Q:Lets start by sharing our understanding of how Human Rights are defined as a starting point
Here is one very good summary from http://www.iep.utm.edu/hum-rts/
The moral doctrine of human rights aims at identifying the fundamental prerequisites for each human being leading a minimally good life. Human rights aim to identify both the necessary negative and positive prerequisites for leading a minimally good life, such as rights against torture and rights to health care. This aspiration has been enshrined in various declarations and legal conventions issued during the past fifty years, initiated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and perpetuated by, most importantly, the European Convention on Human Rights (1954) and the International Covenant on Civil and Economic Rights (1966). Together these three documents form the centrepiece of a moral doctrine that many consider to be capable of providing the contemporary geo-political order with what amounts to an international bill of rights.
Q: What is a justification for or against human rights?
Some arguments for:
The universality of human rights is grounded in what are considered to be some basic, indispensable, attributes for human well-being, which all of us are deemed necessarily to share.
The justification is fundamental respect for the unique human capacity for rationally purposive agency.
Some arguments against:
Western Cultural Imperialism:
Nice way to impose Western Values on the rest of world with the smoke screen of universalism..
Human Rights are a fiction
Philosopher Alastair Macintyre argues Human Rights is just a fiction and he worries that these rights can be as extreme as the rights proclaimed in the Enlightenment which resulted in a number of people loosing their heads. His basic thesis is that public norms flow from a shared conception of the public good and that human rights appear as a disembodied 'rational' principle not integrated into the public fabric.
Some current frontiers in Human Rights
Q:Is Health care a Human Right ?
Some state based movements in the US are using this argument for a single payer system. See in Maryland https://org.salsalabs.com/o/307/p/salsa/donation/common/public/?donate_page_KEY=5851
Note Vermont is actually implementing a single payer system in 2017.
Here is an article that argues against healthcare as a human right arguing narrowly that human rights are 'natural rights' and only endow a negative obligation. But what about education ?
Q:Is equal opportunity for LGBT lifestyle a human right ?
Witness Russia, Iran, Uganda , ... Here is a recent anti-gay law passed in Uganda .
If one is an ethical relativist perhaps this law is reasonable ?
Q: Is excessive wealth inequality a violation of political human rights ?
One could argue that if there is excessive wealth inequality then those with this wealth will intrinsically have too much influence on the political process in terms of media control and direct access to political leaders, that the rest do not get fair representation in the political process.
Some actually argue this is fair, because those with excessive wealth have earned this wealth, and it is rational that people should have influence proportionate to their value. Should a homeless man have the same value to the political process compared to say Warren Buffet ? . This is the argument for Philosopher Kings with Swiss Bank Accounts.