This paper examines work by three scholars who have recently subjected the intellectual framework of human rights to critical scrutiny. For one, the central problem is that the universality of human rights is too readily presumed. For another, it is that the relative novelty of human rights is not properly appreciated.
For yet another, it is that human rights are treated as somehow beyond politics, as opposed to being a politics in themselves. What are we to make of these claims? Where do they lead us in policy terms? How does each stand with respect to the core practical objective of putting abuses of human rights to an end?
Source: Social Science Research Network