At another level, as references to human rights feature increasingly in the discourse of Western leaders, some fear that human rights are becoming instrumentalized, deployed as excuses for intervention by powerful countries in the

we can see that human rights cases are about more than interpreting the intention of the law-makers; they often involve choices about what sort of society we want.

We can see that rights can be instrumental to building a society that allows people the freedom to develop as autonomous individuals, while allowing participation based on equality in the community’s decision-making process.

the real seeds of the human rights movement: a feeling of sympathy for the distress of others, coupled with a sense of injustice when governments resort to measures which invade the perceived natural rights of the individual.

‘Man loses by the social contract his natural liberty, and an unlimited right to all which tempts him, and which he can obtain; in return he acquires civil liberty, and proprietorship of all he possess.’

The elevation of human rights to the international level after the Second World War has meant that behaviour can be judged, not only against what national law requires, but also against a standard which sits outside a national system. Every nation state is now subject to this scrutiny from outside.

The concept of a ‘human rights culture’ also means different things to different people. To some, it means ensuring that everyone is treated with respect for their inherent dignity and human worth. To others, it means that judges, the police, and immigration officials are required to protect the interests of terrorists, criminals, and migrants at the expense of the security of the population (see Figure 1).

Playing the ‘human rights card’ can be persuasive, sometimes even conclusive, in contemporary decision making; this is one aspect of what makes