Category: Human Rights

Outline

It is strongly felt by most human rights activists as also by many governments that the real test for the commitment towards human rights lies in the way society treats people who are not given the freedom that every citizen is entitled to. There are several international treaties and norms about the manner in which prisoners should be treated and organizations such as the UN strive to have the human rights guidelines implemented amongst member countries. The idea is to translate the globally accepted standards on prison administration into practice so that there is increased trust in the prison services. This is an essential step in ensuring human rights to all human beings irrespective of their status. This paper will discuss the various aspects of the human rights approach to imprisonment. The complex problems in the context of prison management will be discussed and an analysis made of the manners in which prison administrators can imbibe the skills to ensure higher levels of human rights for prisoners.

Introduction

The international standards for human rights in prisons are provided for by a large number of instruments:

• The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1953)
• European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1989)
• European Prison Rules(1987)
• American Convention on Human Rights (1978)
• African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1986)

Throughout the world, judicial bodies of nations are responsible for the implementation of prison standards. In America, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights fulfills the role while in Europe it is fulfilled by the European Court of Human Rights. In Europe human rights in prisons are overseen by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights had appointed a Special Rapporteur on Prison Conditions in 1997. The UN also has adopted an Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture in establishing a uniform system whereby regular visits are made to prisons by independent inspection agencies. However the international standards for prisons can be implemented effectively only if prison officials are aware of such standards and can interpret them in applying them in realistic working situations. In a democratic society prisons are institutions that are run and managed by authorities in contributing for the cause of public welfare. Prison officials are accountable to the government and the people ought to be kept regularly informed about the state of prisons in the country.

Main Body

Prison management must function in an ethical structure, not only in terms of behaviour of prison staff but also in terms of correct procedures and operational efficiencies in order to avoid charges of inhuman practices. Prison management is primarily concerned with the administration of both prisoners and staff, which implies that the issues related to aspects that reach beyond efficiency and usefulness. The objective should be to do things right in the human perspective. The focus in prison management should be on staff and prisoners and the quality of relationships amongst them. The role of prison staff is to:

• to treat prisoners in a manner which is decent, humane and just
• to ensure that all prisoners are safe
• to make sure that dangerous prisoners do not escape
• to make sure that there is good order and control in prisons
• to provide prisoners with the opportunity to use their time in prison positively so that they will be able to resettle into society when they are released

In a democratic society, the core values of people are protected by the law and the most vital amongst them is to ensure the self respect and self esteem of all people irrespective of their social standing. The best means to test the existence of such rights is to see the manner in which society deals with people that have broken the law and are under detention with restricted or no freedom. Coyle (2002) has aptly said that:

“It is said that no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside the jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones. This is the basis for placing prison management, above all else, within an ethical framework. This imperative must never be lost sight of by senior administrators, by prison management or by first line prison staff. Without an ethical context, managerial efficiency in prisons can take a path that leads ultimately to the barbarism of the concentration camp and the gulag,” (Coyle, 2002).

A coherent strategy and clear statement of purpose have to be framed for prison officials so that justice is practiced as a core value. Prisoners are people who are deprived of freedom and hence should be treated with respect and humanity in upholding human rights. Prison officials are required by law to perform their duties in assuming that their work is of great social service and in this respect they must ensure that public should be kept informed. While performing their duties prison personnel must demonstrate conduct in ways that they set example before prisoners in regard to respect and concern for them. Since prisoners are sent to prisons after following the due process of law, prison administration must comprise of civil and not military authorities. There should also be a distinct separation amongst the police and prison administration. It is important to have prisons under civilian authorities since almost all prisoners will eventually return to civil society after completing their prison terms and will need the support of a social structure. Hence it becomes imperative for prison administrations to associate closely with public service organizations and agencies such as health and social care organizations. It becomes easier to do so if prison management works as a civil agency instead of being manned by military or police personnel.

Prison officials need to understand that prisoners do not stop becoming human beings irrespective of the gravity of the crime they have committed. In being convicted they have their freedom taken away for the duration of their term but their humanity is not forfeited. Prison staff should consider prisoners as human beings since they do not have the right to consider them as being inferior to other humans in terms of self respect and dignity. Prison officials must work in the ethical framework because prisoners maintain their entitlement as humans, and should be able to comprehend the implication of such principles. Some aspects of this principle are very tacit in that prisoners are not to be tortured or intentionally meted out with brutal, inhuman and humiliating treatments. The awareness of this prohibition applies not only to mental and physical cruelty but also in totality of the circumstances in which prisoners are kept. According to Coyle (2002):

“torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions,” (Coyle, 2002).

