To help answer these many difficult questions the United Nations made a Universal declaration of human rights, which gave us articles, which all the nations were held to. The articles of this document set down laws about international human rights. The main purpose declare the league of nations is "to maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace" (Issay Documents 491). However, things aren't as black and white as the government makes us believe. Things can't be solved by the UN going into a country and acting as their new system of government. There are going to be people who don't appreciate the help. There are no easy answers when it comes to other countries needing help because their government isn't working the way it's suppose to. By the UN going into another country they are declaring war, basically, even though they are there for peacekeeping. The purpose of the UN is not war, so it is hard to enforce certain situations. They can bring in negotiators to speak with polictical leaders but there are no guaranteed solutions with this method.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Module 2- to get involved or not
There is one thing that some of us take for granted in this country and that is the personal rights that our government gives us. Some of us forget the war that was fought to gain those rights in the first place. We as a people assume that people in other countries have these same unalienable rights that we do. Not too long ago the whole world was at war with the issue of human rights. Well, not the entire world wanted to go along for the ride. While the Europeans were at each other's throats the United States sat on the sidelines. The major question came up: should we care about other people's (other than in our own country) rights? This question hasn't only been a problem in America with World War II but also in the United Nations with problems such as Darfur and Rwanda. It brings up more questions of national sovereignty and whether a country can really govern itself.
The Concept of International Human Rights
World War II changed the lives of hundreds of millions if not billions of people across the globe. With the collapse of the League of Nations, there was no hope for the minorities across Europe as their rights were quickly taken away. Not only did severe discrimination exist in Germany but it also existed in the United States. Viewed as the “people’s war”, World War II proved to be one of the most horrific and discriminating events in history.
While the League of Nations and the rest of the world begin to fall apart, Hitler decided to take advantage of the situation. By announcing Germany’s rearmament and vastly widening his army, the future of the world began to look very bleak. As this was occurring, the League decided to seek “refuge in narrow definitions of interests and reduce support for projects that might cause political problems” in order to “divert pending disaster”(Lauren 132). This only opened the door for Hitler and he delivered with ruthless savagery. In November of 1938, the Nazis and their supporters “openly burned synagogues, looted Jewish businesses, and rampaged through the streets in an orgy of violence”(Lauren 133). This was only the beginning of his barrage to achieve his dream as he orders his men to “close your hearts to pity and act brutally”(Lauren 133). Had the League of Nations been allowed more power, it is a possibility that World War II could have been avoided or at least not have been such a wide spread affair.
As a time of mass genocide, human rights were looked past for almost every minority. Jews, Japanese, African Americans, Gypsies, and Jehovah Witnesses were all greatly abused during this period. However, the Germans were not the only ones discriminating; the U.S military was extremely racist towards the Japanese and African Americans. While “passing through Allied Africa, U.S. military…[referred] to people there as ‘fuzzy wuzzies’ and ‘niggers.’(Lauren 144). After battles in the Pacific, it was encouraged to view the combat as “the Yellow Race against the White Race.” (Lauren 144). The Japanese were now classified as a “racial menace of scheming, murderous little ape men, vermin, yellow bastards, and as savage slant-eyed subhumans”(Lauren 144). Especially in the case of the treatment of the Japanese, I feel it is incredibly contradictory to what we were fighting for in Europe.
While the newly formed United Nations now includes an armed forces, it brings up the question had the League of Nations been granted an army, would it have been able to stop Hitler? I do not believe so. Although this form of international peace and defense of human rights has now greatly improved, it still has its flaws and it cannot protect everyone as seen at the Srebrenica Massacre and in Haiti. The UN must watch much more closely at events such as these and act accordingly since they have a never-ending job to accomplish, protect the rights of all human beings.
While the League of Nations and the rest of the world begin to fall apart, Hitler decided to take advantage of the situation. By announcing Germany’s rearmament and vastly widening his army, the future of the world began to look very bleak. As this was occurring, the League decided to seek “refuge in narrow definitions of interests and reduce support for projects that might cause political problems” in order to “divert pending disaster”(Lauren 132). This only opened the door for Hitler and he delivered with ruthless savagery. In November of 1938, the Nazis and their supporters “openly burned synagogues, looted Jewish businesses, and rampaged through the streets in an orgy of violence”(Lauren 133). This was only the beginning of his barrage to achieve his dream as he orders his men to “close your hearts to pity and act brutally”(Lauren 133). Had the League of Nations been allowed more power, it is a possibility that World War II could have been avoided or at least not have been such a wide spread affair.
As a time of mass genocide, human rights were looked past for almost every minority. Jews, Japanese, African Americans, Gypsies, and Jehovah Witnesses were all greatly abused during this period. However, the Germans were not the only ones discriminating; the U.S military was extremely racist towards the Japanese and African Americans. While “passing through Allied Africa, U.S. military…[referred] to people there as ‘fuzzy wuzzies’ and ‘niggers.’(Lauren 144). After battles in the Pacific, it was encouraged to view the combat as “the Yellow Race against the White Race.” (Lauren 144). The Japanese were now classified as a “racial menace of scheming, murderous little ape men, vermin, yellow bastards, and as savage slant-eyed subhumans”(Lauren 144). Especially in the case of the treatment of the Japanese, I feel it is incredibly contradictory to what we were fighting for in Europe.
