-American Society of International Law, Vol. 95, 2001, Cambridge University Press
• Walzer, M., Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, 2015, Basic Books 
• "President Bush Announces Start of Iraq War", C-SPAN, 2003, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BwxI_l84dc