What I am stating is that "rights" are a necessity of creatures like human beings living in societies based on equality under the law. You can have national (and sub-national) jurisdictions that do not honor certain rights, but that doesn't make the concept of rights relative, it makes the ability to judge the jurisdictions by the protections they guarantee, and thus whether they are actually based on equality under the law.

They may be deemed "natural rights" by the nature of mankind living in what I will term "just" societies (where jurisprudence and justice coincide), but they are not "natural" in their springing forth from the natural sciences of physics, chemistry and biology.

There were a number of people involved in the Constitution of the US of A who did not want to enumerate the rights, knowing that they were not the government's to give and receive. The pragmatic reality of the day was a yield to legal codification, since most knew that a government not explicitly bound, was bound to implicitly violate those rights. The escape clauses were (probably, I'll let others debate that) the 9th and 10th amendments.