Introduction

Legal Literacy - To understand the complex landscape of Human Rights (HAM), it is important to first peel back its fundamental definitions. According to Article 1 number 1 of Law No. 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights, Human Rights are:
"...a set of rights inherent in the nature and existence of humans as creatures of God Almighty and are His gift which must be respected, upheld and protected by the state, law, Government, and everyone..."
This definition, in line with Prof. Muladi's view that human rights are naturally inherent (inherent) in humans, raises fundamental questions: Where do these rights actually come from? Are they universal and apply equally to everyone, or are they shaped by the cultural diversity of the world? This article will dissect various theories of human rights to answer these questions, starting from the debate over their philosophical sources to an analysis of their application in the Indonesian context.

Part 1: Theories Regarding the Philosophical Sources of Human Rights

The earliest debate in the history of human rights thought centered on the question of the origin or source of the right itself. The two main theories that confront each other in this regard are Natural Law Theory and Positivism Theory.

Natural Law Theory (Natural Law Theory)

The core of natural law theory is the view that human rights come from something higher than the state, such as God, the universe, or human reason. These rights are considered inherent (inherent) and inalienable (inalienable) because humans possess them simply because they are born as humans, not because of a gift from the state. The central figure of this theory, John Locke, argued that every individual naturally has the right to life, liberty, and property (life, liberty, and property) that should not be taken away by state power. As an antithesis to natural law, positivism theory argues that rights do not come from abstract concepts such as "nature" or "God." Instead, rights can only be considered to exist and have legal force if they have been explicitly stated in state-made legal products, such as constitutions or laws. For positivists, rights without written rules that guarantee and clear enforcement mechanisms are merely a moral idea. The main advantage of this approach is that it provides legal certainty and a concrete basis for claiming rights in court.

Part 2: Key Debate on the Application of Human Rights: Universalism vs. Cultural Relativism

After the debate about the source of rights, a modern debate arises that is no less fierce regarding the nature and scope of its application: are human rights universal, or are they relative to culture?

Universalism View

The universalism view, which is a pillar of the international human rights movement after World War II and is stated in Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948, argues that all human beings have the same rights, regardless of race, gender, religion, nationality, or cultural background. Its main slogan is "all human rights for all". This view is further divided into two variants:
  • Absolute Universalism: Argues that human rights norms apply exactly the same in all places and times, without room for interpretation or cultural-based exceptions.
  • Relative Universalism: Although accepting that human rights principles are universal, this view recognizes that there is room for variation in their implementation, as long as it does not deviate from the core of these rights.

Cultural Relativism View

As a critique of universalism, the view of cultural relativism argues that values and morality, including human rights, must be understood within the cultural context of a particular society. Imposing a set of human rights standards dominated by Western values can be seen as a form of cultural imperialism. Just like universalism, this view also has a spectrum:
  • Absolute Particularism: Completely rejects the validity of international human rights instruments and argues that each culture has its own conception of human dignity. For them, human rights are purely a domestic matter.
  • Relative Particularism: Accepts some universal human rights principles, but emphasizes that priorities, interpretations, and methods of implementation must be aligned with local cultural and historical values.

Section 3: Synthesis in Practice – Analysis of Indonesia's Position

Instead of rigidly choosing one theory, the Indonesian legal system actually displays a dynamic synthesis of these various human rights thoughts. This reflects its efforts to navigate complexities as a sovereign nation that is also part of the international community.
  1. Philosophical Foundation of Natural Law: The philosophical foundation of Pancasila, especially the principles of "Belief in One Supreme God" and "Just and Civilized Humanity", as well as the phrase "His grace" in the definition of human rights in Law No. 39/1999, clearly adopts the view of natural law that certain rights are sourced from God and inherent in human dignity.
  2. Positivist Instrumentation: This philosophy is not left floating, but is concretized and guaranteed through positive legal instruments. Articles 28A to 28J of the 1945 Constitution and Law No. 39/1999 are a real manifestation of positivism, where the state actively formulates, guarantees, and protects human rights through legislation.
  3. Universal Commitment: Indonesia demonstrates its commitment to the universalism of human rights by ratifying various major international agreements. An example is the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) through Law No. 12 of 2005 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) through Law No. 11 of 2005.
  4. Contextual Filter (Relativism): In ratifying international agreements, Indonesia sometimes uses reservations (reservation) or declarations (declaration). This practice allows countries to not be bound by certain articles that are considered contrary to the constitution or fundamental values of the nation. This is a form of controlled application of cultural relativism, where universal norms are accepted with contextual adjustments.

Conclusion

Understanding Human Rights requires us to see it as a multifaceted concept. It was born from the philosophical idea of natural law, given strength through the mechanism of legal positivism, and is constantly debated in the global arena between universal aspirations and diverse cultural realities. Indonesia's position of blending these four approaches is not an inconsistency, but a reflection of a mature effort to harmonize the nation's noble values with its commitment to universal human dignity.

Bibliography

  • Rahayu. 2015. Human Rights Law. Semarang: Universitas Diponegoro Publishing Agency.
  • Indonesia. Law Number 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights.
  • Indonesia. Law Number 11 of 2005 concerning Ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
  • Indonesia. Law Number 12 of 2005 concerning Ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
  • United Nations. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.