Makua Mutua, and other TWAIL scholars (Third World Approaches to International Law) identify how the narrative of human rights exists in a wider context of ‘Western conceptual and cultural dominance’, a narrative that seeks to universalise Eurocentric norms, alluding to its “deep-seated sense of European and Western global predestination” (Mutua, 2008). 

 

The campaign to universalise human rights repudiates, demonises, and ‘others’ all that is non-identical to itself, that is, what is perceived to be non-European, in order to preserve and develop a Western hierarchy. The movement to universalise human rights is characterised by coloniality; a matrix of cultural and epistemological production woven into our social infrastructure that revives the vestiges of colonialism.

 

The narrative of human rights purports civility, to refashion colonialism, and advance Western cultural imperialism through the imposition of geopolitical hegemonic policy, seeking to reduce indigenous voices, through subtle and explicit invasions of identity, in hopes of rendering ‘the other’ worthless. Upon the inspection of the human rights movement, it becomes clear that “the paradigm’s perceived power and righteousness” is pervasive (Mutua, 2008).

 

Arguments propounded by the likes of Mutua, Anthony Anghie, and Frantz Fanon capture the dangers of universalisation. Sadistic rhetoric is symptomatic to universalisation, and in this mode, the pervasive nature of Eurocentrism breeds an internalised inferiority amongst those deemed ‘the other’. The emphasised universality of human rights forms a new empire that is a container of coloniality, cloaked in righteousness to reinforce Western power structures, and subsequently erase anything other.

​​​

The Savage, Victim and Saviour

​

The universality of human rights has become a movement for the promotion of Western colonial projects. Aníbal Quijano describes how these projects operate, “[they perpetuate a] matrix of power that produces racial and gender hierarchies on the global and local level, functioning alongside capital to maintain a modern regime of exploitation and domination” (Maldonado-Torres, 2017). Whether or not it was intended at their origin, human rights have become one of the dominant mechanisms used to preserve a power dynamic that secures the West atop the global hierarchy. Those considered ‘the other’ are not only stripped of their autonomy in such a mechanism but are subjected to any cultural interference deemed necessary to civilise them, in order to replicate the societies of the West.

 

Mutua’s SVS metaphor demonstrates how the narrative of human rights is to universalise European norms through repudiation, demonisation, and ‘othering’ of what is non-European. Mutua articulates how the savage is affirmed as a “cultural deviation from human rights” (Mutua, 2008). Savagery refers to the so-called barbaric practices that are distinct from Western liberalism and democracy. States in this instance are not savage; they are neutral vessels of culture (Mutua, 2008).

 

The victim is then those who are powerless, confined within a savage culture that negates their desire for freedom, and the saviour is the “victim’s bulwark against tyranny” who will lead them toward said freedom (Mutua, 2008). The casting of subordinate and superior roles illustrates the underpinning belief of the human rights corpus, in an objective and linear perspective of goodness that is moulded by Western, European practices.

​

Anything that fails to be akin with European norms is deemed ‘other’, and an aversion to otherness becomes incredibly dangerous when dominant cultures grant themselves prerogatives to universally impose their interpretation of goodness. It has seemingly become a fundamental belief of the West that according to human rights, it is their obligation to universalise their civilisation, otherwise civility will never be reached in the Global South. Mutua (2008) inspects this through the interplay between the savage, victim and saviour, highlighting the saviour’s assumed superiority stemming from framing non-European traditions as disrespectful toward human rights. Georg Hegel precisely demonstrated this, saying:

 

“[Africans] were not properly human, and could not be left to themselves, but must be ‘led’ towards civilization by other peoples … especially of Western Europe” (Mutua, 2008). 

 

The colonial project here is striking; the Western perspective of human rights is to be established as the foundation of a political and cultural template to impose Western power globally. Those in the Global South are seen as incapable of governing themselves without falling into barbarism, and so freedom is reimagined under human rights to coincide with following Western practices.

 

Koskenniemi (2011) argues this exaggerated sense of sovereignty places Europe as the “geographical, political, and conceptual centre” of knowledge. Indigenous voices are excluded from discussions of civility, and human rights become a means to “reduce the law to a passive reflection of hegemonic policy” (Koskenniemi, 2011). Thus, the  relentless campaign to universalise human rights presents a paradigm that is structurally Eurocentric, where freedom is abrogated, and the very essence of “human sanctity is violated” (Mutua, 2008).

