of course human rights should exist but should not be defined by the UN or other international western governing body
it should be defined from a countries borders only what the term human rights mean or whatever rights they think it is and means for its citizens
Again, I am working on my academic experience in Political Anthropology and International Relations. Yes, for hundreds of years (especially following the 1648 Peace of Westphalia which structured IR for hundreds of years) politics was based on the nation state where national borders provided very clear ideas of nationalist sovereignty, or the idea that a government has entire control over what occurs within their state and the manner in which their government is structured and no other state has any right or power in acting within another nation's borders, which largely extended to a policy of not commenting on anothers internal policies.
However, this has changed DRAMATICALLY in the past 50 years and even more so in the last 20 years. As we move toward a future of Global Governance within an economic and cultural system that is global rather than national, individuals are increasingly being identified as and identifying as cosmopolitan citizens of the world rather than a single nation. The simple fact that everyone in this thread does not come from the same nation echos this, as does the existence of the IOC and the Modern Olympic Movement. As we move towards this future, a nation's actions on their citizens become increasingly seen as concerns of the world on the human being, rather than only concerns of a nation on the national citizen. This is why on an academic level our discussion would easily move beyond the concept of national sovereignty.