The example you provide about the US highlights the issue I am talking about. I was referring to the objection, at least historically, by Muslim nations (i.e,

The example you provide about the US highlights the issue I am talking about. I was referring to the objection, at least historically, by Muslim nations (i.e, governments based on Islamic theocracy in some form): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Muslim_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... I personally believe that no government should be based on Islamic theocratic values. But even the quickest conversation with legal scholars from those nations will highlight the fact that they believe that their system is "universal" (because it encompasses all of humanity in it's legal system: muslims, dhimmis, etc). There are very strong quranic reasons for them to believe this. So it boils down to beliefs and values. Most of the world indeed signed the UN declarations. But lets say a country that is opposed to that concept ends up creating a "human centric AI". They didn't sign the declaration. How will we enforce the UN declaration on them?