Authorities must make sure that the operation guidelines do not permit them to inflict mental and physical torture on prisoners. This is also applicable for prisoners that are difficult and disruptive or for those that are segregated in view of the intensity of their crimes. The treatment that a prisoner is given when he or she enters prison is an important indication of the attitude of the prison staff. Treatment with prisoners who repeatedly break rules can be firm and assertive but there should be no involvement of brutality and inhumanity. Prisoners are also susceptible to sexual abuse under duress or in exchange, by way of swapping for certain benefits. Sexual abuse is also inflicted by staff or fellow prisoners as a way to punish and dominate over inmates. Rape in prisons has become a common problem in many countries raising serious concern about the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS. Prison officers must ensure that prison inmates, especially women are secure from the threats of sexual abuse (Council of Europe, 2006).

Torture can never be used in justifying the brutal and cruel actions taken against a prisoner and whenever force is warranted, it should be used in keeping with the provided procedure and must be limited to restraining the prisoner. All procedures of using force and of using other means such as handcuffs, batons and chains can be used only under the provisions of the rules. Prison staff should not be given free and unhindered access to handcuffs and other such means, but their use ought to be duly authorized by the competent officer.

Prisoners should also be provided with opportunities to develop and improve in terms of education and skills enhancement. Though a daunting task, it is essential to improve the prospects of prisoners since most of them come from disrupted and poor families. Prisons should function as places where prisoners indulge in constructive activities in order to make their conditions better. At the minimum, prisons should not prove to be places where prisoners become in a worse position as compared to the time when they entered prison. The prison should assist them in improving their health and in developing them intellectually so as to enable them to get more from life. Prisoners should be rehabilitated in a way that they not only learn to live well but also succeed in the outside world after they are released from prison. Prisoners can do well in life and refrain from criminal activities after release if they are rehabilitated and reformed to meet the challenges of the outside world. This will also save them from the discrimination that prisoners face after release from prison.

Conclusion

It is of significance to provide prisoners with the same working environment that is available to the general public in terms of health laws, occupational diseases and safety measures. This implies that prison officials must be conversant with legislative instructions in regard to health and safety measures and should ensure that they are implemented in prisons. The legislation should also be made applicable in regard to hours spent by prisoners on work. The working hours should be so framed that prisoners get time to engage in different activities. A balanced set of activities need to be framed for prisoners that comprise of skills enhancement, industrial training, educational and cultural pursuits and physical activities. Although the extent of these activities may vary amongst different prisons, there should be ample scope for prisoners to engage in them as per their calibre and needs.

Reference List

Council of Europe, (2006). European Prison Rules, Council of Europe.

Coyle Andrew, (2002). A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management, International Centre for Prison Studies.

This paper aims at considering Daily Briefs posts related to article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), stating, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights). The article primarily concerns the right to hold and express personal opinions freely without the government’s or any other organizations’ interference. This implies the ability and permission to speak views publicly via demonstrations and protests or through television or radio broadcasting, the internet, social media, or published articles, leaflets, and books. The article also protects the freedom to obtain information from mass media or other means of disseminating information and people overall.

Germany Presses China on Abuses in Hong Kong. (Riera, 2020)

On September 1, 2020, Germany appealed to China regarding its security law inflicted on Hong Kong and the treatment of minority Uighurs during Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s visit. The law contains provisions that may have devastating consequences to human rights in Hong Kong, including creating specialized, secret security agencies and strengthening restraints on the media and civil society. This act was followed by many protests in Hong Kong and other countries, as well as actions from the United States and the European Union, such as the export limitation of equipment and sanction imposition.

Libya: Armed Groups Violently Quell Protests (Salah, 2020)

In August 2020, Tripoli’s armed forces associated with Libya’s Government of National Accord (GNA) utilized lethal weapons, such as machine guns, to disperse predominantly peaceful anti-corruption demonstrations. They also arbitrarily detained and tortured protesters, and people in the capital disappeared. UN experts and ambassadors of foreign countries, including the US and the EU, responded to this violation, calling not to use weapons and allow the people to express their will.

Hungary Renews Attacks on Independent Radio Station (Gall, 2020)

In September 2020, Hungary’s Media Council unexpectedly announced that it would cancel the frequency of Klubradio as of February 2021. Andras Arato, Klubradio’s president, regards this decision as an example of the Hungarian government’s effort to control the independent press and the media landscape overall. The EU institutions still have not responded to this move by the Hungarian government, but they are intensifying their attention to Hungary’s actions concerning the violation of democratic principles.

Myanmar: Stop Prosecuting Peaceful Protesters (Adams, B., 2020)

The incident happened when on September 12, a special police unit conducted a nighttime raid on Paing Min Khant’s home in North Okkala, Yangon. Moreover, twenty students across Myanmar have been charged under different laws after joining the sticker and protest campaigns On September 10, criticizing the government, particularly for the mobile internet shutdown in Chin and Rakhine States. Bangkok’s government officials gave an immediate response, claiming that the Myanmar authorities should stop responding to the government’s criticism in such ways.