While the newly formed United Nations now includes an armed forces, it brings up the question had the League of Nations been granted an army, would it have been able to stop Hitler? I do not believe so. Although this form of international peace and defense of human rights has now greatly improved, it still has its flaws and it cannot protect everyone as seen at the Srebrenica Massacre and in Haiti. The UN must watch much more closely at events such as these and act accordingly since they have a never-ending job to accomplish, protect the rights of all human beings.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
WWII’s Role in Human Rights and a Criticism of the Major Powers
The outbreak of World War II led to great optimism for human rights. Why? Because not only was it a war against the ambitious Germany, Italy, and Japan; but a fight for human rights. Minority groups and smaller nations began to emerge due to the fact that the war expended and had drawn on a vast amount of resources from the countries involved (Lauren 135). Before and during the war, Germany and Japan committed some gross violations of natural human rights.
Japan violated the rights of countless Chinese and Korean citizens. An example of this is an incident known as the Rape of Nanking, where Japanese forces launched a war of aggression on China, and moved to control the capital of China, Nanking. While the Japanese occupied Nanking, there were numerous reports of summary executions, looting, and rape. The citizens’ natural rights were violated by a country that was not their own.
More publicized is Germany’s oppression of people in Europe. Many different kinds of people were persecuted in Germany and the lands they controlled, but none more than those of the Judaic faith. The Jews were stripped of their citizenship, and sent off to concentration camps, labor camps, and death camps (Lauren 141). Not much needs to be said about the violation of human rights.
However, the statement that World War II was a war for human rights is incorrect in some ways. First, Germany had been subjugating the citizens of its own country years before the outbreak of the war. The Rape of Nanking occurred years before the United States entered the war. Where the argument could be made that the Allies adhered to the principle of national sovereignty, that a country could control and govern itself within it own borders. However, the Allies did not move to prevent Japan from interfering with China’s national sovereignty, as well as taking away the fundamental rights of Chinese nationals. The outbreak of the war began when Germany had impeded the national sovereignty of Poland, Denmark, Norway, and France. Only when the Allies realized the potential threat did they declare war. On the Pacific side of the world, it took a direct attack on the US naval fleet docked at Pearl Harbor to bring the United States into the war. The Atlantic Charter was signed between Roosevelt and Churchill, calling to protect the right of people to “live their lives free from want and fear” and looked for a more “permanent system of general security for the world (Lauren 139). However this was seen by Germany to be a wartime bluff. So even thought the later stages of the war can be described as a war against tyranny and oppression while also protecting human rights, the outbreak of the war cannot.
At the conclusion of the war, the atrocities were finally tallied. It is at this point that the optimism for human rights peaked, because the people of the world saw firsthand the effect of not protecting individual rights. The war had governments taking emergency measures; in the United States, drafting black soldiers while some European powers conscripted soldiers from their colonies. These black soldiers and conscript troops were not equal, in that they did not have the full rights of a citizen. African Americans were still oppressed in the United States, and the people drafted out of colonies had nearly no rights in their ‘mother country’. Why is it that the countries that fought so valiantly for the rights of humans to continue to oppress in their own land? After the war, the colored veterans returned to America with the hopes and expectations of equal rights. However, what they did not expect was that the liberty that they had fought for had not returned with them.
Naturally, some were skeptical with the formation of the United Nations, with America, Britain, Soviet Union, and China forming the major powers. These Great Powers enjoyed permanent membership of the Security Council, which also reserved veto powers. This was done so that their own possessions in colonies and/or oppression of people within their own borders could not be interfered with. Surprisingly, it was China who offered to cede as much national sovereignty needed to create an international organization that could actually enforce justice for the world (Lauren 161). However, when the major powers at Dumbarton Oaks, they seemed extremely willing to adhere to the principle of national sovereignty, the right of a nation to govern itself as it sees fit. As mentioned previously, America could not agree with having an international ‘police force’ with the ability to enforce its will. The reason was because America already restricted the rights of people within its borders (Lauren 162).
Voices such as W.E.B. Dubois insisted that the Great Powers had a vice on the decision-making processes. Another failure of the UN was not only that it couldn’t enforce human rights; it didn’t even address the rights of minorities and the indigenous people under colonial empires (Lauren 174). Dubois, realizing that countries desired to keep criticism of their dealings at home quiet, garnered media coverage and presented a complaint to the UN in 1947 (Lauren 218). Naturally, this attention was terrifying to the major powers because it would lead to constant challenges between national sovereignty and the individual human rights.
A
s shown, while the Allies did fight the tyranny and oppression that was the Axis, they also had examples of oppression at home. From Hitler’s treatment of the Jews, to Japan’s treatment of the Chinese, to Great Britain’s and France’s colonial possessions, to the discrimination of African Americans and women in America, all are different examples of some ort of violation with an individual’s basic and fundamental rights. And so, the UN was formed: the international police force. Unfortunately, since the founders also had oppressed at home, they helped make sure that the UN would not have the ability to act on violations of human rights in other countries. The national sovereignty would be preserved. Therefore, the UN, like its predecessor the League of Nations, was essentially a ‘paper tiger’, a toothless dog. It had no real power, and due to that, it was a paramount example to the hypocrisy of the major powers. The UN would never be able to create a lasting peace unless it addressed the problems of colonial empires and racial discrimination (Lauren 174).
Japan violated the rights of countless Chinese and Korean citizens. An example of this is an incident known as the Rape of Nanking, where Japanese forces launched a war of aggression on China, and moved to control the capital of China, Nanking. While the Japanese occupied Nanking, there were numerous reports of summary executions, looting, and rape. The citizens’ natural rights were violated by a country that was not their own.
More publicized is Germany’s oppression of people in Europe. Many different kinds of people were persecuted in Germany and the lands they controlled, but none more than those of the Judaic faith. The Jews were stripped of their citizenship, and sent off to concentration camps, labor camps, and death camps (Lauren 141). Not much needs to be said about the violation of human rights.
