Talking about human rights is nowadays an effective way of advocating for social justice globally. However, what are human rights? What do they do? Drawing on anthropological studies of human rights from around the globe, the novel analyzes human rights in training. It demonstrates how groups and organizations gather human rights language in a variety of local contexts, much differently from those thought by human rights forces themselves. These case studies expose the contradictions and ambiguities of human rights approaches to different kinds of aggression. They reveal that openness is not the failure of universal human rights as a rational-legal or moral framework but an essential component in the process of life and essential minds of human rights in context.
Examining human rights in preparation means analyzing the channels of communication and organization structures that mediate between world themes and local places. This is appropriate for usage in inter- disciplinary classes globally.
Human rights practices have become a remarkably significant political force in a relatively short period. Increasingly, it is the dominant language of “contestation” of political structures and of formulating entitlement claims to different forms of institutional treatment. In this respect, human rights have not necessarily given rise to new kinds of political concerns than those addressed by claims of citizenship rights. This more explicitly links conventional kinds of normative claims and expectations in political associations to the universal language of the equal moral standing of humanity.
An ideological perspective of human rights is that treating human rights as clearly political, Which stands in comparison to the forward movement of theorizing at which human rights were treated as the euphemism for the older purpose of physical rights. Natural rights are rights that are taken by people at all periods and situations, and primary concern interests of personhood that are balanced across various political circumstances.
The point that the content of human rights has been broadly described should not be used to mean that everyone equally accepts the three generations of rights. Nor should widespread acceptance of the idea of human rights suggest that their generations or their separate elements have been received with equal urgency. The continuing debate about the nature and content of human rights reflects, after all, a struggle for power and supported conceptions of the “good society.”
The idea of natural rights, forebear to the modern concept of human rights, played a significant part in the new 18th- and early 19th-century battles against governmental absolutism. It was, Indeed, the failure of rules to accept the principles of liberty and equality that was in charge of the process.
Human rights are not necessarily a matter of individual interest but rather an issue of social justice. Human rights are fundamental to the development of society and are essential to the functioning of our societies. The question is whether human rights can be understood as universal, unchanging, and inviolable.
“Freedom and independence is my character”
– Mustafa Kemal Atatürk