Warren Quinton

East Asian Studies

November 2015
Review: Credit Human Rights: A Non-Western Theory of Universal Human Rights
Chinas human rights record is a highly controversial subject; it has been criticized by various international

organizations, notably Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch,1 as well as many other countries.

Yet, China tends to be very defensive of its record, often pointing to the hypocrisy inherent in any Western

criticism.2 In Credit Human Rights: A Non-Western Theory of Universal Human Rights, Zhao Tingyang

(2007) makes two central arguments: first, that the Western conception of human rights has dominated global
thought through a process of cultural imperialism, and that its claim to universality is moot; second, that a

new theory of human rights that includes the concept of justice is needed. In this review, I will examine

Zhaos arguments and suggest that the aspects he finds wanting from a Western concept of human rights are
not so distant from the current conception. Finally, I will argue that although the Western concept should not
be considered a universal theory, Zhaos own theory has just as little claim to universality.

Zhaos starting point is a criticism of the Western concept of human rights. Employing a post-

colonial theoretical perspective, Zhaos initial challenge is not to the substance of the Western theory; rather,
he takes issue with its supposed universality:

...the concept of human rights has managed to evolve into a new religion by ingeniously assimilating the
resources of Christianity and liberalism, so much so that human rights nowadays enjoy nearly the same
standing as Christianity in the Middle Ages (p.14).

Just as Christianity was used as a colonial tool to justify imperial ambitions in the colonial period, Zhao sees

the Western concept of human rights as something similar in the modern era; he speaks of a Western

discourse hegemony (p.14), and claims that due to the theorys dominance as a global concept and the
absence of a viable alternative, non-Western countries have been forced into a defensive position, having to

speak of their own human rights only within the Western-imposed framework. This response, including when

childish counter-allegations are resorted to, is unsatisfactory Zhao, and he calls for a new approach. Zhao is
a philosopher, not a historian, and even when he is speaking of the mental surrender to which non-Western
countries succumb, there is an absence of an empirical approach. Rather, he is satisfied to make assertions a
priori in order to justify what he sees as the need for a new approach. This rationalist approach works well

with abstract theorizing; there is a question mark around its use for political critique of the cultural hegemony
of Western ideas, however.

Amnesty International states that the authorities continued to severely restrict the right to freedom of expression. Activists and human
rights defenders risked harassment and arbitrary detention. Torture and other ill-treatment remained widespread and access to justice was
elusive for many. Ethnic minorities including Tibetans, Uighurs and Mongolians faced discrimination and increased security crackdown.
Record numbers of workers went on strike demanding better pay and conditions (https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/asia-and-thepacific/china/).
Human Rights Watch states that China remains an authoritarian state, one that systematically curbs fundamental rights, including
freedom of expression, association, assembly, and religion, when their exercise is perceived to threaten one-party rule
(https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/china-and-tibet).
2
See Newsnight, 2015. China's ambassador to UK on trade, democracy and human rights. Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJilqC8gXb8

Warren Quinton
East Asian Studies
November 2015
Zhaos argument quickly moves on from a post-colonial critique to a normative theory of human

rights. His three meta-theoretical questions go to the heart of the Western theory and posit serious challenges
to its legitimacy. The first asserts that interpersonal relationships rather than the individual is the

ontological basis of human rights (p.15). It seeks to move the debate from the solipsistic approach of the

West to the more collectivist conception more closely associated with Chinese culture. Confucianism is
largely centred on how to construct society, and Zhao looks to this idea as central to any concept of human

rights. In a society, why should the individual maintain supremacy over the collective? In fact, the West has
already grappled with this idea in the form of Utilitarianism, in which the greatest good for the greatest
number of people is the primary tenet. Where Zhaos theory would perhaps diverge, however, is that where
the Utilitarians would seek to maximise individual pleasures for the greatest number of people, Zhao believes

that legitimate desires have to be external to the individual because people want everything, and then
everything can be declared a right. This sense of entitlement without merit is certainly a convincing
argument.

The second question Zhao poses follows on from the first. It asks whether the mere value of

existence is sufficient to grant an individual human rights. There is no way to infer peoples moral value

from their physical attributes (p.18), Zhao says. Instead, he proposes that doing is more important than
being (pp.3-4). And this introduces the third challenge to the Western concept of human rights: the lack of a

concept of justice. For Zhao, a humans rights must be earned by acting appropriately. Zhao employs game
theory to sketch out how this theory might look, and in principle it looks persuasive.

In practice, however, this concept of justice is already present in the Western conception of human

rights through the idea of the social contract. Although in principle, humans, by virtue of their mere existence,

are entitled to inalienable human rights, in practice, we have consented to give up certain rights in the form of
a societys organizing structure. For example, in the West, prisoners are denied their liberty if they are

deemed to pose a threat to society; a more topical example is how, since the Wests War on Terror, people
accused of possible terrorist activity have been subjected to extraordinary rendition, essentially being held
without charge, interrogated and sometimes tortured.3 In Zhaos conception, these people would be deemed
not to have merited certain rights.

The danger of writing the idea of justice into a universal theory of human rights is that it necessitates

a judge, and the question immediately arises of who should assume that role. That question arises in the
Western conception as well, but at least with an objective ideal to aspire towards, it is open to criticism; in
Zhaos theory, such acts as torture and interrogation, could be seen to be sanctioned by the theory itself.

Given that Zhao takes issue with the universality of the Western concept of human rights, it is

strange that he should then attempt to sketch out an alternative universal theory. One of the primary aims
stated by China in terms of its so-called peaceful rise, a reaction to the European model of imperial
Mohamedou Ould Slahi, 2015. Guantnamo Diary: I saw the cockpit. I saw the guards. I saw the ghosts of my fellow detainees. The
Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/16/-sp-guantanamo-diary-flight-saw-cockpit-saw-guards-sawghosts-of-fellow-detainees
3

Warren Quinton
East Asian Studies
November 2015
hegemony, is to transcend the traditional ways for great powers to emerge (Zheng Bijian, 2005). Implicit in
this criticism of imperialism is an aversion to the imposition of values so prevalent in the West. It is hard to
see how Zhaos theory of human rights could become universal without a similar method of diffusion.

Zhaos criticism of the Wests arrogance and hypocrisy in sticking to their concept of human rights

like a religion is hard to fault; however, I would argue that the issues he takes with the Western idea deal with

the theory in its ideal form, and that, in practice, this is frequently deviated from. From utilitarianism to a
states justice system, Zhaos suggestions for a new theory can already be found in the Western concept. This

does not mean that it is perfect or infallible, but by focusing on the specific characteristics of the Western
theory, and by proposing a new universal theory based on justice, Zhao has failed to get to the heart of the
issue: that perhaps there is no one size that fits all.
Bibliography

BBC, 2015. China's ambassador to UK on trade, democracy and human rights. Newsnight. Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJilqC8gXb8
Slahi, Mohamedou Ould., 2015. Guantnamo Diary: I saw the cockpit. I saw the guards. I saw the ghosts of
my fellow detainees. The Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/16/-spguantanamo-diary-flight-saw-cockpit-saw-guards-saw-ghosts-of-fellow-detainees

Zhai Tingyang, 2007. Credit Human Rights: A Non-Western Theory of Universal Human Rights. Social
Sciences in China. Vol. XXVIII, No. 1

Zheng Bijian, 2005. Chinas Peaceful Rise to Great Power Status. Foreign Affairs.