Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Coercive interrogation can be determined as the application of physical or mental force to extract information that can have critical importance for saving others or protecting the interests of the state or nation. In such a way, it becomes a contradictory issue as there is a direct violation of the human rights guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Every person should be protected from the use of force as it humiliates his/her dignity and results in the emergence of multiple ethical issues.
Official reinstitution of the given policy will mean that the state accepts the fact that tortures can be used while trying to acquire particular information. At the same time, there is the question what legal rules should be created to make this practice permissible and applicable in the modern environment.
Speaking about coercive interrogation, it should also be said that the given practice is traditionally associated with the emergence of particular needs to protect the country or its citizens, which means that there is a perspective that in some special cases it can be permutable to acquire the needed result. However, utilization of the given approach will result in the emergence of double standards which is unacceptable in terms of the state’s existence, its functioning, and observation of its laws.
Moreover, regarding the Alien Tort Claims Act, the coercive interrogation becomes inadmissible as it can result in the emergence of dangerous precedents when the force is applied to individuals regardless of their citizenship or current status. In such a way, coercive interrogation can hardly be reinstituted in the existing legal environment as it undermines the modern legal environment and results in multiple ethical issues.
As for the extraordinary rendition, it is determined as the illegal transfer of a person from one country to another avoiding the existing laws and regulations that set the background for the legalization of this process. In the majority of cases, it is applied to detainees who should be provided with some extra punishment. Governments of countries engaged in this process prefer to disregard the existing ethical and legal issues to achieve success and get a needed person.
The problem is, there is a high probability of using force while speaking about individuals who underwent extraordinary rendition. The can be subjected to coercive interrogation, tortures, and other forms of punishments prohibited by the existing regulations and Human rights statues. In such a way, reinstitution of the given practice can result in the emergence of multiple ethical issues and will contradict to the official course of the USA.
At the same time, the universal declaration of human rights states that people who may be subjected to torture when they send back cannot be deported. It becomes obvious that extraordinary rendition violates the given principle as all individuals exchanged or sent back due to the given procedure experience violent behaviors and inappropriate treatment. There is a perspective that the initiation of the given process can be justified by the need to protect citizens and the state.
However, it cannot be utilized in the modern world as there is a focus on the cultivation of humanistic values and the creation of the environment beneficial for people’s development. For this reason, further attempts to reinstitute the given practice should be avoided as it violates human rights and deteriorates the image of the country and its government. Additionally, regarding the Alien Tort Act, the existing lawsuits should be taken as relevant ones and considered by the court as there are no reasons for their dismissal.
Trump’s decision to build a wall at the border between the USA and Mexico can trigger multiple debates and result in the emergence of many ethical issues. Regarding the nature of this action, there are several factors that should be mentioned. First, it will be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court because of the nature of executive orders and the past history evidencing that only in 3 cases it was not supported.
In such a way, the decision to build the wall will be accepted as it will be considered the National emergency and a potent way to struggle against the wave of immigration. The given act will empower a number of laws providing the President with new authorities and opportunities to control migration. However, it means that there will be a place for vigorous debates about the ethical character of the given decision.
The fact is that the majority of immigrants or refugees move from their homes trying to find better living conditions or avoid hazards and threats awaiting them in their native country. The universal declaration of human rights states that every person has the right to asylum in other countries from persecution. All individuals belonging to this category cannot also be deported because of the high possibility of violent acts or tortures. In such a way, the creation of the given wall in accordance with Trump’s decision can violate this norm. Immigrants who tried to avoid damage will have to return back because of the wall, or, in other words, will be sent back. It can be considered a serious problem as the given precedent deteriorates the image of the USA and its government.
There are also so-called Siracusa Principles that should be mentioned while speaking about this very case. In accordance with the basic assumptions suggested by this framework, each one of the five specific criteria should be met to determine if there is the necessity of protections. These points state that any restriction should be carried out in accordance with the law; be in the interest of a legitimate objective; remains critical in a democratic society; based on the scientific evidence; there are no other restrictive means.
Formally, Trump’s decision to build a wall meets some of these requirements as it is aimed at the protection of the democratic society and remains lawful as it is supported by the executive order. At the same time, there is no clear scientific evidence stating that the given measure is critical and effective. Moreover, it contains discriminative issues that limit people’s freedom of movement and their right for the asylum.
In such a way, the executive order that aims at the creation of the wall on the border violates the existing regulations about the human rights and the basic principles suggested by the international organizations to protect people from discriminative actions. There is a high probability that the given law will be supported and upheld by the Supreme Court because of the peculiarities of the existing legislation and past history. However, it does not mean that there are real causes for accepting this solution as it will trigger the public outcry and multiple debates about the discriminative politics peculiar to the USA. The problem with refugees and immigrants should be solved in another way that presupposes consideration of their needs and individual approach.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.