Two Years Since Journalist Jamal Khashoggi was Brutally Murdered (Khashoggi, S., 2020)

The post mentions the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, executed by Saudi agents in Washington in 2018. Jamal Khashoggi was a Saudi dissident writer who aimed to found an organization, named DAWN afterward, in Washington, which would advance democracy in the Arab world. This is a direct violation of Article 19 of the UDHR, which protects the right to freedom to hold one’s own opinion without hindrance. Fadoua Massat, DAWN’s Arabic media director, accused the Saudi government, Prince Mohammed, in particular, of committing Khashoggi’s murder

The Closure of NRT Offices (Wille, B., 2020)

The post responds to the unlawful shutdown of two offices of a private media, namely, NRT, in Erbil and Dohuk by Kurdish authorities on August 19, 2020. This was performed to limit covering protests and broadcasts with criticism of the ruling party. One of NRT’s lawyers stated that the action was politically motivated because the authorities had not notified the organization and had not summoned to court.

Protests Still Scare Egypt’s Government (Magdi, A., 2020)

The post points to the protests beginning on September 20, 2020, at the initiative of Mohamed Ali, a self-exiled former army contractor. In response to the mostly peaceful demonstrations, security forces used batons, tear gas, live ammunition, and birdshot to disperse. The independent Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms (ECRF) registered 944 detentions, including 72 children.

Peaceful Protests in Thailand (Human Rights Watch, 2020)

In Bangkok, on October 16, 2020, Thai police used water cannons unnecessarily against demonstrators demanding human rights, democracy, and reform. Human Rights Watch said that this is a clear violation of international human rights standards. The demonstration was organized by the pro-democracy People’s Movement that comprised thousands of people, including many students. Brad Adams said that the Thai government was pursuing broad repression to finish the students’ protests.

India’s Counterterrorism Operations (Roth, K., 2020)

The Indian government conducted several raids on offices and homes in Kashmir, Bangalore, and Delhi to silence peaceful human rights activists, journalists, and other dissenters, on October 28 and 29, 2020. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) frequently initiated politically motivated criminal cases against journalists, students, academics, and other activists. In October, Michelle Bachelet, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, expressed concern about targeting activists under the counterterrorism law.

The Arrest of Opposition Politician and Crackdown of Protests in Uganda (Reuters Africa, 2020)

Ugandan police applied tear gas, rubber bullets, live rounds to suppress a protest organized by supporters of Bobi Wine, opposition presidential candidate. According to assistants and witnesses, the candidate was detained on November 3 after submitting his documents on the nomination. Wine stated that “our generation is determined to save you (ruling authority) from yourself and stop your 35-year-old dictatorship.”

Work Cited

“Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations, Web.

Protection of the human rights of its citizens is the primary duty of any country. However, many governments disregard this responsibility, with the situation quickly deteriorating in many nations. This report will discuss the current situation in Russia, concentrating on the changes which occurred in 2020. The brief will focus on the recent violations of human rights in the country, examine experts’ opinions, and discuss potential interventions that can promote permanent change.

Russia Federation: Background Information

Russia is one of the countries where the human rights situation is considered alarming. The country is the largest in the world, stretching from Eastern Europe to Northern Asia. According to the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (Honstein, 2020), the country’s population reached 146,780,720 as of January 21, 2019, with 80.9% being ethnically Russian and 19.1% represented by various ethnic minorities. In terms of religion, more than half of the people of the country identify themselves as Orthodox, a quarter stating they are spiritual, and 13% saying they are atheist (Honstein, 2020). The country is considered “Not Free” by the Freedom House international ranking and scored 6 and 7 points on the scales of political rights and civil freedoms (Honstein, 2020). Overall, the country has a highly diverse population whose human rights need continuous monitoring and protection.

Human Rights as of September 2020

As of September 2020, the human rights situation in Russia can be categorized as problematic. The activities of many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were interfered with due to the law on “foreign agents” passed in October of 2018 (Human Rights Watch, 2020b). The law prevents NGOs from “providing anti-corruption evaluations of draft legal acts” and gives the government the authority to investigate and ban organizations (Human Rights Watch, 2020b). Overall, many NGOs receiving funds from foreign countries became vulnerable to governmental interference.

Additionally, freedom of expression in Russia is also being infringed upon. According to the report issued by the Human Rights Watch in 2020 (2020b, p. 475), the country’s authorities frequently “misuse incitement to hatred offenses to stifle legitimate protected speech.” In March 2019. The government passed the bill that sanctions articles and online posts that contain “fake news” or express “blatant disrespect” for the country (Human Rights Watch, 2020b). In addition, a significant number of prisoners and detainees in the country are physically assaulted by the prison staff (Human Rights Watch, 2020b). Considering the country’s laws and the attitudes towards prisoners and those who openly disagree with the government, the country’s overall human rights situation is alarming.

