In discussing against economic...

In discussing against economic, social and cultural rights, they regard a distinction between negative rights (only demanding clemency and forgiveness) and positive rights (requiring the concerted efforts of all social forces to substantial degree on a planetary scale). The violation of negative rights involves active injuries and the violation of positive rights only involves earning support.

For instance, the protection of torture frequently said to be negative (because, the State should abstain from torturing people) has indeed a positive character. In many countries, the abstention from torturing people requires fundamental changes in laws, the administrative policy and the personnel. Many civil and political rights are not manifestly negative.

Suffrage is a positive right: unemployment or the lack of medical welfare is regarded as a threat to security of person and the dignity of man.[^5] The obvious point is the flagrant difference lying in the observance of negative and positive rights between the nations.

Although the International Bill of Human Rights (approved by most countries) places stress on the observance of social, economic and cultural rights, the poverty and deprivation of millions of people throughout the globe is an undeniable fact. Are human rights a national or international issue? How should we strive to abide by it?

Donnelly expreses the own-state duty which suggests that since the international system is made of nation-state, the duty of observing human rights is binding on the countries which should ensure and respect the rights of their citizens.[^6] On the contrary, Vincent suggests the idea of other state duty , contending that the duty of observing socio-economic rights is binding not on the nation-countries and the international community has responsibilities in this regard.[^7] The point introduced is the universality of human rights.

Do the cultural differences among people mean that the concept of the universality of human rights lacks validity? Are they really used to advocate a dominant imperialistic ideology? Are human rights a Western construct with limited applicability as they claim?[^8] Are human rights universal because of its concern for all men! Do they keep concealed the universal domination of a certain culture (the imperialistic culture of Western countries)?