However, the statement that World War II was a war for human rights is incorrect in some ways. First, Germany had been subjugating the citizens of its own country years before the outbreak of the war. The Rape of Nanking occurred years before the United States entered the war. Where the argument could be made that the Allies adhered to the principle of national sovereignty, that a country could control and govern itself within it own borders. However, the Allies did not move to prevent Japan from interfering with China’s national sovereignty, as well as taking away the fundamental rights of Chinese nationals. The outbreak of the war began when Germany had impeded the national sovereignty of Poland, Denmark, Norway, and France. Only when the Allies realized the potential threat did they declare war. On the Pacific side of the world, it took a direct attack on the US naval fleet docked at Pearl Harbor to bring the United States into the war. The Atlantic Charter was signed between Roosevelt and Churchill, calling to protect the right of people to “live their lives free from want and fear” and looked for a more “permanent system of general security for the world (Lauren 139). However this was seen by Germany to be a wartime bluff. So even thought the later stages of the war can be described as a war against tyranny and oppression while also protecting human rights, the outbreak of the war cannot.
At the conclusion of the war, the atrocities were finally tallied. It is at this point that the optimism for human rights peaked, because the people of the world saw firsthand the effect of not protecting individual rights. The war had governments taking emergency measures; in the United States, drafting black soldiers while some European powers conscripted soldiers from their colonies. These black soldiers and conscript troops were not equal, in that they did not have the full rights of a citizen. African Americans were still oppressed in the United States, and the people drafted out of colonies had nearly no rights in their ‘mother country’. Why is it that the countries that fought so valiantly for the rights of humans to continue to oppress in their own land? After the war, the colored veterans returned to America with the hopes and expectations of equal rights. However, what they did not expect was that the liberty that they had fought for had not returned with them.
Naturally, some were skeptical with the formation of the United Nations, with America, Britain, Soviet Union, and China forming the major powers. These Great Powers enjoyed permanent membership of the Security Council, which also reserved veto powers. This was done so that their own possessions in colonies and/or oppression of people within their own borders could not be interfered with. Surprisingly, it was China who offered to cede as much national sovereignty needed to create an international organization that could actually enforce justice for the world (Lauren 161). However, when the major powers at Dumbarton Oaks, they seemed extremely willing to adhere to the principle of national sovereignty, the right of a nation to govern itself as it sees fit. As mentioned previously, America could not agree with having an international ‘police force’ with the ability to enforce its will. The reason was because America already restricted the rights of people within its borders (Lauren 162).
Voices such as W.E.B. Dubois insisted that the Great Powers had a vice on the decision-making processes. Another failure of the UN was not only that it couldn’t enforce human rights; it didn’t even address the rights of minorities and the indigenous people under colonial empires (Lauren 174). Dubois, realizing that countries desired to keep criticism of their dealings at home quiet, garnered media coverage and presented a complaint to the UN in 1947 (Lauren 218). Naturally, this attention was terrifying to the major powers because it would lead to constant challenges between national sovereignty and the individual human rights.
A
s shown, while the Allies did fight the tyranny and oppression that was the Axis, they also had examples of oppression at home. From Hitler’s treatment of the Jews, to Japan’s treatment of the Chinese, to Great Britain’s and France’s colonial possessions, to the discrimination of African Americans and women in America, all are different examples of some ort of violation with an individual’s basic and fundamental rights. And so, the UN was formed: the international police force. Unfortunately, since the founders also had oppressed at home, they helped make sure that the UN would not have the ability to act on violations of human rights in other countries. The national sovereignty would be preserved. Therefore, the UN, like its predecessor the League of Nations, was essentially a ‘paper tiger’, a toothless dog. It had no real power, and due to that, it was a paramount example to the hypocrisy of the major powers. The UN would never be able to create a lasting peace unless it addressed the problems of colonial empires and racial discrimination (Lauren 174).
Human Rights and Modern Warfare
Warfare changed dramatically during the last century. The development of machine guns, tanks, and nuclear bombs has changed the course of history forever. But along with these new technologies came new international acts and treaties on war. These include agreements on formal rules of war, how to protect civilians, and how to ensure human rights to all those affected by war. It is apparent though that in the current war in Iraq some of these time-honored agreements and rules have become essentially meaningless.
The time period around the First and Second World Wars was when the most important international acts regarding human rights during war were put into effect. The most powerful of these acts are the Geneva Conventions. (Lauren, 74) Developed between 1864 and 1949, the Geneva Conventions, based upon the Hague Convention of 1907, sought to lay down rules for war between nations. These rules mainly concerned the ethical treatment of soldiers and the protection of civilians. Nations that signed the Conventions agreed, among other things, to not torture prisoners of war, to not intentionally target and kill civilians, and to not use chemical or biological weapons. (http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/genevaconventions) The Geneva Conventions tried to make war as humane as possible.
The other important development to come out of this time period was the creation of the United Nations after the Second World War. The United Nations was set up as an organization with the goal of enabling worldwide cooperation, increasing communication among the international community, and ensuring that human rights violations were effectively dealt with. The organization agreed to monitor and investigate wars for possible rights violations. With Europe still dealing with the effects of the Holocaust, the topic of human rights took center stage at the United Nations (Lauren, chapter 6). “World peace cannot be consolidated until men are able to exercise their basic rights without distinction as to race or religion” (Lauren, 176).