Human Rights Violations

The right to freedom of association continued to deteriorate during the fall of 2020. On November 18, 2020, the parliament introduced a bill aimed at extending “foreign agents” laws in the country (Human Rights Watch, 2020a). The new bill proposes to declare an individual of any nationality a “foreign agent” if they engage in political activity and receive funds or support from foreign organizations or individuals (Human Rights Watch, 2020a). According to Human Rights Watch (2020a), such individuals must register their activity with the authorities and can be forcibly included on the list of “foreign agents.” Overall, the bill will allow the government to further interfere with and obstruct the activities of NGOs and persons conducting any political activity and prevent human rights violations from being reported.

A severe infringement of freedom of speech and an incident of cruel and degrading treatment occurred in Russia in the fall of 2020. On September 7, 2020, a video was released showing the torture of 19-year-old Salman Tepsurkaev, the moderator of an online chat channel 1ADAT known for criticizing the authorities in Chechnya (Human Rights Watch, 2020c). Although it is unknown whether the kidnapping and attack on Tepsurkaev were conducted by the region’s government, it was openly endorsed by Chechen officials (Human Rights Watch, 2020c). This case illustrates both the violation of the right to freedom of speech and freedom from inhumane treatment. Since the video was published, the whereabouts of Tepsurkaev remain unknown, with the authorities unwilling to investigate his mistreatment and disappearance.

Expert Opinion

The government’s goal to expand the “foreign agent” laws fell under criticism from some experts. Thus, Amnesty International’s Researcher Natalia Prilutskaya condemned the proposed change, stating that the bill “will drastically limit and damage the work of civil society organizations” (Amnesty International, 2020). According to Prilutskaya (Amnesty International, 2020), the bill undermines the work of NGOs and human rights defenders working independently. If passed, individual advocates will not be able to effectively continue their work in the country (Amnesty International, 2020). In addition, Kara-Murza (2020) states that the Russian record of violations is substantial, and the country should not be granted a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council. Allowing Russia to re-join the council will indulge “the very culture of impunity it is supposed to combat” (Kara-Murza, 2020). Overall, expert opinion on the outcomes of human rights in Russia in the future shows a lack of certainty the country’s record of infringements is going to improve.

Potential Interventions

It is imperative to support the promotion of permanent changes in approach to human rights violations in the country. In my opinion, Russia has many laws and legislations that prevent this change and ensure it cannot be quickly achieved. In the cases discussed above, the first step would be to repeal the new bill proposing to extend the “foreign agent” laws and pass a new law defending the right to freedom of expression. Furthermore, as many kidnappings and inhumane treatment incidents remain unpunished and rarely investigated, the country should criminalize the police and government officials’ failure to examine such cases. It would be better accomplished by establishing an independent organization funded by the government. However, as the current administration has a long list of human rights violations, permanent change can only be achieved after the change of power.

Furthermore, interventions proposed by foreign states and independent organizations are unlikely to find support from the government. Therefore, international human rights groups should support local Russian organizations to promote change. There are many advocacy agencies currently active in the country. Thus, the Moscow Research Center for Human Rights coordinates the work of various civic groups in the country (Moscow Research Center for Human Rights, n.d.). Similarly, the Sakharov Center aims to distribute news not covered by the mainstream media, provide a safe space for various NGOs to communicate, and support cooperation between human rights advocates and critics (The Sakharov Center, n.d.). The Committee Against Torture is aimed at public investigation of complaints against torture and degrading treatment incidents not investigated by the police (Committee Against Torture, 2020). It is vital to support these organizations in order to facilitate change in the country.

Conclusion

In summary, the human rights situation in Russia shows a continual decline. There are concerning restrictions being imposed on the country’s citizens. The latest incidents display severe infringements on the rights to freedom of association, freedom from torture, and freedom of expression. Some experts voice an opinion that the country will continue to limit the listed rights and should not be allowed to return to the UN Human Rights Council in le of its numerous violations. Overall, permanent change in the state is possible if Russian human rights organizations are supported by international groups.

References

Amnesty International. (2020). Russia: New ‘foreign agents’ bill further erodes freedom of expression and association. Web.

Committee Against Torture. (2020). What we do. Web.

Honstein, E. (2020). Russia. ICNL. Web.

Human Rights Watch. (2020a). Russia: New move to suffocate civil society. Web.

Human Rights Watch. (2020b). World Report. Web.

Human Rights Watch. (2020c). Statement by Russian and international human rights organizations on the case of Salman Tepsurkaev. Web.

Kara-Murza, V. (2020). Vladimir Putin’s Russia doesn’t deserve a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council. The Washington Post. Web.

Moscow Research Center for Human Rights. (n.d.). Moscow research center for human rights. Friends and Partners. Web.

The Sakharov Center. (n.d.). About us. 2020, Web.

The protection and observance of human rights is a complex task on a global scale since countries’ cultural, political, and ethical norms differ from those defined by international laws. At the same time, international organizations make efforts to help people worldwide avoid the negative consequences of the violation of their rights. However, as Polman and Hopgood’s works demonstrate, the practices and principles of international organizations and institutions actually are often far from the humanitarian goals they advocate.

