{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014122759369907659, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0021727322107550242, 'mean_word_length': 5.202020202020202, '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}}
Human Rights: A Common Standard of Achievement?

Human rights are nowadays closely intertwined with international politics. Grave international problems such as the situation in the Middle East, southern Africa, Central America and China are closely linked to violations of human rights. Human rights are meant to serve as a standard with which the behaviour of governments towards their own citizens and others can be judged, All governments tend to pay some measure of lipservice to human rights. They are reluctant to publicly admit a transgression of internationally determined human rights norms. They tend to commit such transgressions preferably in secret and want to be seen as actors that respect human rights. This opens at least the possibilityof a dialogue about the meaning of human rights. To what extent can the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, be seen as the "common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations", as it is called in its preamble? For many years there existed wide differences of interpretation with regard to the norms listed in the Declaration. These differences of interpretation existed in the first place between the westerndemocratic and the communist States (which had abstained on the vote on the Universal Declaration). This referred roughly to a greater emphasis by Western European and North American governments on individual rights versus more emphasis by the Eastern Europeans on collective rights. Closely linked to this was a difference of emphasis on civil and political rights versus more emphasis on economic and social rights. Finally, Western European States put more stress on the need for international supervision, while the socialist States maintained the traditional emphasis on the maintenance of national sovereignty.