While I agree that often human rights is a phrase banded about with little context, I do think that a definition exists that is universal. I do believe that the UN declaration is accepted widely enough on a global scale to be taken as a definition that should apply to all humanity.
Human rights - and by extension, the terms of the UN declaration - have always been circumstantial. They are fine words - and I really don't mean that in a negative way - but fine words do not make any difference unless there is a common agreement about what those words mean and what happens if you don't adhere to them. That level of agreement will never be achieved, so basically, like beauty, ones human rights are in the eye of the beholder.
One could point out that Article 13 is in contravention of Covid laws and so the UK is contravening human rights. Some people have argued that. And in technical point of fact, they are entirely correct. It has always been held that the UN declaration - which is non-binding anyway - may be overridden by national laws and circumstances. According to the UN Declaration, I may get in my car and go wherever I want. According to the law of the country I may not.
And it is not universal because if it were, then there wouldn't be any contraventions of it. The fact that people and nations continue to act in ways which other people and nations believe they shouldn't is evidence that it isn't universal, and none of us has a corner on being in a position to lecture others on how they should behave according to our lights.
It isn't that I have, nor voice, no opinion on there actions of other nations, and many times I abhor them. But I have seen enough of the world to know that we do not create change by telling people they must act as we tell them to. It doesn't work for our teenagers - why would it work for nations? We have to lead by example, and by discussion, not by demands.
And I would remind people that the 18 nations who were instrumental in drawing up the UN declaration were not entirely representative of the world; Eleanor Roosevelt, who chaired the drafting committee, represented a country that, to this day, still executes people (something many countries find in contravention of human rights) and where people are treated differently by the justice system based on their skin colour. And I wouldn't absolve the UK of questions about some of their actions either. The problem with judging others is that you have to be very certain your glass house is projectile proof.