The universalism versus particularism debate refers to how a society implements the rules of ethics and morality. For instance, in the US, which is a universal society, regulations and contracts are developed and can be applied in any case, with the expectation of goodness defining relationships between partners. In China, which is a particularistic country, the relationships and circumstances are only relevant on a case-by-case basis, with a contract indicating only a starting point of an agreement (“Universalism versus particularism,” 2012). Therefore, particularistic cultures apply the logic of human friendships, while universalist cultures use the logic of law to differentiate between good and bad.
It should be noted that the distinction between universalism and particularism is not black and white and comes in a spectrum. Therefore, there may be instances in which universalist societies show traits of particularism and vice versa. It is essential to consider such a distinction in the context of international law because it can explain the cultural differences as related to the conduct and values of each society. The differences inherent to each culture can help understand how businesses should act in a foreign context, especially when it comes to capturing new and unfamiliar markets that have not been explored previously. The same applies to international courts as the ideas of justice and fairness are different in the two instances. To a large extent, the judicial systems of countries have been shaped according to societal qualities and the myths that accompany them. However, being careful about the distinction is also important because of the need to avoid stereotyping based on the universalism versus particularism distinction, which applies to both individuals and businesses.
Reference
Universalism versus particularism. (2012). Web.