Contrast of Human Rights

In Andrew Vincent’s, “The Politics of Human Rights,” we are shown the politics involved in understanding the qualities of human rights. In Vincent’s perspective human rights can be understood through the realm of politics. Assertions and understandings made in politics give ground way to the public maintaining and the ordering of the norms of that society. In term, human rights is controlled and perceived through politics. Although politics deems what are human rights, it’s also its biggest culprit. As Vincent says, “when it comes to human rights the state is the police and the criminal at the same time…” What Vincent identifies is the paradox of human rights, in which the view in what you take represents your human rights perceptive. I agree with Vincent’s arguments, the point of view of human rights is controlled by politics, and is also its main opponent, through the state reflective syndrome, state policy agenda, and the courts of human rights and civil states. Skeptical responses to the increasing variety of human rights claims have given rise to less ‘moral’ and more ‘political’ approaches to the philosophy of human rights. These political approaches focus on the current practice of human rights, and reject ‘traditional’ theories, which seek to conceptualize human rights without sufficient reference to their current political functions. Politics is taken to refer to the acknowledgement of a plurality of interests, competitiveness over resources, and underlying uncertainty, which result from human association in any larger aggregations” (236). Vincent believes there are minimal connections with natural rights and human rights, that most of human rights have a strong correlation with politics. The political approach is to render it more inclusive of human rights morality and more interactive with respect to the relationship between