International law, in its turbulent path, has moved away from a state-centered perspective and has adopted a human-centered approach. In this regard, the formulation of human rights rules has played an important and fundamental role. These rules are primarily the product of philosophical and theoretical discourses on human rights that define the framework of human rights rules, and secondarily they are indebted to the commitments that states have accepted without any benefits for them. In fact, the realistic view of state power has been adjusted and with the formation of civil societies in the form of democracy, they have confirmed the sustainability of this process. What played a role more than any other factor in establishing international peace and security, and the interests of all states lay in it, was the product of this Kantian view that the preservation of human rights at home leads to the preservation of peace and security in the international arena. Undoubtedly, globalization also played an important role in issuing this message. But what disrupted this process and weakened human rights, which were trying to place humans under their umbrella of protection with greater power, was the confrontation between the two perspectives of universalism and cultural relativism. A confrontation that was not only further fueled by the Cold War atmosphere, but also by the emergence of Third World countries that accepted the belief in relativism more, which led to the document of human rights being formulated in a fragmented form.