 

Case Study – Sadism and Universality in The War on Terror

​

The pre-eminent question evoked when analysing the campaign to universalise human rights is, ‘who the blueprint for humanity?’ Universality, under Western enforcement, is parochial in its approach to viewing humanity; as emphasised by the SVS metaphor, universality disregards the cultural fabric of the non-West, casting it into a subordinate position, simultaneously placing the West as the superior. It has become pre-supposed that human rights assert the blueprint of humanity as that of the European man.

 

Inversely, “the predominant image of the savage in the human rights discourse today is that of a Third World, non-European person”, the savage is then not only ‘other’ to the Western saviour, but is portrayed as something inhuman, and threatening to the saviour (Mutua, 2008). This image has been achieved through demonisation, and the subsequent effects are devasting; the saviour often spirals into a kind of sadism that is dehumanising by nature. Sadism, “the unnecessary yet irresistible inclination to torment and inflict pain on your victim”, masquerades as a means of civilising under human rights (Bilal, 2025). 

 

The attempt to universalise human rights creates polarising classifications of people, moreover, a narrative of supremacy for the saviour is fuelled, who is then able to reframe their violence as valour, to which sadism is symptomatic. The savage and victim are reduced to an object of this supremacy, stripped of their personhood and subjugated to any cruel practice the saviour feels is necessary to civilise them, further instilling the saviours distorted sense of justice and righteousness. In doing so, coloniality is produced as one culture dominates another. Self-assured civil superiority weaves the landscape for conquest in such a way that is indistinguishable from colonial projects. 

 

During the war on terror in 2004, the Abu Ghrabi prison manifested this narrative of sadism,

 

"Photos emerged documenting extensive torture ranging from prisoners on leashes to bodies piled atop each other in pyramid structure to prisoners standing in crucifixion like postures." (Hilal, 2017).

 

Alongside this torture would be prison guards and soldiers, those who would be heralded as saviours, posing and smiling next to the bodies; illustrating how sadism was embodied as a kind of justice in this sphere (Bilal, 2025). When people are cast into subordinate roles, they are stripped of their personhood, and in this dimension, the cultural narrative of human rights celebrates and promotes cruelty, as it transforms into an act of civilising.

 

The universality of human rights warped the moral landscape in the Abu Ghrabi prison, they operated as a systemic validation of cruelty that mutated violence into a justified act of civilising. Sadism is a typical characteristic of universalisation that occurs through the ‘othering’ of anything that is non-European. Furthermore, a report from the International Committee of the Red Cross (2004) revealed that “70 to 90 percent of the prisoners were mistakenly detained” highlighting how anything that appeared to be different and non-European was cast into the same subordinate, subhuman realm. 

 

Iraqis were all perceived as one thing in the West during the war on terror, savages. Thus, they were held as creatures who must be saved, breeding a sense of righteousness when committing brutal acts upon them, which was considered justice. The desire to break them from their savage culture and lead them into Western civility was a purported responsibility of the West; they were bound to do so according to human rights.

 

The underlying consequence of this universalisation is a pervasive epistemological structure that marks the West at the top of the global hierarchy, while anything ‘other’ is inferior and therefore is at the West’s disposal; this rhetoric exhibits the revival of colonialism in the form of cultural and epistemological invasion.

 

Fanon and the psychological diagnosis of Eurocentrism

​

Fanon’s deep exploration of Eurocentrism observes the extent to which universality becomes pervasive in its perpetuation of coloniality onto ‘the other’ (particularly with respect to Africa). The relentless Eurocentricity of colonialism is psychologically detrimental to those in the Global South, as the constant call to their inferiority becomes entrenched into their psyche; Fanon described how “colonialism instills the inferiority complex in the psyche of colonised communities” (Jean-Marie, 2017).