Unfortunately, in the current War on Terror, it is apparent that many of the agreements about how nations at war should act have been misused or completely ignored. In one of the more recent rights violations, American Marines killed 24 civilians in the town of Haditha in Iraq in 2005. The Marines attacked the town after a roadside bomb had killed a Marine earlier. The group of Marines claimed that the insurgents responsible for that attack were hiding in Haditha. Bent on revenge, the Marines went house to house and killed civilians indiscriminately. In October 2007, after a military investigation, it was announced that two of the soldiers who took part in the killings would face court martial charges. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/19/marines.haditha/index.html)
The most blatant violation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions, however, came in 2004 when reports and photographs surfaced of American soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison. The photographs featured soldiers posing with tied and blindfolded Iraqis. Reports of torturing throughout Iraq also came out around the same time. The argument has come down to whether or not suspected terrorists who are being held prisoner are considered prisoners of war or not. President Bush claims that they are not, because they do not fight for a sovereign nation, and do not follow the rules of war themselves. Many other nations and Human Rights Organizations have claimed that these prisoners are still protected by the rules of war. The worldwide community instantly answered with anger and contempt. As of now, six soldiers have been discharged because of the incident, and one has been formally sent to prison. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/30/iraq.photos.reaction/index)
The United States, while condemning these particular acts, has not stopped all rights abuses in the War on Terror. This is particularly appalling because it was the United States who was a major force behind the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations. It is clear, and sad, that old agreements on human rights have lost most of their meaning in the wars of the modern day. I hope that the leading world nations will come together again and create new agreements regarding war, ethics, and human rights.
Module Two: The Concept of International Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a very important document for any country around the world. Each country should recognize and abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in order to fairly treat their citizens. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was created following the end of World War II, by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The chairman of the Assembly, Eleanor Roosevelt, led the creation of the document. One of the main reasons that led to the creation of this document was the observing of atrocious crimes committed in Nazi Germany. It became apparent that Human Rights must be defined, carefully observed, and discouraged.
The main problem nations encounter while initiating this document into action is Individual Rights versus Cultural Rights. The document describes Individual Rights, but does not cover Cultural Rights. These Cultural Rights are undefined since every nation has its own unique independent culture. Therefore these Cultural Rights are left for each nation to define. However, when these Cultural Rights are defined they should be based on the principles expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Another issue that is discussed in criticism of this document is Economic Rights. For example, taxation would nullify individual’s ‘inalienable rights’. Another example is in Article 25, “ Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of likelihood in circumstances beyond his control”(Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Article 25, is stating what might be considered universal care for everyone. I think that if this were true then it would be observed in action today, but it is not. Instead in the U.S. we give everyone the right to an opportunity to provide these economic security issues for themselves. I think that Human Rights are not Economic Rights. These two rights should be separately classified.
In Article 29, section 3 states “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations”(Universal Declaration of Human Rights). This statement is saying that the United Nations has the power to revoke all the rights stated with in the document if they have reason to do so. I do not agree with this, because in the United States even criminals have rights. I feel it is inhumane to take away every single right from an individual.
The United Nations General Assembly created this document with intentions to have every individual express equal Individual Rights. This is necessary since not all leaders of nations recognize every individual as having the same shared rights as the leader. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights became inevitable because individuals must be reminded that all humans must be treated the same.
The Importance of the UN
World War II taught the west a difficult lesson. The atrocities committed in Europe, Russia and China forced governments to accept a new type of thinking. Isolationism was determined to be dangerous. The League of Nations was reformed. The United Nations was born from the result of previous failures and the horrors that followed. The creation of a stable international community was vital in preventing war and oppression of human rights throughout the world.
The atrocities committed across the globe during the Second World War are still shocking today. In Europe alone over “six million Jews and nearly equal number of others ranging from children to the aged, homosexuals, Slavic slave laborers, prisoners of war, Communists, members of the German resistance, handicapped, Gypsies, and Jehovah’s Witnesses” were killed (Lauren 143). Similar ethnic cleansing occurred in China where Japanese soldiers devastated both the landscape and population wherever they traveled. Horrific violations of rights on the part of the Japanese consisted of “brutality . . . against captured soldiers and civilians alike in the form of punishment, forced labor, brutal experiments with germ warfare, sex slave ‘comfort women,’ mutilations, and murder” (143). As the smoke of the war cleared the world reached for some message of hope. Humanity needed reassurance that nothing as terrible as terrible would happen again.
Europe was not new to the violence and devastation witnessed in the thirties and forties. Millions of lives were lost during the Great War. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson proposed the League of Nations promote peace. The League was designed to ensure all nations respected the rights of individuals as well as the rights of sovereign nations. This was an effective strategy because members could sanction violating nations either by a physical or economic means to ensure international law was obeyed. Threatening nations could be pressured on a global scale. The League was an effective step in the direction of preserving rights but it ultimately failed.
There were several devastating blows to the success of the League. The first was the lack of U.S. involvement. American’s were fed up with foreign wars. “America’s refusal to join the League, fitted in with her desire to have an isolationist policy throughout the world” (historylearningsite.com). In addition to American isolationism was the lack of a credible superpower. Great Britain and France were both members of the League, but were terribly weakened both militarily and economically during WWI. Neither nation was able to contribute a standing army or significant funding to enforce international law. The only other possible super power was Russia, which was denied entrance due to its communist regime. The lack of influence on an international scale ended the League’s effectiveness. Its failure allowed threats in Europe to grow over the course of a decade. Isolationism died with the rise of genocide and war, and a new order of international representation was needed.
The solution to the world’s problems came with the establishment of the United Nations. The first clause of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads, “Whereas recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” Human rights and peaceful resolutions to international issues are centered at the core of UN policy. The preamble of the UN charter reads “we the people of the United Nations determined. . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.” The founders witnessed two horrific wars in less than thirty years. The goals specified in the charter can be accomplished if nations are willing to communicate.
The UN remains the stage for international diplomacy. Countless international conflicts are resolved in the UN conferences. This is an important step in preserving peace and rights throughout the world. As President Eisenhower put it, “every gun, every warship, every tank and every military aircraft built is, in the final analysis, a theft from those who are hungry and are not fed, from those who are naked and are not clothed.”
