I have heard these terms thrown around. Animal rights are easy for me, Animals have the right to try to survive. But I know some (if not most) will disagree but this is the minor part of my question.
But now we come to the tough one - human rights. What are they and who has the right to define them?
First approximation to an answer:
Human rights are the rights mentioned in this document.
Notice in particular Article 24 
In short:[ul][li]life and liberty[/li][li]no torture[/li][li]no discrimination based on gender, religion, etc…[/li][li]innocent until proved guilty[/li][li]freedom of movement[/li][li]right to marry and found a family[/li][li]right to own property[/li][li]freedom of thought[/li][li]freedom of expression[/li][li]right to vote[/li][li]free choice of employment; equal pay for equal work; freedom to unionize[/li][li]adequate standard of living[/li][li]education[/li][li]right to share in cultural life (arts) and copyrights of your own intellectual property[/li][/ul]
If I had written the list, there are some I might not have placed there. e.g.
Right to marriage? That falls under freedom of worship IMHO.
Right to own property? If you have an adequate standard of living I don’t see why you must own property.
Who should decide them?
How about an agency of the United Nations, with the document to be approved by the U.N. General Assembly?
Sounds all sweet and well but what gives the UN that right? Actually a lot of that sounds like it was taken from our (US) laws and Constution.
A country (or the UN in this case) can give it’s people certain rights but that does not make them human rights. I rwealise that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an aptempt to put down on paper what people feel will make this world a better place but it is arrogant to assume those are human rights (IMHO).
and it doesn;t say you MUST own property - just you have the right to own property.
Also I must point out
how does the subsistent farmer go about this? and still maintain this right
First we have to make a distinction: There are moral rights and there are legal rights.
I think you know what legal rights are; freely elected constitutional assemblies have the right to define them. IMHO, they are one of humanity’s greatest innovations.
As for moral rights, they are advantages conferred by virtue of having some characteristic, according to a given value system. So humans have human rights, since they are human; their necessary and implicit flip-side is responsibility: all have the responsibility not to infringe on those human rights.
As an example, if I say that person A has a moral right to free speech, that is equivalent to saying that I morally condemn anyone who deprives person A of that free speech. Nothing more or less.
Natural rights, in contrast, assume some sort of cosmic extra-human morality. Whether they exist outside of certain theologies is unclear.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Anything after Article 21 not only fails to define any human rights as I know of them but seems pretty sure to violate some of the previous articles (such as 3, 12 and 17).