There is tension between autonomy and authority. A powerful question to spark discussion around the definition of rights is:

If rights are said to be “recognized,” who has the authority to recognize them—and what happens when that authority refuses?

Why this question matters:

It challenges the assumption that rights are guaranteed simply because they are “recognized.” It opens up vital explorations of:

• Whether rights are inherent (natural) or granted (legal)

• The role of governments, institutions, or collectives in validating autonomy

• What it means to have a right that is not enforced or is selectively enforced

• Whether rights exist independent of recognition—or only when backed by power

1. Can a right exist without a system capable of enforcing or protecting it?
2. Are rights universal, or are they culturally defined and limited?
3. If rights are granted by the state, are they still sacred—or conditional?
4. What role do non-state actors (communities, spiritual movements, global coalitions) play in recognizing or protecting rights?