The Concept of International Human Rights
Ever since the conclusion of the deadly wars that dominated the 20th Century, mankind has been fascinated with the concept of Human Rights. Millions have died during bloody and barbaric wars, in brave attempts to acquire such rights. Millions more have gathered in various locations around the world to formulate, discuss, question and ideally entrench human rights into the laws that govern the nations of this world. What are Human Rights? Where do they come from and to whom do they belong? These are questions dealt with by advocates of human rights both throughout history and even now, in our contemporary world.
In times of war, the abuse and blatant violation of human rights tend to reach extreme proportions. There is a significant increase in the amount and severity of torture, lack of respect of property, human dignity and of life during wartime. The oppression endured by the people during such violent times resulted in the upheaval of world opinion favouring set laws that govern how the State should treat its people regardless of their age, sex, race, gender, economic standing, social classification and political inclination. As a result of this desire, a period of enlightenment emerged where intellectuals, philosophers, politicians and activists met during a series of intense conferences to discuss the moral obligation of man to create and establish human rights.
In one form or another, most world religions talk of ‘human responsibility to others.’ (TB p 5) ‘I am my brothers’ keeper’ (Genesis 4:9; Lauren, Evolution of International Human Rights, p 4) refers to the notion that as human beings, we have the moral obligation to protect the well-being and livelihood of those around us. The United Nations is an example of an institution that advances the doctrines related to human rights. Sadly, there is still much strife in our planet as a result of human rights abuses. An example of this strife is most evident in the use of children in armed conflicts. Children in countries like Uganda, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan have been used in barbaric wars as soldiers and slaves (UN: Security Council Should Act Against Child Recruiters: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/02/12/global18032.htm). The article provides an example of a sever human rights violation that occurs in our modern world. Are we not obligated as moral beings to protect these children?
The concept of international human rights is plagued by several difficulties and overwhelming obstacles. One of the obstacles advocates of international human rights have dealt with relates to the notion that each and every state is sovereign and therefore free of interference from outside nations. An example of this obstacle is evident in the reaction many States had when it was suggested by the 1924 Declaration of the Rights of the Child that children should be universally protected ‘irrespective of race, nationality or creed.’ (Lauren, Evolution of International Human Rights, p 116) Many States opposed this claim since it represented the right children had to food, shelter and education, that inevitably results in extreme costs for States. Therefore, such rights and many others were rejected, or at least firmly criticised. (Lauren, Evolution of International Human Rights, p 125)
Human Rights have both fascinated man and instigated the fear of nations. How is it possible to protect the universality and inalienability of human rights and at the same time advance the interests of the State, which may, and often have, result in the violation or eradication of human rights? The enlightenment of mankind throughout history ultimately resulted in the creation of fundamental laws that govern how people should be treated. Many have fought and died to protect the principles advocated by the concept of international human rights. As exemplified by several significant events ‘human freedoms need human champions who will fight and deny the forces of evil.’ (Lecture Video, 02/19/2008)
Module 2 - The Concept of International Human Rights
“The centrality of individual’s entitlements and the importance of the prescriptive character of laws are undoubtedly decisive perspectives for the later development of international human rights law” (60 Ishay). Before these realizations there indeed was a time where a world of no universal ethics was understood. Human right was and still is a severly controversial issue. It has been both praised and criticized throughout history with ever-changing ideals.
Some of the practices have been considered progressive and others against human rights, either domestically or universally. The sole concern remained in whether those rights had been respected equally by the United States and abroad. Through years of war, bloodshed, hatred, and overall turmoil the results showed that the particular concern had been overshadowed harshly. Prior to the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, several countries had proclaimed comparable declarations. Such as, the Bill of Rights of England, the Bill of Rights in the United States, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in France. When the horrific actions committed by Nazi Germany became apparent after the Second World War, the consensus within the world community was that a universal declaration that specified the rights of individuals was necessary (Bailey).
It was no easy task to conjoin the objectives of the international world to ensure the universal protection of civil rights while also reflecting their concerns about social and economic rights. The world was fortunate, fifty years ago, that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was created. “The language of this declaration was designed not to suggest or recommend – but to proclaim –a vision.” It was far from a secluded document. It adhered to the rights of the “human family.” Rights were given for being human. The ideas that rights were controlled solely through the government and conformity was demanded through them had been rejected (227 Lauren).
The Declaration also aspired to collect a contribution from all reaches to the unification of humanity. It clearly states, “Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,…Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,…” (493 Ishay). The main point of bringing human rights into the international community is to permit criticism of nation states when ideas, common agreements and strong relationships fall short. Criticism by members of their own community. Criticism by other states. And, ever so cautiously, criticism by the United Nations itself. These aspects are essential to create universal change for the better.
When referring to not only to human rights, but rights and their limits themselves Lauren notes, “The moral worth of each person is a belief that no single civilization, or people, or nation, or geographical area, or even century can claim as uniquely its own” (11). This is what the Declaration sought for on a more specific scale. However, he also notes, “The answer; of course, lay in the future and ultimately would depend on if, when, and how the world decided to transform this proclaimed vision into reality” (232). We can take satisfaction from the achievements since the Universal Declaration was adopted fifty years ago. However, major challenges still remain. For example, securing true equality, beyond simple discussion, for all women. To achieve effective protection for children everywhere. The protection of homosexuals from discrimination and oppression. The defense of people living with HIV/AIDS so that legal and social burdens are not added to their health predicament.