The main idea of ​​Hopgood’s articles is that the practices and principles of human rights, which are fundamental in the modern world, are dying, which is confirmed by various manifestations. For example, Hopgood notes that the adoption of laws and statutes is an essential element of the protection of the rights, but it does not mean that they will not be violated (13). In other words, the difference between enacting laws, taking regulatory action, and enforcing them is enormous. For example, despite the fight against female genital mutilation, some African countries have still not abandoned this practice (Hopgood 13). For this reason, the second sign that Hopgood points to is pushback from many states, which American and European organizations cannot effectively fight (14). For example, the prohibition of homosexuality in many countries of Africa and the Middle East, the restriction of China and Russia’s citizen’s freedoms, and the dictatorship of Africa and Latin America. According to Hopgood, this manifestation and development of many non-European countries with other systems of value, often based on religion, will lead to a multipolar world and a Neo-Westphalian system (18). In other words, human rights will no longer be viewed as universal and binding, which will fundamentally change the system of interaction between international organizations and institutions.

At the same time, Polman also argues that the current system of humanitarian organizations working to help and protect people’s rights has many shortcomings. One of the author’s central theses is that nongovernmental organizations are commercial, and this feature determines the directions and some principles of their work. For example, organizations choose those conflicts that will attract more public and donor attention because this helps them to get more return on funds. For instance, Polman tells about the Hutu children who were passing exams thanks to humanitarian aid, although the Tutsis did not have books or the opportunity to study (49-50). This fact is one example that organizations unevenly help in different conflicts. In addition, for the same purpose, organizations engage the media and manipulate facts. Polman cites the example of a cholera outbreak in a refugee camp in Rwanda when the media attributed people killed by Hutu extremists to the victims of the disease to raise more funds (39). At the same time, the author does not claim that organizations are not useful but discloses that their motives are often selfish.

Moreover, Polman also demonstrates that, in some cases, humanitarian interventions can do more harm than good to people. The first example is that, in some cases, organizations are forced to pay terrorists to deliver humanitarian aid. This situation happened in Sri Lanka in 2004 when Caritas paid 25% extra to the Tamil Tigers (Polman 160). Thus, the organization provided the terrorists with resources that they could use for the war. Another factor is that the assistance is not always qualified, but the organizations usually do not bear responsibility for their mistakes. For example, the European Commission sent food with radioactive contamination traces to Africa (Polman 91). However, these mistakes are rarely covered in the press, and the error of treatment by one volunteer can go completely unnoticed. Consequently, humanitarian aid recipients can suffer more harm than benefit to life, health, and human rights in practice.

Analyzing both authors’ work, one can come to the general conclusion that the processes of protecting and observing human rights have many shortcomings in real life. Polman demonstrates the internal reasons why humanitarian missions are of limited use to protect human rights or at least the bare minimum for life. Commercial nongovernmental organizations manipulate the facts to raise funds that often do not reach the beneficiaries (Polman 231). In the other case, even if funds are sufficient, they are used in places where this assistance is popular but not necessarily severely needed. Moreover, such help can even harm people due to the mistakes of organizations. These deficiencies are latent to the public and undermine the effective operation of organizations. At the same time, Hopgood points to external reasons for the ineffectiveness of modern institutions, which are more global. The discrepancy between the generally accepted norms based on the European value system, as well as the lack of effective sanctions, leads to a large-scale violation of human rights by countries. Such a trend is a progressive process that will be difficult for the European and American governments to overcome.

Therefore, taken together, the ideas of Polman and Hopgood demonstrate that the fight for human rights and its visible progress is more optimistic than it actually is, and the recipients are more a tool for creating a positive image of this struggle. While in some cases, organizations and institutions benefit people in critical situations, globally, these changes are insufficient. However, criticism and changes of humanitarian organizations can improve the situation slightly and really bring help to the suffering people and protection of human rights.

Works Cited

Hopgood, Stephen. “The Endtimes of Human Rights”. Changing Perspectives on Human Rights: Debating The Endtimes of Human Rights, edited by Doutje Lettinga and Lars van Troost, The Strategic Studies Project, 2013, pp.11-17.

Polman, Linda. The Crisis Caravan. Translated by Liz Waters, Metropolitan Books, 2010.

Human rights are considered to be the fundamental rights, that every individual is considered to have asses too. Some of these are the right to liberty, the right to life, the right of the freedom to think and express oneself, and finally the right to receive equal handling as regards issues relating to the law (Manul 56). These rights are considered to be entitlements to humans or a group. Ensuring the respect of human rights can be said to be the responsibility of the government and its citizenry. The rights are meant to be attributed naturally, that is to say, they are not meant to be worked for (Purkitt 34). Based on this fact, no individual, therefore, is supposed to be deprived of these rights on whatever ground, be it color, sex, or religion. Different regions in the world have different interpretations of what human rights are, that is to say, the interpretation varies. Irrespective of the variance in the interpretation the values are shared.

