The nature of collective human rights and their relationship with individual rights (in the light of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

The urgency of finding the optimal (or, at least, more or less acceptable) balance between individual and collective human rights is increasing in the modern world every day, first of all, given the globalization processes in general and the strong migration crisis in particular. The purpose of the article is the philosophical-legal and the general theoretical analysis of the nature of collective rights and their relation with individual rights through the prism of two dichotomies: nominalism and realism, on the one hand, liberalism and communitarianism on the other. It is emphasized that the understanding of the social nature of collective rights is a kind of "litmus test", which makes it possible to mark the initial research and political-legal positions of a particular author on one of the defining lines for defining the modern philosophy of law. On the one side of this line are adherents of the postulates of liberalism and predominantly correlated varieties of philosophical and legal nominalism, whereas on the other side are apologists of communist ideas and, accordingly, followers of a realistic direction in the philosophy of law. This dividing line is, to some extent, conditional. In accordance with the terminology of international public law, we can speak of delimitation rather than demarcation. After all, firstly, as is known, practically there is no "sterilly pure", without the impurities of other ideological and philosophical trends, liberals or communitarians, as well as nominalists or realists. Indeed, human rights researchers themselves are not as often self-identifiable by explicitly declaring their initial methodological settings. Secondly, within the above-mentioned philosophical currents – in the end, like any other – there are, so to speak, intermediate variants, which, often not without certain reasons, can claim or even de facto claim the status of some" the golden mean "between political, legal and / or epistemological extremes (let us remember, respectively, "liberal communitarianism" and "conceptualism")