Some of the reasons cited are ideological and cultural clashes such as 'Western' emphasis that economic rights are given priority over individual political and civil rights, and philosophical ideas around human nature and societal relationships that differ from those held in the 'West'. The authors further argue that to try to apply the 'Western' idea of human rights in non- 'Western' states is futile because the meaning behind these rights has little context and the values that underpin the UDHR cannot be accepted.
During the UDHR negotiating process however, non-Western views and traditions were taken into account, such as the Chinese, Marxist, Latin American and Islamic although Africa and Asia were hugely under-represented (Forsythe, 2000). Many African and Islamic cultures have claimed that human rights have historically been a part of their societies' thinking and practices pre-UDHR. However this has been largely unsupported in terms of evidence and Donnelly (1992) argues that actually any evidence put forward contradicted these assertions, and further the concern for human good and dignity found within Islam are not equivalent to concern for or recognition of human rights. Donnelly (1992) further claims that the concept of human rights was new to both the 'West' and the non- 'West' so both perspectives were equally attempting to understand how rights could be conceptualised and applied in a universal way. Donnelly (2007) further premised that the idea of equal and inalienable rights being accorded due to being human (as is the basis of the UDHR) was missing not only in traditional Asian, African, Islamic societies but from early Western societies as well.
Ignatieff (2001) argues that the UDHR drafting committee saw their role as needing to determine the boundaries of universal morals in the context of varied religious, political, ethnic and philosophical backdrops.
