The article is devoted to the investigation of the essence and peculiarities of the exposition of the human rights in the international and national acts, and also to the main rationalistic aspects of their realization.The authors say that the modern international system of human rights protection is inefficient. It was emphasized that the responsibility of the state for the violation of human rights before the international organs undermines the authority of the state as the most important guarantor of human rights.The authors pay attention to that fact that the very concept «the violation of human rights» is explicitly politicized and does not take into account the criminality (which constitutes the main domestic threat to a person), and, thus, does not reflects the real situation of the protection of human interests in the state. The real aims of the creation of the concept of human rights were found. It was emphasized that «the protection of human rights and democracy» sometimes acts as a pretext and «justification» of violent overthrow of power, foreign aggression and mass termination of people.The authors say that, in fact, the human rights (and especially the «positive» one) cannot exist without the state. It was found that the absolutization of the natural human rights and underestimation of the role of the state, in fact, returns people to the state of natural savagery and medieval barbarism. The authors emphasize on the collision between the constitutional rules about the recognition of a human as «the main social value» and about the duty of the citizens to defend the Motherland. Also, the authors say that the right of a people to self-determination, as well as the recognition of the nations, who fight for the independence, as the subjects of the international law, in fact, means that the international law justifies the war and the mass termination of people.It was emphasized that, in reality, there are no absolute human rights, so it is senseless to absolutize them. The authors say that the absolutization of the human rights is harmful, especially in the case of the absolutization of the political human rights in general, and such rights as the «natural right of the rebellion» and the «popular sovereignty» in particular. Also, the authors say that the ideas of the popular sovereignty contradict the reality and the historical regularities of the appearance and functioning of the state and law. It was emphasized that human rights are not and should not be an end in themselves, for the sake of which the state power should be weakened, because, in fact, exactly the strong and effective state is the main guarantor of peace, order, security, well-being, civilization and the real provision of the most important human rights (taking into account an adequate understanding their essence, scope and content). The main aspects of the proper provision of the realization by the state of the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of a human and of a citizen were determined, etc.