{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027540360873694207, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0014245014245014246, 'mean_word_length': 5.252225519287834, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Which Rights are Universal?

EVAN CHARNEY HELPFULLY DEFINES THE TERM universal human rights. Human rights are held by individuals. They protect individuals against the actions of other individuals and/or collectivities (including political and economic organizations). They are egalitarian because they are held equally by all individuals. They are universal because they apply in all cultural contexts. Finally, human rights are fundamental, meaning that they override other political goods in cases of conflict (barring exceptional circumstances). Most people, I suspect, can endorse this definition of universal human rights. The controversial part, however, is to specify the content of universal human rights. Which rights are fundamental, universally valid human rights, and which ones are locally valid, 'peripheral' rights? Charney argues that he can identify the content of universal human rights by "transcending cultural particularity." According to Charney, "the basic principles of a liberaldemocratic regime" are universal human rights. More precisely, he refers to democracy and civil rights-in other words, American-style civil and political liberties. He does not explicitly say how he has arrived at this conclusion, but he seems to appeal to two arguments. First, Charney suggests that liberal-democratic rights are universal because they are contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). But are the rights set forth in the UDHR truly universal? It is a common complaint in the non-Western world that 'international' human rights instruments have been shaped largely by the values and aspirations of Western liberal societies and that they have not yet adequately incorporated nonWestern views. Rather than develop this argument, however, let me point out that the UDHR also runs counter to the mainstream ideas about fundamental human rights in the United States, meaning those expressed in the U.S. Constitution. It is quite peculiar that Charney limits his discussion to articles 1 to 21 of the UDHR. These articles uphold civil and political rights, but he fails to