Abstract

I argue that the supposed universality of human rights is problematic. Difficulties inherent in the universality criterion--according to which human rights are necessarily, or by their very nature, universal--are responsible for much of the criticism of human rights found in academic journals as well as in political debates. Further, the universality criterion is inconsistent with the primary function of human rights as claims against governments. ;Although there is a benefit to the treatment of human rights as universal--namely, that it precludes certain illegitimate denials of human rights--this benefit can be retained even if the universality criterion is rejected. ;For these reasons I argue that the universality criterion should be rejected and human rights should be treated as non-universal claims against governments. Finally, I suggest a way that a satisfactory theory of human rights might be built on this treatment of human rights as claims against governments