Human rights are often seen as one of the success stories in the field of international law and

international relations. When the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted, it
was by and large seen as a self-evident framework for managing the relationship between
state, individuals (and communities), the core goal of the Declaration being the wish to
express what ‘human dignity’ is all about. Nowadays though, many political systems around
the world are – either still or again − presenting a different view of human rights, including
setting totally different priorities in the broad field covered these days by the term ‘human
rights’. The article contains of four warnings concerning the supposed universality of human
rights:

1. The sheer numbers of UN human rights conventions and other human rights instruments,
adopted since 1948, are as such not decisive to state that the human rights are universally
applicable; 2. universality is not uniformity – within the frameworks set states have space to
‘do it their own way’; in addition, the (quasi-) legal input of states in a variety of debates is
often not as clear cut and convincing as it looks at first sight; 3. many states are urged to
accept human rights terminology (‘standards’) but are not willing to accept external control
and criticism by external bodies or independent experts; 4. there are frictions between
international legal obligations and national (constitutional) legal characteristics of states.

With these four warnings in mind, the article addresses ‘the way forward’: one should aim for
a process-like approach. The buzzword should be ‘universalisation’ rather than ‘universality’.
In addition, a bottom-up approach is needed to confront those who are politically and legally
responsible for upholding human rights with their obligations and to show them a way
forward. Doing so, perceptions of local communities are discussed as well, as cultural
exceptions are mainly voiced by local communities as opposed to states that have ratified
human rights instruments. Civil society organisations can play an important role in
communicating these local perceptions and in contextualising some of these international
human rights norms.

Keywords: Universality human rights, univerzalization human rights, sovereignty, cultural

relativism, bottom-up, multidisciplinarity

"Today, the universality of human rights has become a reality, not in the sense that they are now
universally recognized and respected, but in the sense that the claim of human rights has spread to
the whole planet." says Daniele Lochak, a law professor who specializes in human rights. Daniele
Lochak is a member of the ILHR (International League of Human Rights) and gives us a convincing
theory: although they always had a universal - at least on a philosophical level - it is only very recently
that human rights have acquired such an importance globally.Before developing on this theme, we
should make our views more intelligible by defining some key concepts.

The term of ?Human Rights? which is central term to this paper may adopt multiple meanings.
According to Gerard Cornu "Human rights as such, are inherent to humans (male or female) of all
faculties and prerogatives and are considered to belong naturally to every human being with Public
Law. Constitutions require the State to provide respect and protection in accordance with certain
instruments of universal scope.

It is here that the "positive law of human rights", whose aim is to be applied and secured by
institutional arrangements, and belongs to the focal area of the jurist.? But as stated by Frédéric
Sudre, there are two more levels of analysis of human rights, the "ethics of human rights", that is to
say their purely philosophical and moral sides that are unobscured by the drafters of the Declaration
of Human Rights and Citizen of 1789, and the diplomacy of human rights ", i.e the practice of their
political ideology at both national and international levels by political parties, media or humanitarian
associations. This is also known as the politicization of human rights. We must therefore consider this
concept as a whole.

It seems important to stress on the existence of different generations of human rights. The first, was
championed by the constituents of 1791 (the first to incorporate the principles of the DDHC in positive
law) is that which includes the rights and freedoms of man, who is no longer perceived as a single
component of society, but rather as a truly independent individual in a society where human beings
are interdependent and equal. These include the right to freedom of expression and the right to
respect for privacy.

The second generation rights, refer to the collective rights of man. After the Third Republic, one
begins to perceive the shortcomings of overly liberal human rights, that envisages personal protection
and general rights. The the economic and social rights, focusing this time on groups as well as
specific categories of people with accordance to the their social context will emerge. While the first
generation of rights was to restrict the maximum share of the State to guarantee the autonomy of the
individual, the second calls for the intervention by establishing a public service . The implementation
of Rights such as the Right to strike or the Right to health didn't come into force until the end of the
Second World War.