ABSTRACT
Comparative research on international human rights is an exceedingly difficult enterprise; it is also politically dangerous because human rights is a political symbol of "high positive affect," to use Harold Lasswell's terminology. In typical US analyses, individual political and civil rights are concretely defined, are numerous, and have first priority. The more group-related economic, cultural, and social rights are added as a rather vague afterthought, are generally defined, and appear in a negative context: they must not condition or compromise individual political and civil rights. If there is to be meaningful concern for the full range of human rights, it is evident that there is a need to devise measures of economic, social, and cultural rights. These latter are in the nature of moral commitments and long-term aspirations, whereas most commentators consider civil and political rights to be achievable immediately and without placing great strain on the resources of the society.
