La modernity and development have led to higher living standards for human beings, but at the same time have led to abuses in the environment and in the same way as adverse situations for the full exercise of rights. To deal with the new realities, third-generation rights ‘Collective Rights’ emerged, as well as procedural mechanisms to protect collective, diffuse or even individual interests, but these can impact collectively. However, the problem of the phenomenon of ‘collective’ starts from the very terminology used to identify it, in the absence of uniformity or univousness in language. The notions “rights” or “interests” are used interchangeably for adjectives: collective, diffuse, social, group, class, series, sector, category, collective impact, transpersonal, supra-dividuals, super-individual, metaindividuals, transindividual, etc. The question of vocabulary becomes even more acute by adding those genuinely individual rights which, for convenience, are exercised collectively; i.e. the so-called rights: accidentally collective, individual homogeneous, among others, which are characteristic of being divisible and coming from a common cause.