The trend of the events of previous decades and current demands of the international society reveals that the manner of development, comprehensiveness and universality of the global declaration of human rights and the UN human right conventions are in the same direction as the interests of all nations and country members of the United Nations. The thinking of the international society over a series of human rights rules such as the prohibition of torture, slavery, right to live, freedom of speech, etc., which are called fundamental rules of human rights, Noyau dur, are also inviolable. These two assumptions have impacts on institutionalization of human right norms and supporting human rights anywhere in the world including Iran. So what strategy would be applied by Iran against the process of universality of human rights? This is important since many scholars of International Relations and International Law believe that the universality of human rights is a bridge to security and development of countries. Putting this claim aside, we pose this key question that what is the optimal strategy of Iran against the process of universality of human rights? Our main hypothesis is that: since native/local culture as well as long-standing cultural, religious and national beliefs of every country about the subject of human rights, are relatively comprehensive and universal, the optimal strategy for Iran is to insist on cross cultural characteristics of the fundamental rules of human rights. To survey this issue and test this hypothesis, we will focus on the state of formation of human right conventions and Iran’s positions, cultural distinctions of Iran and various universalities, rights of reservation and special interpretations of human rights, theoretical and academic discussions over the universality of human rights, and finally cultural relativity and the impact of cross cultural strategy of fundamental rules of human rights on the conciliation between relativity and universality of human rights.
)