These are just a meager few of the many issues that still linger. The impact of the Declaration was shocking and tremendous. And even with that, the journey of human rights continues. Lauren’s proposed ideal on “the answer” has certainly been replied to; but, has not nearly reached full satisfaction. The United Nations still has a vital role to play and so do all of us – every human.
Some of the practices have been considered progressive and others against human rights, either domestically or universally. The sole concern remained in whether those rights had been respected equally by the United States and abroad. Through years of war, bloodshed, hatred, and overall turmoil the results showed that the particular concern had been overshadowed harshly. Prior to the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, several countries had proclaimed comparable declarations. Such as, the Bill of Rights of England, the Bill of Rights in the United States, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in France. When the horrific actions committed by Nazi Germany became apparent after the Second World War, the consensus within the world community was that a universal declaration that specified the rights of individuals was necessary (Bailey).
It was no easy task to conjoin the objectives of the international world to ensure the universal protection of civil rights while also reflecting their concerns about social and economic rights. The world was fortunate, fifty years ago, that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was created. “The language of this declaration was designed not to suggest or recommend – but to proclaim –a vision.” It was far from a secluded document. It adhered to the rights of the “human family.” Rights were given for being human. The ideas that rights were controlled solely through the government and conformity was demanded through them had been rejected (227 Lauren).
The Declaration also aspired to collect a contribution from all reaches to the unification of humanity. It clearly states, “Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,…Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,…” (493 Ishay). The main point of bringing human rights into the international community is to permit criticism of nation states when ideas, common agreements and strong relationships fall short. Criticism by members of their own community. Criticism by other states. And, ever so cautiously, criticism by the United Nations itself. These aspects are essential to create universal change for the better.
When referring to not only to human rights, but rights and their limits themselves Lauren notes, “The moral worth of each person is a belief that no single civilization, or people, or nation, or geographical area, or even century can claim as uniquely its own” (11). This is what the Declaration sought for on a more specific scale. However, he also notes, “The answer; of course, lay in the future and ultimately would depend on if, when, and how the world decided to transform this proclaimed vision into reality” (232). We can take satisfaction from the achievements since the Universal Declaration was adopted fifty years ago. However, major challenges still remain. For example, securing true equality, beyond simple discussion, for all women. To achieve effective protection for children everywhere. The protection of homosexuals from discrimination and oppression. The defense of people living with HIV/AIDS so that legal and social burdens are not added to their health predicament.
These are just a meager few of the many issues that still linger. The impact of the Declaration was shocking and tremendous. And even with that, the journey of human rights continues. Lauren’s proposed ideal on “the answer” has certainly been replied to; but, has not nearly reached full satisfaction. The United Nations still has a vital role to play and so do all of us – every human.
Module 2- The Concept of International Human Rights
There have always existed clashes between juxtaposing viewpoints. In no place is this more omnipresent than in the fields of human rights and philosophy (which are intrinsically linked.) One exemplification of this struggle is in human rights conflicting with political (state) rights. What should take precedence; the individual, or the community? If the aspect of society is removed, then a human’s priorities become evident. When not in society, every man acts out of self-preservation and personal utility. This is a very popular notion, frequently elaborated upon by intellectuals such as Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham. So if man always acts for himself, why would he sacrifice that notion once entered into society? One would think society would naturally be composed of individualists, yet there are countless examples of society (or in this case, government) undermining the rights of individuals for the sake of other rights.
These ideas are nothing new; even the French Declaration of the rights of man (1789) mentioned that while man has liberty, he has no power to exercise it but within the realm of his own state. (Ishay 490) Essentially this is stating that man has rights so long as they do not conflict with the rights and operation of the state.
Never has this paradox been more evident than it has in the past half-century with the UN. Despite the fact that this organization was essentially formed to preserve liberty and equality for all men, they have historically been restricted from doing so due to rights of the state. At the formation of the UN, countless requests were sent from across the world to correct gross violations of human rights. However, the UN claimed it could not resolve disputes within most countries because it would violate the sovereignty of that nation. (Lauren 217) While today’s climate might make these violations sound foreign; there are actually examples of this conflict occurring in the
Thus, there has historically been prioritization of the state over the individual. And while many of us may rationally find this to be morally objectionable, it seems unlikely that it will cease anytime in the near future.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Module 2 International Human Rights
The creation of the United Nations charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stand even today as the greatest steps towards the understanding of international human rights. Although benevolent in its theory, the United Nations, for the Great Powers, was formed in order to create a long lasting peace after the bloody WWII and previous WWI, and safety for the Great Powers. This idea of safeguarding the power of the Great Powers is evident in the Dumbarton Oaks proposal that essentially protected the Great Powers and provided them with the greatest power in the UN, the Security Counsel. However, when the idea of “people’s peace” became the center topic for discussions in the San Francisco Opera House in April 1945, the proposal of the Dumbarton Oaks meetings came under harsh criticism (Lauren 177). Many Non Government Organizations (NGO), and small, medium sized nations opposed the proposal because it seemed to only appeal to the wealthier and stronger nations. These smaller nations strongly supported the idea of including international human rights within the UN Charter, which was missing from the Dumbarton Oaks proposal.
Through countless efforts and speeches, the pressure for the smaller nations and NGOs was only enough to place international humans rights in the UN charter as a suggestion. Behind the words of support for international human rights the UN only had the power to “investigate, and report” on infringements of human rights (Lauren 188). One of the fundamental problems of the UN charter was that the very nations committing the injustices against people’s rights were being asked to protect themselves from themselves (Lauren 192). This was further emphasized by the provision in Article 2 (7) “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the UN to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state of shall require Members to submit such matters to settlement” (Lauren 193), thus crippling the UN from actively seeking out human rights for all peoples.
