Geopolitical tensions and national security concerns in many parts of the world have sparked serious discussions in recent years about the future of globalisation. Moreover, COVID-19 and the response of most countries to this crisis in the form of protectionist policies, slowing international trade and supply chain bottlenecks have led to a retreat from the idea of global cooperation. The current public discourse is dominated by “deglobalisation”. Re-globalisation, conversely, is a concept that re-emphasises the need for interconnectedness and cooperation between nations. It is emphasised that re-globalisation can help communities cope with the complex challenges of the twenty-first century. However, there is a fundamental question regarding which processes can contribute to strengthening human rights protection. None of these strategies are satisfactory from this perspective, and other solutions should be proposed. Therefore, three perspectives will be presented in this chapter. The first of these is “deglobalisation”. Proponents of this approach argue that the universal approach to human rights has failed. Secondly, the historical context and the experiences of individual continents, regions, and states say that human rights should also be viewed through the prism of local conditions. This is all the more so because human rights should increasingly be related to human needs. These may vary from region to region. Thirdly, the principle of the self-determination of peoples, present in the UN, also favours this approach. The second perspective, that of re-globalisation, presents a contrasting view. It asserts that every individual, regardless of their background, is entitled to the protection of human rights. This universal approach aligns with the spirit of human rights, challenging the economic globalisation that often prioritises international trade and financialisation over human rights. In recent years, we have witnessed the rise of activist movements that leverage global human rights norms to exert pressure on local and national authorities, further highlighting the potential impact of this perspective. Therefore, another perspective needs to be found. An alternative might be an approach that sees the value of peace as an indispensable requirement for every individual’s full enjoyment of all human rights.