Here it shows that Human Rights should not be stationary, it is forever changing given human culture advancing. This makes me wonder that whether Human Rights could head back with extreme examples like wars. its is easy to explain the advancing process of human right: when more people leave poverty and receive more education, it is natural for them to focus more on their moral need as their physical needs are safeguarded. However, in wars, when people could barely secure their lives, their focus on human rights might go down to the baseline - the right to live. Taking this aspect into consideration, when formulating universal human right, we must take into account different stages each country (and individuals in that country) is at, because it would be tough and ineffective to demand equal rights for same-sex marriage to a country in war where survival is the most urgent at that time.

What actually makes an international organization effective during intervention does not lie in how justifiable it is. For organizations like OAU and AU, despite their divine purposes, they need more than simply trying to intervene. If head of African countries would not cooperate, any good ideas will turn into mere foam.

The notion "acceptable to everyone" is hardly practical in real world given differences in personal background. Even people from the same country could experience very differently and value things in different ways given their social status, religious beliefs, and ways they are raised. The problem with UDHR is not only that it did not include representatives from non-Western regions, but also that it is hard to make sure that representatives from each region could truly represent people from that region as they share different personal backgrounds and beliefs.