Interventions to protect Human Rights

Humanitarian Intervention

Humanitarian intervention came about as a result of the obvious need to secure the rights of humans and at the same time uphold peace and tranquility. Internationally, evidence shows that the world is moving in the direction of thinking that regard for human rights, is the negative duty of the Government to uphold, and not just that but also the positive responsibility of the government to ensure the defense of these rights. And also to ensure that the rights of some people are not violated by others. The humanitarian intervention comes in two forms, unilateral and collective intervention (Ahane 68).

The topic of “interventionism’ has generated so much debate that the direction of shift of which can hardly be pointed at. Most of the small or weak states see intervention by the Big or powerful states as “colonialism”. It is thus right to say that governments that are weak need to start taking responsibility for their states “interventionism”. These will be for their good. Most of the major instances of “interventionism” that created controversies internationally, in most cases come at a time they were not useful, and at the same time they did not provide enough reason to handle principle issues, the role of the UN and what can be said to be the limit of the sovereignty of a state. In a speech delivered by Kofi Annan in 1999 and 2002, to find a solution to this problem stated “…if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica—to gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every precept of our common humanity?”( Manul 57)

Human Rights and State Sovereignty

Human rights can not be said to be undermining the sovereignty of a state, but both are said to be rooted inside sovereignty (Manul 14). The understanding of what human rights and sovereignty is all about has in the present day been reshaped by the ideals of different schools of thought. In another vein, if human rights are described as rights that are universal, and available to every individual, how can these rights not be described as being contrasting to the authority of states? The answer that can be given to this is, human rights and the sovereignty of the states have been made by the political and legal practices to be compact (Ahane 34). This notwithstanding there is every possibility that shortly the sovereignty of the states will be of uttermost concern to most nations, this will not go unchallenged by the citizenry clamoring for the protection of their rights (Manul et al 32).

Human rights and sovereignty are view by most people as been opposed to each other. Or simply put the right of the citizenry rutted against the state rights. But in the real sense, they both go hand in hand. It is the people that protect the rights of the state and the state in return protects the people.

Works Cited

Ahane, Bill. Challenging the Sovereignty Norm, Istanbul: CDM, 2002.

Baylis, John, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens. The Globalization of World Politics. 4^th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Manul, Jones. Human Rights and the Law, Maiduguri: Achan, 1996.

Purkitt, Helen E. World Politics 09/10.Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2009.

Summary

It would not be wrong to state that Regulation, purported by the military junta in Fiji Islands under the command o Commodore Bainimarama has issued draconian laws that imply absolute and unfettered powers to security personnel and total loss of any kind of freedom to the inhabitants, in terms of freedom to congregate, maintain religious functions or expression of their views on matters of the state.

Thus the laws enforced by removing a constitutionally elected government in Fiji and abrogating the constitution, seek to further military interests and make a mockery of democratic process in this island nation. The arrest of prominent Methodist church leaders and their subsequent release on the condition that they are not seen in public, raises questions about the deepening moral and constitutional crisis in this island and also the future of democracy in this country.

It is believed that the gross overreaction of the military in the internal affairs of the Methodist church in Fiji has paved the way for international focus to be centered in this island, especially in matter of gross military interference in affairs of the church.

Moreover, it is seen that Fiji is to be a party to first optional protocol, which seeks to be a signatory to this protocol due in September 2009. Yet the going on in Fiji belie the terms and spirit of the First optional protocol. Again, it is seen that the military rulers have derogated from the enforcement of the Fijian constitution and issued their own laws, without consulting the United Nations or its Secretary –General.

It is necessary that the UNO rightly interferes in the political affairs of Fiji not only in terms of protecting the cause of its one million strong populations, but also in terms of its larger role and responsibility to the purveyors of democratic causes in the free world.

Introduction

Human rights mean the basic rights that the entire human beings deserve. The basic rights include right to live, freedom of expression, and equal treatment in front of the law, right for education, right for food…etc. “Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status.” (What are Human Rights).

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is an esteemed organisation of United Nations which has a committee for the protection of human rights. The committee stays for ensuring the equality and dignity among human beings. The committee works for ensuring human beings are receiving political, economical, religious and other rights.

Background of case

The Methodist Church in Fiji conducts annual conferences which involves a choir competition and a general meeting. From this conference the Church collects the required money for the conduct of the Church. One such annual meeting was supposed to be held in August, but in May the one Methodist minister, Rev ML, called for democracy to be restored, which resulted in the military junta cancelling the permit and prohibiting the participation, of the two Methodist ministers including Rev ML, in the meeting,. This gave raise to a clash between the Church and Government authorities resulting in the arrest of prominent leaders. The Methodist members gathered in one day in July to discuss the conducting of annual conference. Police arrested the leaders and other members of the Methodist Church. The Methodist Church decided to go ahead with the filing application to the human rights committee stating that they did not receive the rights that are supposed to be received under ICCPR.

