More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on the universal declaration of human rights
Essay on the universal declaration of human rights
Analysis on the achievements of the international criminal court
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
There is such a thing as universality of human rights that is different from cultural relativism, humanity comes before culture and traditions. People are humans first and belong to cultures second (Collaway, Harrelson-Stephens, 2007 p.109), this universality needs to take priority over any cultural views, and any state sovereignty over its residing citizens. Prior to WWII any concept of international human rights would not have been able to be Kept. State sovereignty was still the norm leaders around the globe followed when it came to international relations. Of course that all changed after the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime in the Holocaust were exposed to the global community. After what had happen to the Jewish population in Europe at the hands of Hitler's army was reviled to the world, the international community realized that there was something to the whole idea of human rights that could quite possibly go beyond the recognizable sovereignty of independent states(Collaway, Harrelson-Stephens, 2007 p.4). December 17, 1942 was the date that leaders of the allied forces of WWII that included the US, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union came together and issued the first declaration that officially noted and acknowledged the mass murder of European Jews and settled to find a solution to prosecute those responsible for violence against civilians. Because of the type of acts that were committed some political leaders advocated for summary executions instead of trials (Collaway, Harrelson-Stephens, 2007). If you really think about it by doing this the allied forces would have been defeating the purpose of what they were trying to accomplish which was to make those responsible for the acts to pay but by giving them a f... ... middle of paper ... ... is happening, advocating for people all over the world especially those in industrialized countries to take a stand and help the cause. 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 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.
Before any legislation could be implemented, a definition of human rights had to be compiled and accepted. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was approved in 1948 by th...
Mahoney, Marvellous Richness of Diversity or Invidious Cultural Relativism? 12 Human Rights Law Journal 1, 5( 1998)
It was in December 1948, when it was approved unanimous the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide at France which became the 260th resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations. What made the leaders of the 41 States create and sign this document in which the term Genocide was legally defined? This document serves as a permanent reminder of the actions made by the Nazis and their leader Adolf Hitler during the Holocaust where more than five million of European Jews were killed. In summary I will explain what were the events that leaded the ordinary Germans kill more than six million Jews in less than five years. To achieve this goal, I will base my arguments on the Double Spiral Degeneration Model provided by Doctor Olson during the spring semester of the Comparative Genocide class.
“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.” (Article 2, Declaration of Human Rights, )
The American Anthropological Association in its 1947 “statement on human rights” situated its advice on the principle of the social context of the individual and the significance of including the sociocultural values of his/her society into consideration when drafting an inclusive non Western-Euro/American-centric “UN declaration of human rights”. It holds that each group of people would perceive its culture as the most benevolent and thus the inherent goodness of their values should be sufficient in regulating their affairs and protecting their rights. It disregards the historical fact that the “white man burden” was not limited to the Europeans and North Americans, but many nations have engaged in imperial expansionism around the world before
MILITARY TRIBUNALS OF THE AFTER SECOND WORLD WAR Then came the Second World War, another major driver of the evolution of international criminal law. The offensive military campaign launched by the German Nazi government and the unspeakable atrocities committed on its orders led the Allied Powers "to punish, through the channels of organized justice, those guilty of these crimes, they ordered or perpetrated or participated in them, one of their main war aims. In Nuremberg, the four major powers (United States, United Kingdom, USSR and France) each appointed a judge and a public prosecutor.
The Nuremberg Trials was unethically run and violated the rights of the Nazi leaders who were convicted of committing crimes against humanity. Primarily because the Allies sought to use the trials as a way to remind the Germans, who won the war ‘again’. Thus making it similar to the Treaty of Versailles in (19- ), through implying this notion of “Victors’ Justice”. Nevertheless, the Allies did to an extent ‘try’ to make the tribunal as ethical as possible,
Human rights belong to all people, worldwide. All individuals, regardless of culture, gender, or race, possess certain rights that cannot be taken from them. “It links all members of the human race in a chain of rights and responsibilities that have implications for law, justice, and morality” (Human Rights 1). This means all people are entitled to human rights, and these rights cannot simply be taken away. The “universal” meaning of a human right means that all people have rights in every region of the world. Human rights do not just go away because people are born in a different part of the world because they are still part of the human race. The “indivisible” aspect of human rights means that all rights matter; people cannot “pick and choose”
There are different countries and cultures in the world, and as being claimed by cultural relativists, there is no such thing as “objective truth in morality” (Rachels, 2012). Cultural relativists are the people who believe in the Cultural Ethical Relativism, which declares that different cultures value different thing so common ethical truth does not exist. However, philosopher James Rachels argues against this theory due to its lack of invalidity and soundness. He introduced his Geographical Differences Argument to point out several mistakes in the CER theory. Cultural Ethical Relativism is not totally wrong because it guarantees people not to judge others’ cultures; but, Rachels’ viewpoints make a stronger argument that this theory should not be taken so far even though he does not reject it eventually.
Rights have been and continue to be violated across the world on both massive and miniscule scales. With rights violations being a constant issue, it is necessary, although it may be difficult, to determine which violations are human rights violations. Two aspects are crucial in this process: universality and paramountcy. Although practicability is also set forth as a criterion by Maurice Cranston, it is not as crucial when determining which acts violate human rights, or when they came into existence. This is due to the fact that when trying to distinguish between rights and human rights, almost all rights, not just specifically human rights, can, in some way, be practicable. For this reason, practicability, for the purpose of this essay, is
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.
[online] Available from: http://hdr.undp.org/reports/view_reports.cfm?year=2000&country= 0& region = 0& type = 0& theme = 0> [Accessed 2 March 2011]. Charney, E., (1999) Cultural Interpretation and Universal Human Rights: A Response to Daniel A. Bell.
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,
The universal declaration of human rights declared that all people have equal rights, regardless of race, gender, religion, language, culture, birth status, national origin, or opinion. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary international law, general principles and other sources of international law. International human rights law lays down obligations of Governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups. (ohchr.org) The universality of human rights is a concept that allows everyone to have the same basic human rights no matter where the location. If that concept is true then why are people being tortured and ostracized. Why are people still afraid of going against their leaders, fearing that they will be found and killed. It is because some leaders