Human rights violation
A brief survey of human affairs globally from the conclusion of World War II to the present will reveal no shortage of daunting concerns. Global pandemics, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, devastating environmental disasters, economic volatility, starvation and malnourishment and stateless terrorist associations wrecking destruction on anyone in their way are but some of the major issues facing humanity presently.
It has commonly been agreed upon, in one ecognizable form or another at least since the Napoleonic wars, that the world’s peoples have converging interests in security, stability and economic prosperity. Regrettably acknowledging this leaves fully in tact questions of exactly how those interests are to be determined and by whom. Nonetheless international institutions and regimes have been established, modified, disassembled and reestablished with different mandates; along the way their efforts have effected real achievement in many areas of human affairs. For todays international challenges the countries and ations of this Earth are bestowed with the United Nations (UN), established in the immediate aftermath of the horrors of the Second World War. Among the UN’s purposes is ensuring the protection of universal human rights. With knowledge of the utter inhumanity of the Holocaust informing the architects’ design, the UN sought to establish an international norm (or standard) of respect for the individual’s rights (Wotipka and Tsutsui).
Human rights violation Essay Example
Being inherent to all human beings without regard to social status or personal identity, they are meant to ensure that people across the globe ave the opportunity to thrive in their environments free from oppression. And yet history and current political affairs provide a reality for much of the world’s populace out of step with this objective. From Myanmar today to El Salvador in the 1980’s, to Turkey in the late 1990’s to Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, gross human rights violations persist.
Be it denial of basic education based on gender, or whole scale gassing of populations based on ethnicity, governments in the modern world, as in the past, oppress and suppress in the name of stability and security with a heavy hand. There is no doubt that the agendas before the great powers of the international system and their international institutions are overwhelming and that a painfully selective process for determining what to focus limited political will on is required.
But it would be contrary to the founding purpose of the United Nations, undermine all of its operations and shame those of power and influence for the organization not to prioritize international collaboration on confronting human rights abuses. The feasible alternatives to international systematic cooperative efforts are extremely limited and likely undesirable for many. In the past the world has witnessed successful multilateral interventions that have given life to the ideals of the United Nations and other multilateral bodies.
And finally the sheer magnitude and scope of gross human rights violations throughout the globe demands a collective pooling ot the world’s available resources lest we permit instability and injustice of the highest sort to determine our future. For these reasons it is paramount that todays global leaders work diligently to promote a new regime capable of confronting grave and moderate human rights violations as defined by the United Nations and peoples of his planet.
One of the main and immediate criticisms given to proposing a global force charged with protecting human rights is that it would necessarily violate the well established international norm of state-sovereignty. “How a state treats its citizens within its borders is no one’s concern save the countrys population and its ruling authority. ” This amounts to claiming that an armed body external to any state’s laws would be unaccountable to any authority capable of constraining its reach.
While this concern has a legitimate and well regarded basis, especially in ountries which prioritize individualism and a fear of tyranny of the majority, this danger must be compared to the excesses of the existing international system of unipolarity (and recent history of colonialism). More specifically, it is not clear how the harm unleashed by the United States of America’s second Gulf War, or the French conflict in Indochina followed by its brutal campaign in Algeria, is not parallel to whatever Justifiable fears could exist for a humanitarian force overreach.
That is to say, given that states currently exist in a world where there is no established rule of aw, the exercise of state power often produces unintended deadly and tragic consequences for people and communities. Yes deterring that possibility through concentration of power will itself incur the same or similar risk, but if constructed properly and incrementally it will no doubt offer solutions outweighing risks (Greenhill).
If one is reminded that all that is theoretically required to Justify the combating of human rights violations is agreement on universal human rights (which has already been established) in terms of collective interests, the choice between a force so mandated and politics as usual is quite clear indeed. It should also be noted that nothing about a campaign for a protective human rights regime would necessarily require states to disarm or alliances to disband, thus preserving the room for checks on those operating the institution.
Despite the rather bleak picture of reality presented, the world has been fortunate enough to witness multiple successful humanitarian interventions, interventions that prevented human misdoings from escalating out of control. President Bill Clinton’s air campaign to halt bombing over Kosovo and Obama’s mobilization to prevent grave massacres in Libya oth attest to the positive impact that the use of force can have in the international sphere.
That these operations were not costless or uncontroversial in all quarters indicates part of our need to promote a global civil society intolerant of human rights violations; that the Obama and Clinton administrations deemed this bloodshed abroad to be unacceptable and operated with their available tools to curb it speaks to the influence of human rights ideals today. Whether these missions might have been better served under the auspices of the United Nations humanitarian forces and meaningful international cooperation) as opposed to the leadership of a select few states is certainly debatable.
However exactly how the resources going into the conflict were channeled is no more important than the question of how the state of affairs would be navigated following the cessation of armed conflict. That is to say, it should be apparent that what happens in one location on the globe attects tn happenings elsewhere, and so it stands to reason that negotiating power arrangements within the region in question should be undertaken with as many relevant participants as possible.
Ensuring that those participants operate with a concern for humanitarian well being in the foreseeable future speaks to the necessity of a robust institutional regime of human rights. States like Myanmar, which have a history of persecuting civilians simply for being of the wrong ethnicity, generate political and social instability and give impetus toa cycle of unrest.
That this trajectory is unjust and unsustainable for the people of Myanmar is obvious; that it greatly contributes to political instability, economic worries and social upheaval in the region and beyond is not, but is no less important. It is precisely because of todays interconnected, interdependent global political economy that we need to be especially sensitive to grave human rights abuses. Failure to address violations of the individual and violations of collective groups breeds the downfall of a countrys regime, and its downfall will eventually impact all countries in some way.
Even if the impact might be positive for a particular country it simply makes the most rational sense for states to preventatively work to collect their material resources in an effort to shape the outcome of the county in question. This collective action, though tedious and far from perfect, permits shaping the state of affairs in line with collective interests rather than allowing the international system to fall subject to unpredictable forces consequent isolated or regional regime change.
It has already been established and agreed upon that universal human rights exist; the benefits of international cooperation have similarly been brought to bear out through history it is time for humankind to determine a rational marriage of the two. While determining the exact initial arrangements for an international regime of such ooperation will undoubtedly be complex and intensely controversial, this essay has sought to elucidate the importance of the world populace committing to it.
Claiming the ideal of protecting human rights is alone insufficient to ensure their respect from governments in authority. A permanent armed transnational institution entrusted to oversee governments’ respect for universal human rights has the real potential to contribute to a more stable, prosperous and Just future for the planet.