Regarding desideratum (i), on the political approach, human rights capture a qualitatively distinctive moral phenomenon, one that differs from the phenom- enon of fundamental rights possession grounded in inherent dignity. Instead, human rights regulate the sui generis moral relationships between agents with sovereign authority and their subjects. In today’s world, this type of relationship exists paradigmatically—but not exclusively—between states and those within their jurisdiction.33

Question

States have de facto authority, ie they claim and obtain obedience on the part of their subjects. Furthermore, they are sovereign, ie they claim and obtain non- interference on the part of outsiders: they are the final arbiters within their respective jurisdictions. These de facto privileges stand in need of justification, and they are only justified if states treat their subjects appropriately. Human rights, on the political view as I understand it, embody the relevant standards of appropriate treatment.
Regarding states as the primary bearers of human-rights responsibilities accounts for the distinctive wrong tied to human-rights violations. The authority that states enjoy is conditional on its exercise promoting subjects’ good. Yet, when states violate human rights, they fail to live up to their special responsibilities, thereby perpetrating this sui generis wrong.34
By analogy, consider the special type of wrongdoing perpetrated by a parent who murders their child, compared to a stranger who murders a child unrelated to them. Both acts are, of course, deeply wrong. Yet the special authority relationship existing between parent and child renders the act in the first case distinctively morally abhorrent. The agent specially tasked with protecting a given individual actively brings her life to an end. Similarly, consider a criminal kidnapping and torturing a helpless passer-by, and compare this wrong to that perpetrated by state officials arbitrarily detaining political opponents in degrading conditions.35 Although both acts are gravely wrong, the latter appears distinctively wrong—even if we assume that the material effects on the victims are the same in both cases—because of the authority relationship between states and their subjects.
Relatedly, sovereignty gives us an explanatory entry point for why human- rights violations are distinctive in triggering international concern.

Please analyze this passage for me in the simplest way possible

Answer 1

This passage discusses the concept of human rights and their moral significance, especially in relation to the authority that states have over individuals. Here's a simplified breakdown of the main ideas:

1. Human Rights vs. Fundamental Rights: Human rights are seen as a specific moral issue that differs from fundamental rights tied to inherent dignity. Human rights focus on the relationship between those in power (like governments) and the people they govern.

2. State Authority:

   • States hold power because they can make people obey their laws (de facto authority).
   • They are sovereign, meaning they operate independently and are not to be interfered with by outside forces. They have the ultimate control over their jurisdiction.

3. Justification of Authority:

   • States must justify their power by treating people fairly and appropriately.
   • Human rights set the standards for this fair treatment.

4. Wrongdoing by States:

   • When a state violates human rights, it commits a unique type of wrongdoing because it fails in its duty to protect its citizens.
   • This is different from other forms of wrongdoing because of the special responsibilities that come with state authority.

5. Analogy of Wrongdoing:

   • The passage compares the act of a parent killing their child to a stranger doing the same. Both actions are wrong, but the wrongdoing of the parent is seen as much worse because of the protective relationship.
   • Similar reasoning applies to state officials who harm political opponents compared to common criminals. The state's abuse of power is seen as especially wrong due to its authoritative role.

6. International Concern:

   • Human rights violations are particularly alarming to the international community because of the state’s sovereignty and special responsibilities toward its citizens.

In summary, the passage argues that human rights violations by states are uniquely wrong due to the authority and moral responsibilities that come with being a governing body.