The Pros And Cons Of The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights

“Rights” exist as a contingent guarantee bestowed by a superior entity upon its affiliated constituent populace which has the potentiality to be retracted immediately upon the failure of the recipient to reciprocate or maintain the requisite requirements for the perpetuation of their rights. To posit that an individual possesses universal, absolute, and inviolable access to the rights prescribed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is myopic, due to antecedently displayed evidence of such rights being retracted, or nonexistent in application, as a result of concurrent factors. An individual’s access to human rights is dependent in their entirety upon the recognition of said rights by their superlative entity, the polity in which they exist within. If such a statement is correct, that ‘universal rights’ are subordinate to regional legal propensities, an individual’s ‘right to healthcare’ is not an inquest of universal status but relative to their socio-political situation within their relevant nation. To counteract objections to the postulation that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which in itself is intended to transcend state limitations, is subject to the state I

Establishing the primacy of the state over a universal declaration of supposed guarantees, in addition to recognizing the lack of feasibility in relation to ‘natural rights’, also responds adequately to those who vehemently proclaim that it is an affront to justice that penurious individuals to not possess access to healthcare ; it demonstrates that such ‘rights’ are absolutely contingent upon the capacity and desire of the state to provide