The work of these practices would not fall narrowly into 'natural rights'. They fail to fit this category as they;

- are supposed to be pre-institutional, 

-they are naturally supposed to belong to people.

- the are supposed to be timeless

Pre-institutionalism firstly the modern practice test given examples such as right to free trial. This is a human right which has historically been advocated for and continues to be by Human Rights Organizations. If human rights were thought to not need institutions as this natural right would dictate then this would not be considered same as right to education. 

Once again Beitz draws on the Universal Doctrine to show how the second natural right characteristic wouldn't fit. Article 1 knowingly states that all are 'born free and equal in dignity and rights' and Article 2 that 'everyone is entitled to all the rights'. This makes them universal and natural law saying that it just belongs to people in virtue of there humanity would limit this. 

Finally in terms of timelessness. He states that the founders of the Doctrine wouldn't have imagine it would to Ancient Greeks or the Middle Ages. He finds level of modernizations are needed for the it to be applicable.

Combining these ideas, human rights are a basic requirement of global justice. They are conditions that societies ought to strive for. Given these two ideas, emphasizing them as an international concern under his proposal if a society fails to satisfy this should command the attention and resources of the international community. They should then become subject to international Interference. Alternatively if the failure was due to poor resources others should assist in forms such as international aid.


Key Issues:
One thing that may be found to turn people against this idea is security. Such as incases such as Haiti were military action is brought by multinational Institutions.

States may also fear for Sovereignty under this definition of Human Rights and there own diplomatic relations when asking action against another State.

Thirdly despite Beitz admiration for the broadness of ambition in the Universal declaration. The idea of interference can limit social and economic Rights. However it could also be argued that  Stats could fund projects economically encouraging International Development such as building schools to encourage governments to support the right to education.

He also notes that internal discourse is of great importance. This is due to the fact that powerful people can monopolize and manipulate the interpretation of cultural norms. However I believe it should be noted that those in such a position may not be in a great position to challenge such manipulation for many factors including fear and possibly safety in doing so. This therefore, would in my opinion prompt challenge in such his proposed international dialogue. In some countries representatives may not speak with the less privileged of there societies in mind. 

Sen finds it would be beneficial to use such an approach to prevent the overconcentration on means found in other theories of justice. Hence, it can help us see that someone with the same means like income doesn’t mean they have the same substantial opportunities. For example a person if someone with similar background income, to you has a disability they may face different challenges in seeking similar opportunities. Differences in capabilities function may also arise in a person with the same set of means in situations such as variation in non personal resources like healthcare or climate conditions like living in area with higher crime rates.

Sen finds further benefit in understanding freedom as rights. It is used to describe the extent to which a person is free to choose particular levels of functioning's. For example, one could refuse the opportunity to eat and go on hunger strike in a protest but this would differ from someone not having the resources to eat due to famine or poverty. He describes poverty as not having the capability to realize your potential as a human. This shows his support of a positive right as this would require state action to give money, food supports for those who don't have it. Therefore we see how this fits with the idea of interference. 

Although it is hard to find a coherent human rights regime in such a vastly large region of different places, what is evident is a large discontent with a thoroughly western interpretation of human rights.

The Vienna Conference 1996:
Kausikan talks about the difficulty of finding a dialogue between a dividing west and south.  One of which reaches for a 'unrealistic' idea of culturalism but giving the alternative of 'paralyzing' cultural relativism.  In order to prevent this he suggests an open dialogue between regions to expand a larger consensus then this reality. However they are failing to do so with evidence of the Vienna Convention. He critics the parties of it as the West accusing Asia of undermining universalism. He finds the results of the convention may only have worsened division and increased skepticism of Asian countries of western posturing of human rights.

"Unrealistic" and "Paralyzing"
The above paints quate a negative picture of relations regarding human rights. Although it suggests an open dialogue. It gives evidence of worsening relationships which would make one wonder is anything but agreements that are ambiguous possible to achieve. He shows both parties have unrealistic goals with the harsh quoted language. I would disagree with this and hope to find in the rest of this section that both there goals can be exchanged to a greater extent.


Agreeing to Disagree:
In dealing with the above seen divide of these regions Kausikan finds that the West will have to formulate human rights approaches with greater nuance and precision. There are areas were there is a clear consensus on international moral duty like in cases of genocide, torture and slavery or described 'core human rights'. But in other areas such as freedom of the press, detention without punishment it is said that it will be doing so in a less definitive area of international law with room for elaboration and debate. The West will need to respect there may be no general consensus on universalism and imposing ideas such as democracy may provoke destructive conflict. For this reason he believes the west needs to 'agree to disagree'. Hence his conclusion reflects the ideas of Tolerance.

Status played an important role in the interpretation of rights political movements in the last four centuries. Status was traditionally viewed as positions such as citizen or lord but began to also consider human status. We see Renaissance philosopher, Pico Della Mirandola ponder the importance of such consideration. Mirandola contemplates god's intention for man. He finds that god ‘left man to determine his own nature’. This is extracted from ‘dignity of man’ displaying thought to link dignity and freedom which later on became central themes of key Authors of the Enlightenment Rousseau and Kant. 

Griffin draws upon this historical content in order to find meaning and basis of Human Rights.