Human rights claim to be universal, yet different human and constitutional rights instruments contain different lists and even when the same rights are recognized in the abstract they are often interpreted differently across jurisdictions. I will argue that this variance of human rights practice across regimes and jurisdictions does not undermine the idea of the universality of human rights and should not be thought of as pathological. Instead I will show how, when and why variance is a central feature of a morally persuasive practice of human rights.