Moral Relativism or Moral Universalism? : A Comparative Case Study of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Recommendations towards Myanmar and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

Abstract: Two theories that are becoming more established within the doctrine of international politics are moral relativism and moral universalism, but none of these theories have been applied to real life cases. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate if the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) arguments regarding the human rights violations in Myanmar and the Democratic Public’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), are more similar to the moral relativism theory or more similar to the moral universalism theory and if there are any differences between the arguments. Additionally, the study investigates if the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) adoption can be interpreted and derived from the moral theories by focusing on one of the three RtoP pillars, prevention. This study uses a descriptive idea analysis method where two ideal types of each moral theory was created. The OHCHR’s arguments consisted of recommendations towards the government of Myanmar and the DPRK and the international community and the UN. The result of this study is that the OHCHR’s arguments are more similar to the moral universalism theory and that there were no remarkable differences between the arguments. Also, this study’s personal interpretation of prevention from a moral relativism perspective gained support from the collected material. The major finding of this study is that characteristics of both moral relativism and moral universalism create a form of moral reality, where moral principles are relative due to states different behavior and values. Although at the same time, moral relativism do not exclude the possibility that other states could share the same values. Meaning that the recommendations suggested by the OHCHR might not be sufficient enough for governments to change their behavior.