Relativist critics of international human rights

Essay prompt:
Relativist critics of international human rights claim that universalist perspectives “represent an attempt on the part of Western states and societies to impose Western values on non-Western states and societies” (DeLaet 2015, 46). Universalists, on the other hand, assert that “[t]o give up on the existence of such [universal] principles is to give up on . . . the common humanity that makes it possible for people of different cultures to deliberate about how we are to order our lives together in an interdependent world” (Glendon 1998, 1176). With specific references to the DeLaet and Glendon readings (including page numbers), critically discuss merits and critiques of these two perspectives, and advance an argument for why you lean more toward one perspective than the other. Finally, in your essay, please address what is at stake in this debate. That is, why is this debate important?