The practical advantage of regional human rights norms and systems for the protection of human rights is that they are more likely to be created on the basis of closer geographical, historical, political, cultural and social affinities. They are closer to their «home» and are more likely to have greater support. They are also more accessible to policymakers, politicians and victims. It can therefore be considered as the second «front» for the protection of human rights, the first being the national, the second regional and the third international. In a sense, a right is a permission to do something, or a claim to a particular service or treatment by others, and these rights have been called positive rights. In another sense, however, rights can permit or require inaction, and this is called negative rights; They allow or require nothing to be done. For example, in some countries, for example: in the United States, citizens have the positive right to vote and they have the negative right not to vote; People can choose not to participate in a particular election without penalty. However, in other countries, for example Australia, citizens have a positive right to vote, but they do not have a negative right not to vote because voting is compulsory. As a result: 3. Losing any situation or decision that seems appropriate or just (i.e., the opposite of «wrong») based on legal, moral or ethical ideals.
This type of «right» may not be legally enforceable. For example, there can never be a constitution, law or precedent that requires people to respect their elders, although many people agree that it is right to respect elders. The idea that certain rights are natural or inalienable also has a history that goes back at least to the Stoics of Late Antiquity, through Catholic law in the early Middle Ages and through the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment to the present day.  There may be tensions between individual and collective rights. A classic case in which collective and individual rights collide is the conflict between unions and their members. For example, individual members of a union may want a higher wage than the wage negotiated by the union, but cannot make other demands; In a so-called closed workshop, which has a union security agreement, only the union has the right to decide the issues of each union member, such as wage rates. So, are the so-called «individual rights» of workers taking precedence over decent wages? Or do the union`s «collective rights» prevail in terms of decent pay? This is clearly a source of tension. Rights are often among the fundamental issues that governments and policymakers are expected to address. Often, the development of these socio-political institutions has established a dialectical relationship with rights. Historically, many notions of rights have been authoritarian and hierarchical, with different people being granted different rights and some having more rights than others.
For example, a father`s right to be respected by his son does not mean the son`s right to receive anything in exchange for that respect; And the divine right of kings, which allowed absolute power over subjects, did not leave much opportunity for the subjects themselves for many rights.  Contemporary political philosophies that perpetuate the classical liberal tradition of natural rights include libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, and objectivism, and include in their canon the works of authors such as Robert Nozick, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, and Murray Rothbard.  A libertarian view of inalienable rights is expounded in Morris and Linda Tannehill`s The Market for Liberty, which argues that a man is entitled to ownership of his life, and therefore of his property, because he has invested time (i.e., .part of his life), making it an extension of his life. However, when he uses violence against and to the detriment of another human being, he alienates the right to the part of his life necessary to pay his debt: «Rights are not inalienable, but only the owner of a right can alienate himself from that right – no one else can take away the rights of a human being.»  The Office of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights was established in 1997. The aim of this independent institution is both to promote the concept of human rights and to ensure the effective respect for and full enjoyment of these rights in Council of Europe member states.