International Human Rights as a concept, furthermore, as a good concept is not an agenda any sane person could dispute. Why then, are we inundated with human rights violations on a daily basis? What is the problem here? This is the question that plagues human rights discussion, and this is the question that many have addressed. Obviously, as I stated, the concept is sound, and most states agree in the form of signing UN declarations and covenants aimed at stopping human rights violations. Violations still occur, and people still suffer.
             This gap between theory and practice is the most prominent deficiency in the effectiveness of the human rights agenda. Multiple variables, such as lack of enforcement mechanisms, lack of a state, issues of nationalism and sovereignty, and even contradictions within the human rights agenda can account for this gap. As one can see, the international human rights issue is fraught with conflict.
             Many theories attempt to explain human rights as well as attempt to remedy the problems faced by international human rights. Some of these theories will be discussed in more detail later. I do not believe humanity should be complacent or apathetic towards human rights issues. Nor do I believe western society should overstep certain fixed cultural boundaries. The problem I address in this essay deals with human rights theories themselves. This is not an attempt to solve the ultimate problem, that problem being the continuing trends of human rights violations, but merely an evaluation and analysis of a few human rights theories and a proposal or theory for the selective integration of certain concepts from each.
             First I'd like to explain why I decided to address the problems associated with the different human rights theories instead of taking on the bigger issues associated with actual human rights violations. As many of our authors have pointed out, international human rights are relatively...