Formalizing human rights into law created a global standard for protecting all human beings. However, while the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights promises inalienable rights equally applicable to all individuals, many are excluded from this promise. This thesis argues that Western rights theory is limited in application due to its reliance on oppositional logic. Focusing on select events during the United States’ global war on terror, this study argues that the current understanding and application of rights by leading democracies, such as the United States, ensures that rights cannot be extended equally worldwide. An in-depth analysis of the implications of the hierarchical nature of current rights theory informed by several primary theorists, including Jacques Derrida, Elisabeth Weber, Judith Butler, David Wills and Grégoire Chamayou—all of whom have contributed significantly to the discourse on the ethical and legal implications that the war on terror has on universal human rights—is presented to demonstrate how the oppositional logic that underpins the Western philosophical tradition justifies ongoing violence against colonial others. In bringing the scholarship of leading theorists together, this thesis contributes to the ongoing discourse surrounding the issue of human rights and the global inequality that prevails despite the Western promise of universal rights and justice.