The relationship between individual and collective rights is not necessarilly a simple one. A key question in this discussion is whether identity is defined through individual characteristics or through group membership. The answer to this question helps determine whether group rights (for indigenous groups, for example) are truly necessary or whether the interests of groups are better served by vigorous enforcement of individual human rights. As such, discussions of rights necessarily raise important questions regarding the international human rights framework. The classic liberal approach, which remains dominant today, emphasizes individual rights over collective rights. In part, this is driven by the notion that the guarantee of rights for individuals will lead to rights for groups. Human rights flow from the individual to the group rather than the other way around, i.e. identity is defined through individual characteristics, not group membership. However, despite this traditional focus on individual rights, protections for groups have become increasingly accepted in certain circumstances. For instance, the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide specifically bans violence targeting a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group for destruction. This convention reflects the growing notion that “membership of a minority community entails distinct human rights” (Marks and Clapham, 2005). (Globalization 101)

We have already explored - you have alreadye explored in your essays - the view that human rights are a western construction. The video below develops this view slightly and provides a very brief introduction into the debate between human rights as universal and human rights as culturally relativist.