These last two chapters have been very interesting for me because I for the most part had never really questioned several of the rights being examined here. This is not to say that I have been convinced that these rights do not exist, especially the first and second generation rights but the third generation rights were a little more back and forth for me. I understood the argument that many of these rights were covered through individual rights and thus for the most part redundant. It definitely is an interesting issue to work through. Another argument in this section I found interesting was dealing with the welfare rights and how they may infringe on the first generation rights through taxation.
Ernie I was having the same thoughts about whether white people were advantaged in our society in much the same way as African Americans. I would argue that they are but I have not figured out what I think ought to be done about it. I have been toying with this argument sense reading "Black Theology of Liberation" by Cone last semester and it is an issue I am still not sure what to do with. Now about your question at the end of your post...
I would argue that groups are capable of action and duties in much the same way as governments are. Groups, at least of an organized nature, have the ability to come together to perform a task which could not have been done by an individual and are often held accountable for their actions which is why governments/international groups label some groups as terrorist organizations and works to abolish it rather than just a group that has some terrorists in it and then work to merely try various individuals in the group guilty of the act of terrorism. This idea of collective action and group goals is how I understand groups and under that understanding it would seem that groups have the necessary ability for action and find themselves bound by the usual duties to human rights.