ARE HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL DE JURE BUT SELECTIVE DE FACTO?

The United Nations define human rights as “rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status.” Among many, they include freedom of opinion and expression, freedom from slavery and right to education and work. International human rights law establishes the responsibilities of governments to take specific actions to enforce these standards, allowing for the advancement and safeguarding of humanity regardless of sociodemographic characteristics. However, the genuine implementation of these principles is unevenly distributed between the countries of the world, with a handful of governments falling short of their execution. This is where the gap between de jure (actual laws) and de facto (reality in practice) emerges. The uneven landscape of international women’s rights clearly illustrates this gap. Although they are universally recognised in law, they are inconsistently applied, exposing the selective nature of human rights enforcement. 

Women’s rights are broadly acknowledged in international law, demonstrating their official universality. Agreements like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) ensure legal equality , while the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW, 1979) — ratified by 189 countries — requires nations to uphold women's rights in education, work, and political involvement. Afghanistan, for example, has signed these treaties, indicating that legally, women possess the same rights and protections as men. In theory, this illustrates that women's rights are officially acknowledged globally, showcasing the universal nature of human rights in principle — de jure. 

Although these legal safeguards exist, the rights of women are frequently not upheld in reality, underscoring their discretionary enforcement in practice. In Afghanistan, for instance, many women encounter significant limitations on education, work opportunities, and mobility, especially under the governance of entities that impose rigid social and cultural standards. Girls often face restrictions on continuing their education after a specific age, women are often shut out from various jobs, and traveling is significantly limited without a male guardian. Gender-based violence is prevalent, and the justice system frequently does not ensure that offenders are held responsible, leaving women without effective legal safeguards. This clear disparity between legal recognition and actual experience shows that, although human rights are universal in theory, they are often enforced inconsistently, with real access to these rights reliant on political influence, societal norms, and governmental priorities. 

In summary, although women's rights are officially acknowledged in international law, their practical implementation frequently lags behind, highlighting the disparity between legal universality and actual selectivity. Legal instruments like the UDHR and CEDAW ensure women's equality and protection, but in reality, social, political, and cultural obstacles hinder many women — especially in nations like Afghanistan — from completely enjoying these rights. This disparity emphasizes that human rights, while universally applicable in theory, often depend on context, enforcement mechanisms, and governmental priorities. Until systems are established to guarantee that legal recognition leads to uniform protection and opportunities for everyone, human rights will continue to be an aspiration that is not consistently mirrored in real-life contexts.

​

​

​