In recent years, citizens in Western countries are being encouraged to think of the concept of human rights as something universally objective. Moreover, they are also being prompted to think that, despite utterly euro-centric subtleties of this concept, it fully applies to just about any human, regardless of his or her racial, religious, and cultural affiliation. The theoretical inconsistency of such an approach is quite visible even to a naked eye the very definition of human rights implies that it is only humans who are being entitled to these rights. However, even today there are no legally bounding mechanisms of distinguishing humans from animals, in existence. In his book Political Theory: An Introduction, Andrew Heywood points out the fact that the issue of human rights is objectively controversial: The concept of human rights raises a number of very different questions, about both who can be regarded as human and the r
ights to which human beings are entitled (Heywood 2004, p. 185). Moreover, as we are well aware, the concept of a legal right has been first formulated by Roman law, which refers to it as simply the legal recognition of a certain status quo, within a context of how individuals relate to each other. In other words, under no circumstances can we refer to the notion of ones right as something given, as Liberal politicians would like us to believe, but rather as something taken. For example, according to British law, the inhabitants of colonial America did not have the right to even think of gaining political sovereignty. Yet, they did attain the right to be referred to as Americas citizens rather than British subjects by winning the War of Independence. This is exactly the reason why, after the end of this war, the rights of Americans, as representatives of an independent nation, have been recognized by the international community.