Analysis of the case focusing in different perspective

From the brief description of the case given above, it is clear that there is a violation of human rights including the violation of rights like freedom of expression, meeting, religious freedom…etc. The government decision of cancelling the permission for meeting and the subsequent arrest of the religious leaders is treated as a violation of human rights. The reason given by the government authority was that, they did not obey the rules of the government. However what happened actually is the arrest of the members of the Methodist Church for not obeying the anti-religious declaration of prohibiting the religious leader from attending the meeting.

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

The UN constituted movement called The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) has been constituted for ensuring that human rights are not violated. There are 161 state parties in ICCPR. This is just like International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which works for ensuring economic, social and cultural right of the each individual in the world.

Article 1 of the ICCPR explains the right of self-determination which is important among the human rights. Article 2 to Article 5 explains the right to life and article 7 is for banning the torturing of individuals. The article 26 is for discrimination prohibition. Article 27 gives a right for uniting or engaging in cultural development for ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities. Human Rights Committee is entrusted with enforcing the rights mentioned in ICCPR (Tomuschat).

Therefore it is clear that there were a breach of the different provisions of article. Article 26 prohibits all kinds of discrimination. Here the government authority showed discrimination towards the Methodist Church group by cancelling the permission to conduct their annual conference for reasons which are not genuine. Also it can be found that there was a violation of the provisions of Article 27, which is the right for uniting on grounds like religion, language or ethnicity. Now, it is the dusty of the human rights committee to be with the side of Methodist Church members and fight for ensuring justice to them. Otherwise there may raise a question that what is the need for a committee like human rights committee.

Protest from the international community

Rev. Edward W. Paup, general secretary of the United Methodist General Board of Global Minorities says that they are very much disappointed by the Fiji Government’s Act of cancellation of annual conference of Methodists Church and the arrest of leaders (Wright)

Analysis of the situation with a legal background

The universal declaration of human rights explains that only if conditions are set for each human right, the idea of free human beings enjoying his/her civil or political rights, social, economic and cultural rights can be made into action (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).

According to Fiji Public Emergency Regulations 2009, if any assembly or meeting takes place without an order or permission, the in charge persons or a police officer has the right to prohibit such meetings. But the in charge person can possibly give the members due warnings at the initial stage and later on can use arms or any force to disperse such assemblies or meetings. So, here in this case, the in charge persons could have given the members who participated in the meeting a warning at the initial stage and on further disobeying of their order, the police can very well suppress the meeting through any force. The regulations also tell that any person prohibited of attending the meetings tried to attend the meeting in controversial to the law is guilty. Here in case of the Methodist church, the authorities of the church prohibited the involvement of two prominent Methodist ministers and it was a matter limited to the church alone. This prohibition was not announced by the law or act, and hence there is a loop hole always for the participants of the meeting under the law. Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, everyone has the right to freedom of expression, i.e. they have the right of freedom to seek, impart or receive ideas and information either orally or in writing or through any media. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also describes that everyone have the right to freedom of association with others. So in the case of the Methodist church, the participants very well have the right for conducting the meeting, unless they are prohibited by the law or government. A report on this incident tells that “the arrests have brought into conflict three of the pillars of Fijian society: church, people, and state.” (Wright).

It is seen that the military coup itself, during 2006 is an illegal act and is in violation of the provisions contained under the Fuji Constitutional Act 1997. “The radical moves ensure that Commodore Frank Bainimarama retains control over the South Pacific nation despite a Court of Appeal ruling on Thursday that the 2006 coup in which he seized power was unlawful, and so was his government.” (Ligaiula). Section 112 Sub section 2 (1) of the Constitution of the Fijian Islands makes it clear that the President of this island nation, would, upon the advice of the Minister, appoint the military commander and commander would be under the control of the Minister.(Constitution (Amendment) Act 1997).

The subsequent rescission of the constitutional laws and the import of the military junta’s own laws are grossly undemocratic and violate the very rubric of human rights in this island nation. Thus it would be most appropriate to consider the aspect from the perspective of the Methodist church and how best international attention could be drawn towards the unjust happenings in this island.

What human rights have been breached under the Public Emergency Regulation 2009?

In these occurrences in this island nation, it is first necessary to consider what human rights have been breached under the Public Emergency Regulation 2009.

It would not be wrong to state that this regulation, purported by the military junta in Fiji Islands under the command o Commodore Bainimarama has issued draconian law that implies absolute and unfettered powers to security personnel and total loss of any kind of freedom to the inhabitants, in terms of freedom to congregate, maintain religious functions or expression of their views. Thus the laws enforced by removing a constitutionally elected government in Fiji and abrogating the constitution, seek to further military interests and make a mockery of democratic process in this island nation. Under the new laws, military personnel could enter any residence or place with arms where it is believed that three or more people are congregating, and could even use force to dispel them. Further, the matter of impunity is reinforced through the fact that no civil or criminal proceedings could be instituted against security personnel for injury sustained, or death caused to people (Human Rights Abuse Escalate in Fiji).

