Human rights are merely social constructs that we've invented. We could all be wiped out in the course of a few years if a plague or asteroid were to strike us. Where are our rights in that?
It occurs to me that natural laws and natural phenomenon are only the things that we cannot reverse or violate. Because human rights can be violated, they are not apart of natural laws or natural phenomena, but are instead standards that we set for ourselves within our societies. Like all things that are socially constructed and not apart of our natural law, people violate or obey them according to their present condition and brain type with only social consequences for their actions, behaviors and perceptions. This is similar to how religious laws work: they're not extent in the natural world, people violate or obey them as they naturally will, according to their condition and brain type and have faced no other consequences other than what we can give them in this lifetime and in this present existence.
It's also important to recognize that human rights are cultural and are, at present, primarily rooted in Western European ideologies which have been transmitted and exacerbated in the United States. This is how Vladimir Putin was able to "violate" our notions of human rights and yet still be massively popular in Russian society, or how other leaders who we think violate natural law are actually able to get along reasonably well with their citizenry and remain in power for quite some time with relative popularity.
This being said, it seems that each culture has a notion of what is significant to their well being and to preserving their cultural identity and general way of life. Each society defines the Social Contract between leaders and followers, and amongst peers differently. Sometimes it changes. But these incidents are very very very rare in history, and it frequently comes with a fusion of the old ways and the new ways; never a total eclipse of the old ways. That's why Christians in Europe have Christmas trees (from a Germanic Pagan ritual during the winter solstice) or Tibetans retain an, albeit redefined, Bon pantheon as apart of their Buddhism. It would, I think, be better to simply respect the diversity of thought and perspective in the world, rather than to deny all groups in favor of one or a select few from one.
However, we have many people who don't think or feel in this fashion. They cannot accept diversity or a plurality of differences in their world, and so, they seek to impose one value system over another, regardless of its compatibility with the other. Liberals and conservatives alike are guilty of this arrogance in the West, and our cultural scions in other cultures are not necessarily the best able, or most competent, or most benevolent of leaders with their people. Hell, it's not like we're all that great at following through on our own cultural values here in the West anyway.
Therefore, I think in terms of defining and fighting for human rights, it would be better for us to work on our own practice rather than worrying about how or what other people are doing. I think it would require a certain degree of mutual respect and a shutting out of people from power who will not give this basic level of respect to others who are unlike them. From there, open, honest and two-way dialogue would be needed in order to smooth out the misunderstandings, misperceptions and ignorance that pervades the common cultural dialogues. Each society must accept the various view points and sentiments of their own respective societies. Even if the more conservative members are edged out of holding power, consequence and authority within the society in question, they must still be listened to at the very least in order to get the full perspective of what's happening within your own society as well as within the other side's society. It's a question of accepting and listening to all viewpoints and sides, to get the totality of the reality that is around you. From there, you can be able to work accurately and effectively with the world, better than if you were only listening to your own noise and message.
Think about it.
Because these are key failings in American and Western European diplomacy. There's no consideration for the other side, no consideration for the other side's public and no observation of the actual total and unflattering narrative of the situation. There's only paying attention to Western perspectives, only paying attention to Western interests without really even considering their own general populations, let alone, the general populations of other societies.
I'm called arrogant for being young and speaking what is the actual truth. But these "leaders" and demi leaders of the West are the most arrogant people of all for thinking that they're the only game in town, and that their side is the only one that's actually desired by everyone, or anyone.
Think about it.