What Britannica Says

Human rights: rights that belong to an individual or group of individuals simply for being human, or as a consequence of inherent human vulnerability, or because they are requisite to the possibility of a just society. Whatever their theoretical justification, human rights refer to a wide continuum of values or capabilities thought to enhance human agency or protect human interests and declared to be universal in character, in some sense equally claimed for all human beings, present and future.

What This Actually Says — Plainly

Britannica’s definition of human rights is needlessly convoluted.

The essential point is simple: human rights are rights that belong to every human being because he or she is human. Instead of stating that directly, the definition surrounds the idea with vague and academic expressions.

Phrases such as “theoretical justification,” “a wide continuum of values or capabilities,” “human agency,” and “in some sense equally claimed” do not clarify the meaning. They make a basic principle sound uncertain, technical, and open-ended. A definition should explain; it should not require the reader to decode it.

The wording also shifts from rights that people possess to values and capabilities that are merely “thought to enhance” interests or agency. That weakens the plain meaning of a right. A right is not simply something that some people think may be beneficial; it is a moral and legal claim that ought to be respected.

A clear definition would be:

Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that belong equally to every individual simply by virtue of being human.