Can attacking the values or ideas of a foreign legal system ever be justified?

This essay will argue that there may be justifications for attacking the values enshrined in foreign legal systems, or the ideas of right and wrong found in the cultures of other nations. Firstly, if these values, or ideas of right and wrong, infringe on people’s fundamental rights. Secondly, if they are deliberately harming a minority sector of the population. 

Some may contend that the philosophical concept of ‘cultural relativism’ prevents values enshrined in foreign nations from being attacked. This theory outlines that a person external to a foreign nation cannot attack and belittle that nation’s values and ideas of right and wrong. The theory also maintains that every nation’s moral and legal systems are different and unique to that nation. Moreover, one should deem an action as 'right' or 'wrong' by evaluating it according to standards of that foreign nation. Many then argue that ethnocentrism, the principle of assessing and scrutinising other nations’ cultures based on one’s own culture, is degrading and superficial.

However, it can be argued that ‘cultural relativism’ is a weak concept if the values found in a foreign legal system are blatantly violating the 1998 Human Rights Act that everyone is deemed to be protected under. So, it can be argued that there can be justification for attacking the values and ideas enshrined in a foreign legal system, if they infringe upon basic human rights. For instance, suppose a foreign nation's idea of what is ‘right’ is to inflict torture and implement degrading treatment on a prisoner detained of being a suspected terrorist. Here, the prisoner’s basic human right to ‘freedom from torture and inhumane and degrading treatment’ that is protected under the Human Rights Act has been violated. The principle of deontology also contends and supports the argument that ideas such as torture should be forbidden in any circumstance, as it violates people's fundamental rights. Therefore, there is justification for attacking these values if fundamental human rights protected under the 1998 Human Rights Act are violated.

It may be argued that there should be no justification to attacking these enshrined values and ideas of right and wrong, because under the Human Rights Act 1998, everyone has a right to freedom of belief and thought. So, every foreign nation has the right to hold these enshrined values and ideas of right and wrong. Consequently, by attacking these values enshrined, one is removing this protected right, which is going against the Human Rights Act. Many also might put forward the utilitarian argument, posed by Jeremy Bentham. This theory outlines that only actions which maximise welfare must be carried out. As a result, some could contend that these values and ideas of right and wrong should not be attacked if they produce an outcome of welfare and utility. For example, in the case of a foreign nation’s value being to torture a suspected terrorist, the torture process may extract useful information, and save humanity as a result. In this case, many argue that such ideas of right and wrong should not be attacked if they are for the betterment of society.

Additionally, it can be said that there is justification for attacking a foreign nation’s values and ideas of right and wrong if these are evidently causing harm to certain minority sectors within the nation. The theory of deontology, proposed by Immanuel Kant, outlines that every person should be treated with dignity, and equal respect. So, attacking the values enshrined in foreign legal systems is justifiable if they are deliberately humiliating or disrespecting a minority group. For example, a nation’s idea of right might potentially be that all members of a certain religious group are not allowed to vote. Here, interests of the minority group are failing to be taken into account. It could be considered morally and ethically wrong that these rights and wrongs are evaded. Deontology also outlines that actions should be able to be universalised. If the values enshrined in that foreign nation are degrading and inhumane, it can be argued that they should be attacked, as they would not be able to be universalised. 

In conclusion, it should be noted that there are occasions to justify attacking the values enshrined in foreign legal systems, or for attacking the ideas of right and wrong found in the cultures of other nations. In circumstances where these enshrined values and ideas of right and wrong are infringing upon people’s basic human rights, there is a necessity for them to be attacked and critiqued. Additionally, these ideas and values should be subject to being attacked if they purposefully disrespect and harm a minority group.