Even with the advent of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights nothing gave the UN power to enforce human rights around the globe. Essentially what was meant to be a beacon of help for the helpless became only a piece of paper with no force behind it. Why would the Great Powers, leaders in world economy and technology, deny the UN the power to enforce laws of universal basic human rights? It is because the nations were too afraid that their own homes would be criticized. These leading nations preach about peace and equality, even the United States, which promotes itself as a nation founded on liberty and equality, would not allow for such power to be bestowed on the UN. Thankfully the ideals instilled by the UN took a life of their own and “it quickly came to assume…. growing moral, political and even legal force through customary law” (Lauren 232).
Through countless efforts and speeches, the pressure for the smaller nations and NGOs was only enough to place international humans rights in the UN charter as a suggestion. Behind the words of support for international human rights the UN only had the power to “investigate, and report” on infringements of human rights (Lauren 188). One of the fundamental problems of the UN charter was that the very nations committing the injustices against people’s rights were being asked to protect themselves from themselves (Lauren 192). This was further emphasized by the provision in Article 2 (7) “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the UN to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state of shall require Members to submit such matters to settlement” (Lauren 193), thus crippling the UN from actively seeking out human rights for all peoples.
Even with the advent of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights nothing gave the UN power to enforce human rights around the globe. Essentially what was meant to be a beacon of help for the helpless became only a piece of paper with no force behind it. Why would the Great Powers, leaders in world economy and technology, deny the UN the power to enforce laws of universal basic human rights? It is because the nations were too afraid that their own homes would be criticized. These leading nations preach about peace and equality, even the United States, which promotes itself as a nation founded on liberty and equality, would not allow for such power to be bestowed on the UN. Thankfully the ideals instilled by the UN took a life of their own and “it quickly came to assume…. growing moral, political and even legal force through customary law” (Lauren 232).
International Rights or Rights of the State? (Mod 2)
“Are human rights essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the State? My answer is no, and a hundred times no.”
- Ricardo Alfaro (Lauren 199)
- Ricardo Alfaro (Lauren 199)
The idea of human rights has been successfully broken into two different, very debatable sectors: international rights and rights given through individual national governments. The establishment of the United Nations occurred with a purpose of creative a universal set of rights that would be implemented among every country and be consistent for every country. These rights would be international rights. The purpose would be to have a laid out and specific outline of human rights, what violates human rights, and what is permissible through the jurisdiction of the international rights. But is the institution of an international set of human rights imposing upon a State’s right to national sovereignty? No. Each State has a right to govern itself, but when the only way to protect peace is to specifically draw out rights and consider them international, it would be the only practical solution. By establishing a code of international rights, countries will be able to understand what is permissible, what violates, and what is considered human rights while at the same time retaining the ability to govern themselves. International human rights would simply be an outline of what human rights are and serve as a way to clarify the vagueness.
Many times, the problems that lead to tensions and wars between countries begin because of a violation of what is considered a ‘fundamental human right’. However, what is considered fundamental for one country might not be considered fundamental to the other. The contrast creates tension and often war. Specifically, the Gulf War is a perfect example. Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait violates Kuwait’s fundamental right to govern itself. At the same time, Iraq would not have considered Kuwait in a powerful enough position to govern itself and occupied it under the façade of being an imperialist power. The first violation of Kuwait’s rights led to more violations of the rights of Kuwait citizens at the hands of the Iraqi government, which created tension and eventual warfare (http://www.indepthinfo.com/iraq/iraq.shtml). The United Nations, by definition in their charter, are obliged to promote and maintain international law, “promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, and for the ends to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors” (Ishay 491). As ‘good neighbors’ both Kuwait and Iraq have a responsibility to abide to international law. By outlining the idea of international human rights along with international law, conflicts can be avoided and tensions can be resolved.
It is not the State’s decision on what to consider is a universal human right. For one country to decide what is good for their people and attempt to impose those rights among others who they do not govern is unjust. For broader rights, such as the rights to property, life, and liberty, international rights would make such ideals universal and understood that violations of these rights by one country to another are violations of international law and grounds for punishment. Too many times do human rights fall into a gray area, especially among neighbors. Property and liberty are disputed heavily, simply because of misunderstandings within countries. By outlining what is considered international, misunderstandings will not occur. At the same time, fundamental rights will remain the same and countries will have the freedom to create State rights that fall beneath in power when compared to international rights. State rights would apply only to citizens of the country to which they inhabit and cannot be applied to anyone else.
While tensions will always be present, international rights would do a great deal in lessening them and solving conflicts before they escalate into full out warfare. International rights would govern countries in general, while State rights would govern the citizens within those countries. It will both maintain a State’s right to govern itself all while clarifying what is unclear from country to country. The way that the United Nations declares international human rights is a perfect step towards a draft of what needs to be included, and now it is simply a matter of enforcement.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The Concept of International Human Rights (Module 2)
“Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere.”
– President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Lauren 137)
International human rights are essential to our world. These rights provide guidelines and restrictions as to how one country may act toward another and even how one country may treat its own people. These rights give us a responsibility to protect and care for other people, no matter how different we may be.
The Second World War brought consciousness to the human rights cause. It was considered not only a test for new weapons but also a test for values (Lauren 135). War and genocide during this time heightened awareness of violations of human rights. “Indeed, this is what demonstrated as never before in history the extreme consequences of the doctrine of national sovereignty and ideologies of superiority” (Lauren 141). I believe that the horrors committed by the Third Reich shocked all nations and “woke them up” to what errors needed to be fixed. I believe that the world began to realize that a nation’s actions couldn’t continue to be shielded by national sovereignty.
