This Dutch political philosopher and economist dissects Human Right Watch organization to see that it often serves as an instrument of US imperialism.
HRW itself is an almost exclusively US-American organisation. Its version of human rights is in the Anglo-American tradition. It too is 'mono-ethical'--recognising no legitimate ethical values outside its own. Attitudes to redistribution of wealth illustrate the limited nature of human rights ethics. In the Anglo-American human-rights tradition, seizure and redistribution of the property of the rich is unethical. The human-rights tradition recognises no inherent value in equality itself, and does not recognise many other ethical values. The human-rights tradition is not, and can never be, a substitute for a general morality.
...it is important to note that human rights can serve a geopolitical purpose, which is unrelated to their moral content. It is not possible to show that 'human rights' exist, and most moral philosophers would not even try. It might not be a very important issue in ethics anyway - but it is important in politics and geopolitics. And that's what Human Rights Watch is about--not about ethics.