Human Rights

In chapter 10, I found Sen's discussion on the"oratory of human rights" to be particularly interesting. He mentions three critiques:

(1) legitimacy critique: the concept of human rights that are not defined by states conflict with legal proceedings
(2) coherence critique: there are not agencies to ensure human rights, so therefore we cannot say someone has a right to something if no one is assigned to provide it to them
(3) cultural critique: human rights cannot be universal as different cultures have different ethical values

In response, I ask:

(1) Sen responds, "A human can be effectively invoked in contexts even where its legal enforcement would appear to be most inappropriate,"and give the example of the "right to respect." My question is, do you think humans are born with human rights? Are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness not inherently human or "inalienable" rights and built into the legal systems, because humans should not be denied such things, simply because they are humans?
(2) Do you think Kant's "imperfect obligations" are binding enough that we, as humans, should protect the rights of others?
(3) Do you think individualistic or communal attitudes better support the realization of Sen's freedoms?