During World War II, many atrocious crimes on human life were committed. In 1941, Adolf Hitler launched the Battle of Britain and ordered the deliberate use of aerial bombing on civilian cities. Later that year, Germany invaded Russia and Hitler declared a war of extermination that would require unmerciful brutality. More famous is Hitler’s pursuit to “cleanse” presumed racial inferiors (Lauren 136). This cleansing eventually led to his plan of mass extermination. “For the first time in modern history, more civilians lost their lives than did combatants” (Lauren 135).
How could such crimes against humanity be committed? How are we to going to prevent this from happening again? The United Nations was created to do just that. In 1945, the United Nations Charter stated that the organization’s purpose will be to maintain international peace and security, to develop open relations among nations, to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems, and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms (United Nations Charter 491). In the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), it was stated that the “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world (United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights 493).
I believe that these steps taken by the United Nations provided a good base on which to build. However, I also believe that more can be done by the United Nations to ensure rights for all. I believe that international human rights should be better enforced by the United Nations so that we may stop the violations going on today. The concept of international human rights is important to think about and act on. These rights are made so that history will not repeat itself and so that we can be sure that no one’s suffering should go unaware. These rights can expand to the issues of today: the genocide in Darfur, child soldiers, and human trafficking, just to name a few. I believe that better UN enforcement of these laws can help prevent such crimes and stop those that already exist.
– President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Lauren 137)
International human rights are essential to our world. These rights provide guidelines and restrictions as to how one country may act toward another and even how one country may treat its own people. These rights give us a responsibility to protect and care for other people, no matter how different we may be.
The Second World War brought consciousness to the human rights cause. It was considered not only a test for new weapons but also a test for values (Lauren 135). War and genocide during this time heightened awareness of violations of human rights. “Indeed, this is what demonstrated as never before in history the extreme consequences of the doctrine of national sovereignty and ideologies of superiority” (Lauren 141). I believe that the horrors committed by the Third Reich shocked all nations and “woke them up” to what errors needed to be fixed. I believe that the world began to realize that a nation’s actions couldn’t continue to be shielded by national sovereignty.
During World War II, many atrocious crimes on human life were committed. In 1941, Adolf Hitler launched the Battle of Britain and ordered the deliberate use of aerial bombing on civilian cities. Later that year, Germany invaded Russia and Hitler declared a war of extermination that would require unmerciful brutality. More famous is Hitler’s pursuit to “cleanse” presumed racial inferiors (Lauren 136). This cleansing eventually led to his plan of mass extermination. “For the first time in modern history, more civilians lost their lives than did combatants” (Lauren 135).
How could such crimes against humanity be committed? How are we to going to prevent this from happening again? The United Nations was created to do just that. In 1945, the United Nations Charter stated that the organization’s purpose will be to maintain international peace and security, to develop open relations among nations, to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems, and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms (United Nations Charter 491). In the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), it was stated that the “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world (United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights 493).
I believe that these steps taken by the United Nations provided a good base on which to build. However, I also believe that more can be done by the United Nations to ensure rights for all. I believe that international human rights should be better enforced by the United Nations so that we may stop the violations going on today. The concept of international human rights is important to think about and act on. These rights are made so that history will not repeat itself and so that we can be sure that no one’s suffering should go unaware. These rights can expand to the issues of today: the genocide in Darfur, child soldiers, and human trafficking, just to name a few. I believe that better UN enforcement of these laws can help prevent such crimes and stop those that already exist.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Violence: the answer?
Is it ever ok/legitimate/good to use violence (formal war or informal) to respond to oppression/denial of rights? If so, may states, extra state entities, or non state entities use it? When? How? Limits? Or can you only use peaceful means?
- Violence should never be the first answer, because with violence comes unspoken words that lead to misunderstandings. Situations can be solved without violence as well. However, sometimes situation rise to the point where discussion or peaceful discussion will legitimately not work. This may be due to a variety of reasons:
- The oppressor has become so used to the power granted upon him/her that they refuse to acknowledge the opposition’s point of view, or they simply do not understand it.
- The oppressing party refuses to even hold any negotiations as they refuse to give up the power and advantages offered by oppressing the other party. Thus, there is no other way to make them understand other than violence.
- Cultural imperialism (
- The oppressor themselves were being violent to the oppressed.
- Sadly, violence can be seen as one of the very few languages that all humankind understands and when nothing works (as seen in many situations in the past) it’s only violence that may get the point across. Of course, people may argue that this is not the case when it comes to Gandhi. Gandhi proposed ahimsa or non-violence above all as a means to achieve justice. It may be argued that if freedom fighters like Bhagat Singh were allowed to continue their campaigns against the British, independence for
- Perhaps intelligence and good political prowess is the best answer to twist the situation around to respond to oppression/denial of rights. It depends on the situation. A clever mind would respond by making use of the current situation of the oppression and target the weakness of the people causing the oppression.
- Putting the oppressor in the place of the oppressed? Would this help the situation, as they now get “a taste of their own medicine”? Tricky, as how this can be done is not clear.
- Who confers the violence? Most probably the oppressed. State entities may use violence, only if it’s the last possible means to get the point across to the oppressors, and if, of course it’s in the best interests of the oppressed and only the best interest of the oppressed. Non state entities are probably not the best persons to inflict violence in the presence of an able state entity.
- This is a tricky situation, as some state entities do not have enough power over the oppressors so the only solutions is outside interference. But to what extent is this good? Most would answer that it’s the best option for groups like the UN to interfere, however there have been situations where peacekeepers may be targeted and used as human shields, or something similar. Non state entities should interefere when the state cannot overpower the oppressors, or stop the violations of human rights. It would be best when this is done solely in the best interests of the oppressed, and there is no further political intention of the non-state entity that may just later put the oppressed to a disadvantage.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)