 

Human rights operate in a sphere that restores colonialism, their universalisation presents an ideological split between the Eurocentric ideal and ‘the other’; manufacturing a desire within ‘the other’ to escape their inferiority and ‘otherness’ by reproducing the ideal. Fanon addresses how ‘the other’ is defined in opposition to the ideal, “for not only must the black man be black; he must be black in relation to the white man” (Fanon, 1952).

 

The ‘others’ identity is the marker of diminished status and power, their self-perception exists through the lens of the coloniser or saviour which fragments their sense of self. Fanon argues that ultimately “the epidermal schema was laid down as the basis of the colonial world” (Fanon, 1952). In its psychological dimension, the universality of human rights constructs a realm of inadequacy amongst those who would be considered savages or victims. ‘Othering’ induces the desired assimilation to replicate the ideal, that of the saviour, which fortifies the Western hierarchy. Coloniality prevails as ‘the other’ is rendered inferior, oppression becomes internalised and self-perpetuating, the consequence of the prolonged campaign to universalise Eurocentric norms within the container of human rights. 

​

The alleged diversity of Boris Johnson’s 2021 cabinet delineates this assimilation and demonstrates its operation in the modern world. Priti Patel, and Sajid Javid were labelled as diverse, but in actuality, replicated and reinforced Eurocentric ideals, perpetuating the Eurocentric power structure. Javid “increased stop and search, ignoring the stark racial inequalities in how police use the powers”, both emphasising the division between the ‘other’ and the West, as well as Javid’s own self-perception existing through the lens of the coloniser (Andrews, 2019).

 

Patel similarly sought to discard her ‘otherness’ through the Rwanda plan, which fantasised about sending asylum seekers in the United Kingdom to Rwanda (Cleverly, 2023). Their rhetoric utters the same belief underlying Johnson’s description of African people as “piccaninnies [with] watermelon smiles” and Muslim women in burqas to “letterboxes and bank robbers”, namely, in the superiority of one cultural practice over all others (Andrews, 2019).

 

Javid and Patel reproduced the very same policies as Johnson, seemingly to assimilate themselves in an attempt to escape from their believed inferiority and remove themselves from ‘otherness’. The impulse to universalise Eurocentric norms by ‘othering’ that of which is non-European can reshape the identity of ‘the other’ to model themselves in the image of the ideal.

 

Eurocentrism in Education

​

The desire for assimilation becomes increasingly pervasive as Eurocentric norms creep into the education system, whereby those oppressed further internalise inferiority, as racist institutions, and modes of reasoning consequentially become ‘common sense knowledge’. Universalisation is a “superstructure that seeks to impose European consciousness onto other people’s consciousness” (Asante, 2012).

 

Moreover, the mass permeation of Eurocentricity in colonial systems results in the ‘savage and victimised’ natives of the Global South reproducing Eurocentrism in their education, creating a cycle of inferiority and subsequently maintaining the colonial system. Eurocentric schooling subtly replaces traditional hierarchy through a kind of mental colonisation that “makes [the other] see their past as one wasteland of non-achievement and it makes them want to distance themselves from that wasteland” (Alvare, 2012).

 

The education system can further convince the ‘other’ of their inferiority and worthlessness, manipulating them into admiring the saviour; exhibiting Fanon’s epidermalization of inferiority (Mulder, 2016). Such environments subtly ground coloniality into our social infrastructure as the universality of human rights pervades identity, pushing alleged inferiority amongst those deemed ‘the other’.

 

This precisely demonstrates how the human rights corpus serves as a faculty to relentlessly universalise Eurocentric norms in ways that refashion colonialism, to affirm the West as the global power, while anything else is to be discarded.

 

Lisa Lowe discusses the consequences of resisting this systemic inferiority. In the late sixties, the Bandung Spirit, a feeling of solidarity and mutual support amongst the Global South had swept American college campuses to form the Third World Liberation Front (TWILF) (Okoth, 2023).

 

Strikes from TWILF “resulted in the establishment of the first-ever department of ethnic studies” which sought to retrieve the historical-legacy of the Global South beyond the immediate national context, under the supervision of marginalised groups (Okoth, 2023). Lowe explained how the movement was disintegrated by government repression which “demanded that they forget the histories of imperialism, war and neo-colonialism… if they wanted to access citizenship” (Okoth, 2023).

