Generate text that refutes this claim: Universal rights and collective compromises  Cultural relativism is the philosophical belief that all cultures and cultural beliefs are of equal value and that right and wrong are relative and dependant on cultural contexts. Accordingly, relativists hold that universal human rights cannot exist, as there are no truly universal human values. If rights are relative, the laws that protect them must also be relative.  If we accept proposition’s contention that culturally relative values can evolve in response to conflicts and crises, then any perverse or destructive behaviour given the force of ritual and regularity by a group’s conduct can be taken to be relative. If the group believes that a practice is right, if it ties into that group’s conception of what is just and good or beneficial to their survival, then there can be no counter argument against it – whether that practice has been continuous for a hundred years or a hundred days.  Systems of law, however, reflect the opinions, practices and values of everyone within a state’s territory, no matter how plural its population may be. Similarly, objections to specific aspects of the universal human rights doctrine are fragmentary, not collective. While a handful of communities in Yemen may object to a ban on the use of child soldiers, many more throughout the world would find this a sensible and morally valuable principle. It is necessary for both the international community and individual nation states to adjust their laws to reconcile the competing demands of plural value systems. Occasionally, a value common among a majority of cultures must overrule the objections of the minority.  It is perverse to give charismatic leaders who convince impoverished communities to send their sons and daughters into combat an opportunity to use cultural relativism to excuse their culpability for what would otherwise be a war crime. Officers, politicians or dissident commanders are much more likely than Yemeni tribesmen or orphaned Sudanese boys to understand the intricacies of such a defence, and much more likely to abuse it. The commanders of child soldiers are the only class of individuals who should fear the ICC.
traditions law human rights international law society family house would require
As noted above, the definition of adulthood accepted within western liberal democracies is not a cultural absolute. It can be argued that the legal cut-off point- be it sixteen, eighteen or twenty-one years of age- is largely arbitrary. Children who care for disabled parents take on adult responsibilities inconceivable to many undergraduate students. Many developing world cultures would regard the under-emphasis of practical skills and physical training that exists in the education systems of knowledge-based western economies to be tantamount to neglect.  In both war-torn Afghanistan and peaceful Botswana, a boy of fourteen is considered old enough and able enough to hunt; to protect his younger siblings; to marry or to be responsible for a harvest. Why should an Afghani child or his parents be condemned for allowing him to participate in the defence of his community? A family in a similar position in Botswana may never have been confronted with that choice. Although they might find the idea appalling in peace-time, the pressing necessity of war can cause opinions and beliefs to become highly flexible.  This restatement of cultural relativism goes hand in hand with side proposition’s concluding objection. Although a culture can quickly assimilate and normalise necessary practices- such as arming children- it need not think that they are objectively good and valuable. It may be keen to abandon the practice.  A community that responds to an urgent need to arm children may not want to arm children.  Side opposition regard the use of child soldiers as symptomatic of cultural depravity, of a callous attitude to suffering. This approach patronises communities subject to privations and abuses now unknown in the west. It assumes that traditions cannot be overturned and that societies in the developing world will hasten to use their children as cannon-fodder for without devoting any thought or debate to the risks involved.