I'll share an insightful comment I found on reddit
"Ohhh I can help you with this one. Just concluded teaching this semester's course on Human Rights Education at my university.
One of the first things you'll want to read is Dembour's (2010) article on four schools of thought re: HR ontology. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/hurq32&div=4&g_sent=1&casa_token=FCkqn7b8cVsAAAAA:3a1_i8KUyS4f2sDr68R719UNMNx7kO4Gg5n9fsABOuO-KKHPBzfyVgnRD6WjLE0oNNaSkKLq8Oqi
I'll start short and you can ask more questions if you like.
As all things, it is a significant debate.
Dembour argues virtually arguments take one of 4 approaches to the existence of human rights.
1.A natural approach (that rights have always existed edit: and do so simply as a fact of nature)
2.the deliberative approach (that rights exist because people/polities agree that they exist)
3.the protest approach (that rights don't exist until they are fought for and won)
4.the discourse approach (that rights don't really exist but rights language is a powerful avenue through which to make political claims)
Sally Merry is also another author who you may want to read on this issue.
Long story sorta short:
Many - like the UN - claim that universal rights exist.
Almost all recognize that, even if they do exist, they are 'worked out' or interpreted differently across the globe.
The rub sort of lies in the question: at what point does promulgating/protecting/enforcing a certain conception of what constitutes a Human Right actually begin to infringe on the human rights of others' agency to articulate/enact human rights as free people?
By and large, anthropologists and sociologists will likely ascribe to the 3) protest and 4) discourse approaches (yes, 4 is by far the most skeptical of HR).
Political scientists and IR people will likely follow thinkers like Habermas down the 2nd alley.
Actual legislators and activists are probably most likely to use the first approach."
I'll share an insightful comment I found on reddit
"Ohhh I can help you with this one. Just concluded teaching this semester's course on Human Rights Education at my university.
One of the first things you'll want to read is Dembour's (2010) article on four schools of thought re: HR ontology. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/hurq32&div=4&g_sent=1&casa_token=FCkqn7b8cVsAAAAA:3a1_i8KUyS4f2sDr68R719UNMNx7kO4Gg5n9fsABOuO-KKHPBzfyVgnRD6WjLE0oNNaSkKLq8Oqi
I'll start short and you can ask more questions if you like.
As all things, it is a significant debate.
Dembour argues virtually arguments take one of 4 approaches to the existence of human rights.
Sally Merry is also another author who you may want to read on this issue.
Long story sorta short:
Many - like the UN - claim that universal rights exist.
Almost all recognize that, even if they do exist, they are 'worked out' or interpreted differently across the globe.
The rub sort of lies in the question: at what point does promulgating/protecting/enforcing a certain conception of what constitutes a Human Right actually begin to infringe on the human rights of others' agency to articulate/enact human rights as free people?
By and large, anthropologists and sociologists will likely ascribe to the 3) protest and 4) discourse approaches (yes, 4 is by far the most skeptical of HR).
Political scientists and IR people will likely follow thinkers like Habermas down the 2nd alley.
Actual legislators and activists are probably most likely to use the first approach."