International Human Rights frameworks are hostage to politics among nations. Comment. (Answer in 250 words)

- International Human Rights frameworks are hostage to politics among nations. Comment. (Answer in 250 words)
Introduction
The claim holds at the point of enforcement and fails at the point of standard-setting. Human rights norms have travelled further than power politics would predict; compliance has barely travelled at all.

Body
1. Born divided: the Universal Declaration (1948) passed with eight abstentions, and the Cold War split its content into two separate covenants in 1966, civil-political for the West and economic-social for the East.
2. The universality quarrel: the Vienna Declaration (1993) affirmed indivisibility, while the Bangkok Declaration of the same year answered with Asian values — cultural relativism used as a sovereign defence.
3. Enforcement blocked by the veto: repeated Russian and Chinese vetoes on Syria since 2011; the Responsibility to Protect, endorsed in 2005 and used in Libya under Resolution 1973, was discredited by regime change, prompting Brazil's responsibility while protecting.
4. Selective jurisdiction: the United States, Russia, China and India stand outside the Rome Statute (1998), African Union members pressed for collective withdrawal in 2017, and Washington has sanctioned ICC officials.
5. Bloc voting: the Human Rights Council's 2022 motion merely to debate the OHCHR report on Xinjiang was defeated nineteen votes to seventeen.
6. The counter-case: Keck and Sikkink's boomerang effect, treaty bodies, regional courts and domestic incorporation show norms binding states from below even when the Council is deadlocked.
7. India's position: it rejects country-specific resolutions and external monitoring as breaches of Article 2(7), insists on the Right to Development (1986), and points to the NHRC under the 1993 Act.

Conclusion
Frameworks are hostage wherever enforcement needs great-power consent, which is most of the time. Yet states deny the charge rather than reject the vocabulary, and that residual authority is what the critique cannot explain away.