 

Such government repression is further representative of the refashioned colonialism presented by the universalisation of human rights. That of which does not succumb to, or threatens the Western hierarchy is to be disintegrated. In this instance, universalisation seemingly gives ‘the other’ two options: to assimilate with the Eurocentric ideal and exist with an inauthentic identity or to resist Eurocentrism and face brutal repression. In this mode, the movement to universalise human rights inescapably erases indigenous culture for the benefit of advancing the West, in such a way that in indistinguishable from colonialism.

​

​​The Empire of Human Rights and Western Thought

​

Anghie (2005) discusses how the campaign to universalise human rights reconstructs colonialism through the division of the uncivilised in the Global South and the civilised West. Human rights have become mechanisms for Western self-defence and are applied under the guise of civilising to transform ‘the other’ by undermining their sovereignty. Anghie observes how international law is predicated on “an alien character [of non-European societies] so no proper legal relations could develop between European and non-European states” (Anghie, 2005).

 

That which is non-European is so barbaric and primitive that it exists outside of the sphere of law; the West then justifies its intrusion of universals as a necessary step for progression. Human rights are essentially the internationalisation of European laws, and their universalisation is the imposition of Western hegemonic policy. Anghie (2005) further discusses how:

​

"Having stripped the non-European world of sovereignty … [the West] in effect constructed the colonial encounter as an arena in which the sovereign made, interpreted and enforced the law."

​​

Western hegemonic policy is disguised within the universalisation of human rights as the call to civilising. The cultural domination of an indigenous population is intrinsic to Western universalisation, that of which resembles colonial conquest. On this basis, the universalisation of human rights forms a new empire. Western imperialism extends geographically into the cultural realm that seeks to control the sovereignty of the Global South through the erasure of indigenous heritage, ultimately for the advancement of Western power. 

 

Doyle (1986) defines empire as “a relationship, formal or informal, in which one state controls the effective political sovereignty of another political society”. In regard to the universalisation of human rights; human rights are the crystallisation of the new empire ruled by Western practice that reformulates imperialism; demonising anything that threatens or doesn’t resemble it, to expand Western sovereignty.

 

Said’s (1993) description of imperialism as “attitudes of a dominating metropolitan centre ruling a distant territory” align with this, as the Western empire imposes human rights as an extension of its ideology, to rule the Global South. The repudiation of ‘the other’ is the primary mechanism of this empire, human rights drive political and cultural influence into the Global South, often with the aim of exploiting its resources, representative of neo-colonialism (Woodis, 1971).

​​

Western action in The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) reveals the nature of the Western empire. Fanon describes ‘The DRC as the trigger of Africa’s gun’, the heart of a potential United States of Africa emerging in 1960 from the disintegration of recognised colonial rule (Jefferies, 2024). Soundtrack to a Coup D’Etat investigates how Belgium and the United States of America ensured their continued control over the DRC, and consequently Africa following the fall of colonialism, that is the retention of the Western empire (Jefferies, 2024). 

 

The lithium reserves of the DRC posed a threat to the Western empire, as they feared the natural wealth of the DRC flipping the balance of Western power. Thus, in the fear that President Lumumba of the DRC wouldn’t support the West, he was assassinated. The very same logic that continues today in the privilege of the West before the International Criminal Court was apparent in the DRC, to preserve the Western empire that is predicated on the universalisation of human rights by any means necessary. Assassination is justified should it be in the interest of ensuring ‘the other’ doesn’t enter the sphere of power, thus, the Western empire is cloaked in self-alleged righteousness to preserve the withstanding global hierarchy.

​​

Conclusion

​

The relentless campaign to universalise human rights is characterised by coloniality. The promotion of Eurocentric norms through the means of ‘othering’ illustrates the underpinning belief of the human rights, namely, in the blueprint of an objective human who expresses exclusively Western practices. The consequence of such is the distortion of ‘the others’ self-image, both being cast into a subordinate realm externally and internally, seeking to assimilate with the European ideal.

