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 

In the aftermath of Covid, the whole world is recovering, still vulnerable and fragile. But even though the pandemic was global, its effects hit the world very unevenly: the scar in Asian societies has closed much faster than the still open wound in Western societies. Since the end of the Cold War, individualist liberalism seemed invincible and far more popular than its collectivist counterpart, but the debate has been rekindled. 

This episode will examine, through the perspectives of Mexico, Japan, and Singapore, how these two models clash, and which model is better for the future of the world. 

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 Individualist and Collectivist Societies in the future with different speakers from the same countries, to compare and increase perspectives and our knowledge. 

References:

“Milton Friedman – The Escape from Collectivism”, LibertyPen, 17th May 2013, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl0SmvcpXyY.

Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, 1996, Simon & Schuster

De-secularisation of the Hagia Sophia Church in Turkey, forbiddance of the hijab in French public spaces… Secularism is a concept that is very often misunderstood and is the subject of many controversies between religious and atheist cultures. 

Presenting the perspectives of Morocco, Nigeria, France, and Turkey on the matter, this episode aims at showing how secularism and religion are actually not opposed, and in fact, may have the same function of stabilising societies. 

Can a very secular France dialogue with a Moroccan monarchy of divine right? Can Nigeria enlighten the conflict between religion and national unity conflict? Can Turkey explain the path it has recently taken, which is radically opposed to its past?

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 four 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 Secularism in the future with different speakers from the same countries, to compare and increase perspectives and our knowledge.