The ambiguity of the term human rights has taken on interpretations that do not often coincide with the rule of law. But it is precisely this conflict of interests that sets human rights apart from the conventional understanding of the rule of law. The strength of human rights lies in the rhetorical ambiguity of its definition. We speak of human rights in ubiquitous terms no matter where we live.
In other words, a political dissident in an authoritarian society may demand the freedom to exercise her activities but not without breaching an established law. The dissent has based her convictions on a moral imperative, a higher international law or body that undermines the country’s legal position.
Human rights are a subcategory of law with a set of conditions that extend beyond borders. These conditions are in themselves not entirely clear. For instance, ”the right to life” commonly referred to in human rights is unable to define if life starts immediately upon conception or thereafter. This ambiguity and open interpretation allows for a wide array of debate because it is based on morality.
But therein lays another problem. Nation-states have borders and wish to define the terms of human rights in ways that do not infringe upon conventional laws and rules. Morality has little basis in conventional law. At some extremes, the lack of morality flies in the face of common sense. Rich US bankers getting huge paychecks after having caused the global financial crisis comes to mind. Or UK asylum seekers forced to live off 1$ a day is another.
Check out the story of rejected UK asylum seekers forced to live in horrendous conditions here: Britain\’s shadow people