 

The division between the civilised and uncivilised reconstructs colonialism to allow Western hegemonic policy, formulating a new empire by undermining the sovereignty of non-European states to perpetuate the Western hierarchy. Universality glaringly presents significant problems for international law. Greenwood’s (2013) ‘omni-local model’ of human rights suggests a paradigm that accounts for “the ‘unpredictable circulation’ of ideas, in which any given reception is ‘local’ in relation to every other reception, while together they form part of a larger whole”.

 

Connectivity over universality is an escape from homogenising international law, as globalisation contributes to decolonisation through the understanding of different cultures, rather than the demonisation that occurs due to the power of a single authority universalising their norms. In this way, Négritude could be restored, and refined to reclaim the identity of ‘the other' (Kerhsdaw, 2022). 

 

Otherwise, the movement to universalise human rights will continue as a container of coloniality, highlighting the inadequacy of human rights for those outside of the Western sphere. The universality of human rights constructs a new empire which is cloaked in righteousness, to refashion colonialism and perpetuate Western power structures under the guise of civilising.

​​​

Bibliography

 

Alvare, C. (2012). A critique of Eurocentric social science and the question of alternatives. In Decolonising the university: The emerging quest for non-Eurocentric paradigms. Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia.

​

Andrews, K. (2019, July). Don’t be fooled by Johnson’s ‘diverse’ cabinet. Tory racism hasn’t changed. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/25/johnson-diverse-cabinet-tory-racism-ethnic-minority-ministers 

​

Anghie, A. (2005). Imperialism, sovereignty and the making of international law. Cambridge University Press.

​

Asante, M. (2012). Reconstituting curricula in African universities: In search of an Afrocentric design. In Decolonising the university: The emerging quest for non-Eurocentric paradigms. Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia.

​

Bilal. (2025, January). Deconstructing sadism: Case studies from Gaza and Iraq. The Mazaj. https://themazaj.substack.com/p/deconstructing-sadism-case-studies 

​

Cleverly, J. (2023, June 6). Oral statement on Rwanda. Gov.uk. 

​

Doyle, M. (1986). Empires. Cornell University Press.

​

Fanon, F. (1952). Black skin, white masks (C. L. Markmann, Trans.). Grove Press.

​

Greenwood, E. (2013). Afterword: Omni-local classical receptions. Classical Receptions Journal, 5(3). 

​

Hilal, M. (2017, October). Abu Ghraib: The legacy of torture in the war on terror. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2017/10/1/abu-ghraib-the-legacy-of-torture-in-the-war-on-terror

​

Jean-Marie, V. (2017). Fanon's Black skin, white masks: The irreducibility of Black bodies. The CLR James Journal, 23(1/2).

​

Jefferies, S. (2024, November). Coups, colonialism and all that jazz: The film that unravels extraordinary cold war truths. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/nov/13/coups-colonialism-and-all-that-jazz-new-film-unravels-cold-war-truths-johan-grimonprez-soundtrack-to-a-coup-detat

​

Kershaw, L. (2022, October). ‘Beware of the neo-colonial wolf’: World reception, universality, and decolonising the academy. Classical Reception Studies Network. https://classicalreception.org/beware-of-the-neo-colonial-wolf-world-reception-universality-and-decolonising-the-academy-2/

​

Koskenniemi, M. (2011). Histories of international law: Dealing with Eurocentrism. Rechtsgeschichte: Zeitschrift des Max-Planck-Instituts für europäische Rechtsgeschichte.

​

Maldonado-Torres, N. (2017). Enrique Dussel’s liberation thought in the decolonial turn. Transmodernity: Journal of Peripheral Culture Production of the Luso-Hispanic World, 1(1).

​

Mulder, L. (2016). Frantz Fanon, internalized oppression and the decolonization of education. University of the West Indies, Barbados.

​

Mutua, M. (2008). Human rights: A political and cultural critique. University of Pennsylvania Press.

​

Okoth, K. (2023). Red Africa: Reclaiming revolutionary Black politics. Verso.

​

International Committee of the Red Cross. (2004, February). Report on the treatment by the coalition forces on the prisoners of war and other protected persons by the Geneva Conventions in Iraq during arrest, internment, and interrogation.

​

Said, E. (1993). Culture and imperialism. Knopf.

​

Woodis, J. (1971). Introduction to neo-colonialism.