In the past, states were complete sovereigns and could treat their subjects in any way they wanted. This makes the condition very dissimilar currently. Universality of human rights holds that without some universal accords regarding suitable behavior across social strata and between diverse communities, social life would not be achievable (Reichert 4).
According to Altes, human rights are privileges and autonomy that all humans should have. As initiators of the model declare, everyone is gifted with certain justifications simply because of being human. Human rights are therefore endowed in a democratic and Universalist style. Such privileges can exist as defensible ethical standards as normal rights held up by sturdy reasons, as collective standards of definite human principles or as authorized rights either at a national level or in international law. There is no consent however as to the exact form of what in particular should or should not be considered as a human right in any of the foregoing sanity (5).
Human rights can also be described as rights intrinsic to every human being, whatever their place of dwelling, nationality, sex, colour, language, national or ethnic origin, religion, or any other category. It is alleged that we are all evenly permitted to our human rights devoid of favoritism law, in the forms of habitual global law, universal values, treaties, and other sources of international law regularly certify and express communal human rights. Global human rights law lays down responsibilities of Governments to react in certain ways or to desist from certain acts, in order to endorse and defend human rights and basic freedoms of persons or groups (Scholler 6).
Heard argues that human rights are nearly a type of belief in the present world. They are the grand moral benchmark used to gauge a government’s treatment of its citizens. An extensive accord has emerged in the