Before the advent of an interdependent world system, many human rights violations went unnoticed and unimpeded. Nation states in the past have taken little interest in the internal crime and corruption of a neighboring state unless it directly impacted their own well being in some form or fashion. Nation States only care about human rights if it is profitable to do so.Thankfully, after end of World War II and the emergence of several super powers, human rights now have a logistical backing. There are now more severe consequences for a nation state which decides to violate basic human rights. This is a recent phenomena, one which did not arise until this past century. In the middle of the nineteenth century, a most tragic massacre took place
The Human Rights Act of 1998 came into power in October 2000, and it represent an honourable epitome of ethical and moral ideologies. As for any idealistic expectations, one must query the effectiveness of the Human Rights Act of 1998 at meeting all its aims in the context of aiding, safeguarding and supporting those in need of assistances from the Social Services in the UK.
All around the world people and countries are continuing the efforts to end Human Rights Violations. Human rights violations are a big problem in
The issue of human rights has arisen only in the post-cold war whereby it was addressed by an international institution that is the United Nation. In the United Nation’s preamble stated that human rights are given to all humans and that there is equality for everyone. There will not be any sovereign states to diminish its people from taking these rights. The globalization of capitalism after the Cold War makes the issue of human rights seems admirable as there were sufferings in other parts of the world. This is because it is perceived that the western states are the champion of democracy which therefore provides a perfect body to carry out human rights activities. Such human sufferings occur in a sovereign state humanitarian intervention led by the international institution will be carried out to end the menace.
The current century has witnessed immense improvement and re-conceptualization of standards and sovereignty of human rights in Latin America. With the endemic repression and violations of human rights throughout Latin American in the mid to late 20th century, the International human rights regime, an amalgam of international and intergovernmental organizations and bodies, expanded exponentially. By conducting investigations within certain countries, or simply monitoring overt violations of human rights, the international human rights regime stimulated global awareness of violations of human rights in different countries; soon to follow was change in domestic policy in response to international policy. This also led to increased opposition by domestic NGOs against repressive governments or dictatorships largely responsible for human rights violations. Just as well, a number of organizations and groups aided domestic non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in their growing efforts to establish judicial practices that better protected human rights. Declarations, conventions, and charters, established a number of values that served as the credo for the organizations that constituted the international human rights regime. Over time, more and more countries were pressured and held accountable for these values, which developed into universal standards for human rights practices. Thus the International Human right regime and the pressure they imposed upon governments ultimately resulted in widespread positive changes in human rights.
Haiti was once an economic power when France held claim to the Eastern Part of Hispaniola, then named St. Domingue. It was a French colony flourishing with coffee and sugar. Eventually the ideals of the French Revolution - Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity - made its way to the colonies resulting in a revolution. Haiti was the first slave-led revolution and declared its independence as a republic on January 1, 1804. After their declaration of independence, things started to make a turn for the worst. In 1934 the U.S. forces occupied Haiti to establish stability. The U.S. appointed heads of state but the real power was present in the U.S. occupiers, whereas the heads of state are just figureheads. Haiti’s economy dwindled further down when France demanded reparations of 150 million francs, which wasn’t paid off until 1947. In 65 years, Haiti had 22 heads of state.” In 1957 Francois Duvalier is elected president. He later “creates a totalitarian dictatorship and in 1964 declares himself president-for-life.” This is where Haiti’s political instability really begins.
Civil liberties and civil rights are some of the most controversial issues within today’s society and government. The debates upon these liberties and rights are paramount. Topics such as the infringement of government upon these rights, through laws and such, and even the infringement of society upon them, through the sentiments of equality that the people hold, seem to take center stage whenever they are discussed. This controversy stems from the Constitution’s Bill of Rights and its ambiguity upon the fourteenth amendment and how it should apply and grow with society. In my opinion, I feel that civil liberties and civil rights are crucial to our country as a whole, but to address them here, in their entirety, would be impossible and overall useless. Still, if I were in government and amending or interpreting the Constitution, while also keeping the changes I’d like to make to the Constitution in mind from my last essay, I would like to identify freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the pursuit of happiness to be the most fundamental civil liberties and civil rights mentioned, and I would like to reiterate or add this to my constitution.
