Human rights as a principle is always positive. They should be the basis for evaluating any regime, aid program, etc. 

However, negatives can arise when human rights are written down as laws, as they are almost impossible to police and there can be very blurry edges when defining everyday practicalities, such as a bill of rights. 

There is also a problem with western countries defining human rights in a way that makes sense to westerners, yet is at odds with another culture. 
We can take the example of child education. We see it as a human right and wish to enforce it globally. Many poor countries depend on working children in order for the family to eat and survive. When the child is forced to go to school, they lose a breadwinner, and a parent can also be forced to cease work in order to now attend to a child who is not working at home like they used to. Costs are also astronomical in developing countries to school a single child, and many families are large. The end result is deepening of impoverishment before the fruits of the child's education kick in decades later. So is this still an easily recognisable human right? It's not always so simple.

Hope that helps !!
4 3 4
Plz pick it as best if it was helpful !! :)
  • Brainly User
A non-corrupt judiciary is a fundamental condition for the endorsement of rule of law and the ability to guarantee basic human rights in the society. The effects are detrimental and break down of very core of rule of law and corrupt judges neglect fundamental principals such as equality,impartiality, property and integrity.