This document discusses the relationship between human rights and the theory of liberalism. It provides a liberal critique of how modern human rights have derived from earlier liberal views on individual dignity and freedom. The document argues that while human rights aim to protect individuals, modern approaches view rights holders as needing protection rather than as autonomous individuals seeking their own freedoms. It also discusses how nationalism has affected liberal ideas of human rights. In conclusion, the document states that while the goal of human rights is just, the modern ideology and justification of rights is problematic and fails to adequately explain why well-intentioned people should respect human rights.

1. Human Rights relate with theory of Liberalism
Muhammad Shakeel
“A RIGHT DELAYED IS A RIGHT DENIED”
Resource Person: Dr. Usman Askari May 23,2021

2. INTRODUCTION
My Presentation provides a liberal critique of ancient trends in modern human rights. Contrary to
popular belief that human rights parenting comes from hiding false excuses, cultural norms, or
gender inequality, I criticize what I see as a modern human rights approach to human rights. First,
the ideology does not see the person in charge of rights as a person who wants them, but as a
person in need who has a vested interest. The focus of this debate is not whether human rights in
general are based on false alliances or tend to violate the claim of freedom and equality, but rather
on creating the newer, but more important right. There is something wrong with me. Holder. This
analysis amounts to a strong criticism of human rights, which is common today, but, unlike these
libertarians, I want to show why a free man has a superior view of human rights. In the first two
parts of this article, I analyze the ownership of rights and explain the general concept of freedom.
In the third section, I analyze how modern rights have derived from earlier liberal views on the
dignity of rights holders. Fourth, I discuss the effects of nationalism on the idea that liberals
should be concerned. In the Article, I write about how Palestine is affected by Israel and how
Israel is violating human rights.

3. Universal Declaration Of Human Rights
The document adopted by the UN General Assembly for Human Rights in 1948. That is why the whole world
celebrates Human Rights Day on December 10, 1948. It is also known as Resolution 217. It was signed in
Paris and France, with 30 different articles. 1948 marks the 300th anniversary of the Treaty of Westphalia.
They cannot do anything in their own country, in their own internal affairs, without following the principles of
human rights. At the time, the monarchy was in place and international politics was challenging as usual. That
is why the United Nations convened two important international conventions in 1966, the first was the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the second the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights. His first attempt was to legalize human rights. When these two important
international conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights come together, it is called the
International Declaration of Rights. Speaking of Generation Age, we are divided into three generations. The
first generation in the 18th and 19th centuries, the central theme of this generation was Freedom. This
generation includes life, liberty and property, non-discrimination, freedom from illegal detention, and freedom
of thought. Regarding second generation work, social security, health, education and vacations. So these were
economic, social and cultural rights, basically, we could say that it was equality for all. The third generation
was all together, their main theme was brotherhood. It was embodied in commitment, peace, development and
the protection of the environment.

4. Violation of Human rights
❖ Face unfair trial in at least 54 countries
❖ Tortured or abused in at least 81 countries
❖ Restricted in their freedom for expression in at least 77 countries

5. Theory (Liberalism)
This is not the great benefit of granting modern human rights over past
freedoms, as many have claimed, it was a global surprise at first, but then it
became commonplace. Instead, liberals have broken promises about a state that
has long served as their most common foreign policy: the export of labor, the
subsequent rule of human rights. But they do not have the proper plans and
institutions to change the imperialism that they have adopted. In other words,
the problem is that human rights defenders do not have a system of comparative
ambition, instead using a narrow approach to political and social rights. Before
the mid-20th century, no liberal movement would have agreed with this
repression and denial, when the two sources of dictatorship and instability were
found in the context of a terrible symbol, "freedom from fear." He stood firm.

6. Why Liberalism Divides Human Rights
Liberalism, like all cultures, is a myth. Duncan Bell recently pointed out that there is no basic
education in the history of "liberalism", but many philosophers have tried to find it.
And if so, it's best to write about a new and controversial racist notion that permanently changes
your past and undermines your current commitments. From this understanding, a human rights
historian can see that the realm of his ideology has never been reformed within the changing cycle
of liberal values. And it is wrong to think that once the role of fundamental rights is established,
perhaps through John Locke, coloring is used for our future.
It is not a mistake to think that Locke defended liberalism in the first place, when in fact it was in
the 19th century and a very fundamental change in the 20th century. It is not necessary to reduce
the number of newcomers, which is necessary to gain a prominent place in international affairs
today.

7. CONCLUSION
As far as I'm concerned Human Rights have not been provided anywhere in the world at this time. As for the rest I
don't think these liberals have succeeded in bringing about human rights so far. There is a contradiction between the
concept of human rights and the concept of moral pluralism in modern philosophy. If, as a privacy policy, interests
are imposed on rights and interests are set at somewhat varied prices, the rights are subject to reasonable
discretionary changes. Fundamental principles of human rights. However, the fundamentals of human rights cannot
go beyond all means of competition. is not sufficient. Knowing that we support human rights. We need to know why
we are doing this, we need strong resources for high quality.
However, as a modern child, the real reason is that human rights today face such a crisis of ideology.
As in modern times, human rights go further. As mentioned above, the concept of human rights put forward by
authors like Freeman ultimately does not explain why well-intentioned people should be accepted. Modern human
rights, paradoxically, are silenced by the fact that they are ultimately good, because that is the modern way they try to
justify themselves (Taylor, 1989).
In the early 21st century, interacting with human rights organizations was a very rare test of beliefs and issues with a
high-profile figure. Its appearance is a long history, dating back to the ancient Greeks and Romans, who incorporated
the themes of Christianity both in the development of the modern empire and in modern thought. However, it is often
called a question of disrespect, because it does not have the conditions to allow us to make our universal affirmations
everywhere, everywhere and in an understandable way. An urgent, inexperienced and unreasonable need. The
universal "everywhere, everywhere" is the result of Enlightenment fundamentalism that sheds light on the kind of
human rights agenda that I am discussing elsewhere (2001).

8. FOR ANY QUERY
msnoon420@gmail.com.pk