Police brutality is rising heavily in the United States. Many cases of police brutality are being reported regularly by the media. There have been victims either physically injured, molested, permanently disabled, killed in the process or even die in the care of officers. Ethnic minority groups are major victims of most cases of reported police brutalities in America. There have been more injustice than justice in these cases and if there’s no serious legal consequences against police’s that engage in racial profiling and brutalities against their victims then it may continue to and eventually they will lose the public’s trust and respect for our officers. And in worst cases may lead to the breakdown of law and order as well as the destruction of lives, properties and communities.
Police brutality is one of the most serious human rights violations in the United States and it occurs everywhere. The reason why I chose this topic is because police brutality happens all the time in the United States and still remains unrecognized by many. Additionally, the public should be knowledgeable about this topic because of how serious this crime can be and the serious outcomes that police brutality can have on other police officers and the public. The job of police officers is to maintain public order, prevent, and detect crimes. They are involved in very dangerous and stressful occupations that can involve violent situations that must be stopped and controlled by any means. In many confrontations with people, police may find it necessary to use excessive force to take control of a certain situation. Sometimes this makes an officer fight with a suspect who resists being arrested. Not all cops in communities are great cops. At least once a year, the news covers a story about a person being beat by an officer. The article “Minority Threat and Police Brutality: Determinants of Civil Rights Criminal Complaints in U.S. Municipalities” by Malcolm D. Holmes from the University of Wyoming, uses the conflict theory to explain why officers go after minorities sometimes causing police brutality. It explains the police’s tension with African American and Latino males. Those minorities are the ones that retaliate more against police officers which causes the officer to use violent force to defend themselves.
Treaties are the highest source of international law besides jus cogens norms that have binding effect on the parties that ratify them.2 International human rights treaties rely on the “name and shame” mechanisms to pressure states to improve practices.3 However with “toothless” international human rights norms, moral coercion is not always effective. An empirical study conducted by Professor Oona Hathaway assessing the effect of human rights treaty ratification on human rights compliance, maintains in its findings that ratification of human rights treaties has little effect on state practices.4 States do not feel pressured to comply and change their practices, rather, signing treaties is “more likely to offset the pressure rather than augment it.”5 So, is it time to abandon human rights treaties and remit protection of human right to domestic institutions. Hathaway posits elsewhere that despite this treaties “remain an indispensable tool for the promotion of human rights.”6 Instead of getting rid of the treaty system, it is necessary to enhance the monitoring and enforcements mechanism to strengthen the human rights regime to ensure compliance.7 This article evaluates the extent to which international law serves as a useful tool for protection of human rights.
This essay considers that the violation of human rights can indeed be address by extraterritorial jurisdiction throw the human rights legal framework, mainly throw treaties as showed jurisprudence.
Through this essay I hope I was able to illustrate how even though a state does have sovereignty and jurisdiction over the people residing in it, cultural relativism becomes irrelevant or nonexistent when it fails to protect its citizens from violations of their basic human rights. People all over the world are becoming more and more connected and close to each other than ever before. After the WWII atrocities the world became aware of its humanity and how important it is. Humans are the most evolved most intelligent creature in the world, we have the ability to make conscientious decisions, to think rationally, and to question the world around us. This is what makes us human, we are human first, we belong to cultures second.
The awareness of international protection of human rights and humanitarian law is also an increasing factor in challenging sovereignty because it calls for international groups to intervene in domestic state affairs. Even though Krasner does not view this issue as an unprecedented challenge he gives the example of the Yugoslavian successor state which was forced to accept constitutional provisions guaranteeing minority rights in order to receive international recognition, thus proving that it does play a major role.
Since human rights are supposed to be for everyone, it is not acceptable for a country to ignore the basic human rights of all humans for any situation because it demoralizes the status of the country and the value of their
On December 10th in 1948, the general assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, although not legally binding, created “a common standard of achievement of all people and all nations…to promote respect for those rights and freedoms” (Goodhart, 379). However, many cultures assert that the human rights policies outlined in the declaration undermine cultural beliefs and practices. This assertion makes the search for universal human rights very difficult to achieve. I would like to focus on articles 3, 14 and 25 to address how these articles could be modified to incorporate cultural differences, without completely undermining the search for human rights practices.
The role that globalization plays in spreading and promoting human rights and democracy is a subject that is capable spurring great debate. Human rights are to be seen as the standards that gives any human walking the earth regardless of any differences equal privileges. The United Nations goes a step further and defines human rights as,