「世界人權宣言」於一九四八年在聯合國大會中通過，人權及其保護被認為具有跨文化的、普世皆準的、普遍性的價值和意義。然而自一九八○年代以來，已有不少人權學者針對此種理念提出了各種的討論，有大力支持「人權宣言」之普遍性價值的，也有提出懷疑的聲音的。本文乃主要以持前者立場的Jack Donnelly的有關理論，認為他對於「人權尊嚴」、「國際共職」以及「自由政體」的見解，頗有值得再商榷之處，茲論述於文末。有鑑於此，若干人權學者相繼提出呼籲，希望各個文化體卜能夠誠懇而平等地互相對待，互相學習並尊重彼的文化差異性，進而充皆的參與和尋論，期能對「分遍人權」的意涵及其實踐作一番新的省思與重建。

　　　　　The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The universality of human rights is recognized and accepted as "the common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other status." It is said that the United Nations shall promote "the universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all," and no distinction shall be made on the basis of culture. Debate has grown around the issue of universal human rights. Generally speaking, some defend and urge the idea of universal human rights, while others doubt the validity of this ideal. This article focuses on theories of Jack Donnelly, whose standpoint is to justify why human rights, and to defend this justification against the strong claims of cultural relativism. Donnelly bases his justification on two on two arguments, the moral universality of human rights, and the internationally normative universality of human rights, to construct his theory, emphasizing the necessary connection between human rights and the consolidation of liberal regime. The author will discuss this theory construction and offer a brief commentary note. In the concluding remarks, one enhanced approach toward "genuinely universal human rights" recommended by Abdullahi Ahmed An-Nacim is briefly touched upon as an alternative to Donnelly's approach.