ABSTRACT
The international human rights system faces criticisms regarding a range of issues, including ambiguity in its standards, weakness in its enforcement mechanisms and the resultant lack of impact on the ground, and the notion of universality being incompatible with cultural particularities. This article analyses some of these scholarly criticisms and argues that they should be seen as a wake-up call. It discusses and explores feasible ways of reimagining the existing human rights frameworks. Reimagining here does not mean reformulating existing frameworks; it means revisiting the assumptions on which the current system is based. The article does not agree that the idea and ideals of human rights are on their last legs, as some critics seem to suggest. It argues, instead, that the language of human rights is still highly relevant, as seen in its increasing use by both intellectuals and practitioners, including human rights defenders and civil society organisations. The focus of discourse should, therefore, shift from criticism to lesson-learning and exploring new ways to make human rights relevant to all. The article largely builds on secondary resources, and the criticisms discussed are limited to scholarly criticisms.
