The issue of human rights drives to the very core of human existence; life and dignity. In each case of human rights abuse, dignity becomes a question - such an issue of the country's self respect and greater goal of prestige in upholding their own backbone as a sovereign nation, or the honor of the individual limiting their actions and ability to strive for a personal goal for their culture. For example, in a gender struggle in cultures of masculine superiority, it is not solely a matter of the man's honor in society, nor the woman's responsibility to her social sphere and husband/male figure, but a question of a fair balance between the two. When institutions cannot resolve their own conflicts, but rather put people, and occasionally the rest of the world, at further risk, it is the right of any observer to intervene to ensure their own safety or the safety of their fellow human beings. Such intervention should not be deterred on cultural, legal, or political grounds when the issue of a human existence cannot be captivated in any one of these.

I. Cultural Relativism
Cultural relativism has become the leading argument for many anti-interventionists, but it is not as relevant as they may hope. The view expresses a theory which, in essence, divides the world into 'Western' and 'Other,' and suggests that human rights efforts are examples of an oppressive western culture, which, in hopes of bringing its own values to a foreign country with clashing cultures, will deteriorate the traditions and values of the foreign nation. In this light, human rights standards, as laid out by the Universal Declaration, do not at all apply to the nations in question, due to the cultural differences between the Western world and its counterpart.
Such an argument is a cheap way out of a potentially self-harming situation, and does not apply in most cases, for multiple reasons. Firstly, cultures evolve and change over time. One hundred years ago, the Hebrew culture, for example, was vastly stricter, and had a largely different emphasis. With and established human rights cause that was universally upheld, the cultural emphasis would continue to morph with the outside influences and societal factors. There is, therefor, no reason to not enforce human rights
Standard to culturally differing societies.
Secondly, not enforcing human rights based on cultural relativism accounts for a widespread hypocrisy based on the sacrosanctity of culture. Frequently, although not always, the nations that demand cultural tolerance and the importance of tradition over human rights show little respect for other cultures. This is shown most effectively by the Middle East conflict - Arab nations are prominent offenders in the human rights. They claim sanctity in their cultural values to rationalize their actions, yet prove to be in almost
constant cultural conflict with the Israelis. How can these nations demand cultural respect over a human right, yet be so intolerant to other, differing cultures?

Finally, the cultural relativist theory loses credibility on the grounds of its own cultural values. There is no culture that advocates torture. Rather, mercy and tolerance exist as ideals for every religion and culture. Although various followings do advocate
Vengeance or violence, these are only considered options in defensive, or 'pay-back' situations. Because of these shared cultural ideals, a universal method for achieving these goals should be prevalent and universally accepted as a necessary act.

II. World as One

The world is not just a group of sovereign countries; it is one large 'nation' that contains human beings. These humans are all of the same species, and should all be treated as such. The boundaries that nations today fight and kill over are merely names, are somewhat superficial in the big picture. Because all countries and governments exist unified in the world, there should be unifying standards that exist as an international standard for living. Just as in the United States we have individual states which are self-governing, the individual countries should be and are united under a universal existence. Because of human's worldwide inhabitancy, thre should be a worldwide law that recognizes everyone as equal and enforces it as a federal government would.

Interventionism is necessary in keeping up the standards of life and rights, and imperative for evolving the nation to a better place.

The Human Rights Act Statistics: the effects of the Human Rights Act (Britain, 1998) on case studies.  Amnesty International Statistics: The effects of Amnesty's international endeavors in 1998

Human rights Quarterly : This article describes a Muslim position on human rights, showing how they are valued and necessary, even in non-western culture.

Amnesty International: A group founded to enforce the human rights standards and help victims world wide. Human Rights Watch: A similar group. Less about activism, more about awareness. The United Nations Homepage: The United Nations, founded in 1945, established the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and is the basis for human rights endeavors.