Kate Nash Views On Human Rights

The world order as it is currently known is the entangled product of centuries of complicated and gruesome history of the interactions among people, one forever stained by human rights violations, morbid wars, and encroachments of power. Although these actions cannot be erased from history, they can be prevented from recurring. Acclaimed authors Kate Nash, in her book The Culture of Politics of Human Rights: Comparing the US and the US, and Hannah Arendt, in her chapter “The Decline of the Nation-State and the End of the Rights of Man,” explain their respective views regarding skepticisms of international institutions and global solidarity campaigns to address human rights matters and delineate the limits of the practicality of a post-national

In her renowned book, The Culture of Politics of Human Rights: Comparing the US and UK, author Kate Nash, a prolific proponent of human rights, substantially delineates both her skepticism of international establishments to address human rights issues and practices and her limits to a post-national world of human rights in practice. The following is the definition extended by Nash: human rights are culturally relative and contingent outcomes of the interactions between various historical narratives, and they are complemented by individuals or by groups in specific circumstances to achieve a predetermined goal, normally the meeting of basic needs. Although states and laws are at the center of either dispute prolongation or conflict resolution, the United States and the United Kingdom, insofar synonymous with Britain, have had contrasting approaches to human rights since the dissolution of their unequal relationship in 1776. Violating the core principles of limited government and of checks and balances, America, through the limitation or eradication of the Fourteenth

The question is whether a state is looking inward or outward for a deepened understanding and heightened application of human rights. The nation-state, which is authorized to transform principles into both policy and practice, is the central resolution to the question. However, nation-states are faced with the challenge of balancing their sovereignty with the moral necessity to produce enforceable regulations that both establish and protect global citizenship. Although there is a national interest in building a reputable international rapport, it cannot be denied that sovereignty is always an ingrained issue. In return, nation states attempt to limit the extent to which it involves itself in the addressing of human rights violations abroad. For example, although countries delegate authority to international institutions, they do so conditionally and preserve the right to disengage. Furthermore, solidarity joins sovereignty as another hindrance to a post-national world comprised solely of human rights. For as long as human rights include positive rights, such as freedom from poverty, there is a requirement for thick solidarity, a form of global community commitment. Necessitating a sense of collective responsibility, thick solidarity is increasingly