Whose rights are human rights?

For many years, human rights were presented as the conscience of the modern world. A universal moral barrier against wars, oppression, and arbitrary power… However, when we look at the picture today, stretching from Ukraine to Gaza, from Syria to Iran, and from Venezuela to Africa, it is impossible not to ask the following question:

Are human rights still a universal principle, or have they become a political tool in the hands of great powers?

In the Human Rights course I teach at the university, I often ask my students this:

If human rights are applied according to power balances, are they still human rights?

THE DIVISION OF RIGHTS: THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM

The roots of today's crisis are not new. During the Cold War years, the world was divided not only militarily and ideologically but also in terms of the understanding of rights. While the West prioritized civil and political rights such as freedom of expression, political participation, and property, the Eastern Bloc defended social rights such as labor, housing, health, and education.

This distinction was formalized in 1966 with two separate international covenants. For the first time, human rights were stripped of being a single, integrated moral framework. Rights were divided, and the claim of universality remained in the shadow of ideological polarization.

What followed was predictable hypocrisy. While the US criticized the Soviets over freedoms, it supported dictatorships in Latin America. While the Soviets boasted about social rights, they suppressed political opposition. Human rights were no longer a moral boundary, but a discourse of soft power.

THE COLD WAR ENDED, THE DOUBLE STANDARDS DID NOT

When the Cold War ended, many thought that human rights would finally find a universal ground. Yet, the opposite happened. In a unipolar world, human rights became the language of intervention.

From the 1990s onwards, military operations were legitimized not with the discourse of "national interest," but with the concepts of "humanitarian intervention" and "human dignity." This approach was institutionalized in 2005 with the "responsibility to protect" doctrine.

On paper, it sounded good: If states could not protect their people, the international community would step in. But the fundamental questions remained unanswered:

Who would decide?

Who would be intervened against?

Would this principle be applied equally to everyone?

RIGHTS SPOKE, POWER DECIDED

In practice, the answer was clear. In Kosovo, law was suspended. In Iraq, an invasion was carried out on false pretenses.

In Libya, an intervention launched under the pretext of protecting civilians caused the state to collapse.

Every time, human rights were invoked; but power and interest made the decisions.

The principle of sovereignty became invalid for weak states. Sovereignty was now a conditional privilege granted only as long as one complied with the "correct" understanding of human rights defined by the West. While the Global South became open to interventions, powerful states remained outside the same oversight.

TODAY: THE NORMALIZATION OF LAWLESSNESS

At the point we have reached today, the picture is even darker. While civilians die in Ukraine, Gaza, and Syria, international law is being suspended. While sanctions impoverish millions, "human dignity" is cited as the justification. Lawlessness is becoming permanent under the name of "extraordinary circumstances."

Moreover, this erosion is not only on a global scale. The European human rights regime is also experiencing a serious regression. Security discourse is becoming increasingly dominant in refugee policies, freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial. Law operates more with a reflex of crisis management than with universal principles.

THE REAL PROBLEM: THE LOSS OF MEANING OF RIGHTS

Perhaps the real question is not "are human rights being violated?"

The real question is this:

Have human rights ceased to be a norm that limits power and turned into the language of power itself?

If the law only binds the weak, if human dignity has become a justification for bombs and sanctions, if universality is suspended according to power balances…

Then there is not a human rights crisis, but a loss of meaning of human rights.

FINAL WORD: WE MUST RETHINK

The way to save human rights is not to sanctify them, but to question them again. There is a need for a critical line that will take rights out of imperial discourse and think of law independently of power.

Perhaps the most accurate question today is this:

Who is speaking, in whose name, and with what power?

Unless this question is asked, human rights will not produce justice; they will only continue to legitimize new forms of domination.