The arrest of prominent Methodist church leaders and their subsequent release on the condition that they are not seen in public, raises questions about the deepening moral and constitutional crisis in this island and also the future of democracy in this country. (Wright).

The meetings conducted by the Methodist church were in no way, prejudicial to public safety or order or, in any way, infringed the rights or privileges. As a matter of fact, they were to further the religious causes within their memberships and was not politically motivated, although the leaders references to restoration of democracy in the island may have been construed as having political connotations by the military administration.Further, the fact that the leadership had made ardent calls for democracy to be restored in Fiji was neither politically motivated, nor insinuating or undermining the rule of the present military junta in Fiji.

Military intervention in affairs of Methodist church

It is believed that the gross overreaction of the military in the internal affairs of the Methodist church in Fiji has paved the way for international focus to be centered in this island, especially in matter of gross military interference in civilian matters and a complete restructuring of the judiciary in order to suit the military command.

This is not acceptable in any democratic set up, most of all in cases where the military has overthrown a democratically elected government in that country and has, in more ways than one, forced itself into power by methods that do not follow democratic norms and ethics. They have twisted and turned the legal process to suit their own dictatorial ends and have completely deciminated the last vestiges of democracy in the country through browbeating and application of forceful methods upon the populace, especially the minority communities.

It is seen that the Church league and Chief Rev. Tuikilakila Waqairatu, General Secretary of Church, have made an application to the Human Rights commission at the United Nations seeking redressal of provisions under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Fiji is a party to first optional Protocol

Moreover, it is seen that Fiji is to be a party to first optional protocol, which seeks to be a signatory to this protocol due in September 2009. This protocol recognizes that human beings require “civil and political rights and freedoms as much as they require housing, education, health and other economic, social and cultural rights to live a life of dignity and freedom.“(Justice now Ratify to protect all Human Rights).

Breach of covenants of ICCPR

The following provisions of the ICCPR may have been breached by the actions of the military junta.

• Article 4: The present government has not informed the concerned parties through the Secretary-General of the UNO, of the specific clauses that it has derogated and the reasons why this has been done, and the date in which this was done. (Preamble).
• Article 9: Powers to arrest need to be concrete and immediate and proper justification for the same needs to be conveyed to the arrested person. However under the new laws, an arrested person could be held in police custody without framing charge for a period of seven days.
• Article 12: Empower persons to move about in unrestricted and free manner. But this has not been enforced in the case of the certain executive members and officer bearers of the Methodist Church, these freedoms have been curbed and they have been disallowed from making public appearances.
• Article 18: Ensures the right to practice religious beliefs,” either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching. “(Preamble). It is seen that what the military government has done is in gross violation of allowing people the right to practice religious beliefs, on the pretext of being politically motivated and trying to undermine the military government.
• Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) ensures the right of people to assembly for lawful purposes.

Under Section 22, “No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (order public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” (Preamble). Thus, it is seen that the fact that Fiji is a party to the First optional protocol has made it doubly responsible to ensure the protection and sanctity of its citizens and the enforcement of human and civil right guaranteed under its constitution. However, it is seen that the military junta has rescinded the Constitution and abrogated the powers of the judiciary, even terminating the services of legally appointed judges in further their own political ends with impunity. The armed forces and the police has been given a free hand, devoid of any repercussion, to instill a regime of coercion and tyranny in the country and the present situation is nothing short of virtual dictatorship by the Prime Minister, Commodore Bainimarama, who, ironically is himself a Methodist Christian. It is high time the United Nations takes action again a beleaguered country that has lost most of its democratic credibility with a series of military coups in just a decade, and has lost all semblances of democratic values, safety and protection of people’s civil and human rights.

Fiji has not entered into any relevant derogation

Further, it is also seen that Fiji has not entered into any relevant derogation, which is against the value and spirit of Resolution 2200 XXI of the ICCPR. The ICCPR has categorically mentioned that Articles 6,7,8,11,15,16 and 18 cannot be derogated without the necessary consent and process of law existing at the time of deviation.

It is seen that the military rulers have deviated from the enforcement of the Fijian constitution and issued their own laws, without consulting the United Nations or its Secretary –General. A glaring example would be derogation of Article 18, Sub section 3, which is intended to provide freedom to practice one’s religion or beliefs, that may be restricted only in terms of the need to preserve public safety, health, morality and the basic rights and privileges of other people.

By debarring the conduct of annual Methodist Church convention for a period of five years, the military government in Fiji has, in effect, violated the terms and spirit of Section 18, specifically subsection 3, which offers protection to inhabitants of nations to freely carry out their own religious practices. The ostensible reason that has been given by the government is that these meetings are politically motivated, and designed to lower the status of the military junta in that country. They were agreeable to allow the Church to carry out their functions, provided it is within the ambit of their religion and not speak out against the malfunctioning of the government. This is against the provision of Section 19 of the ICCPR, which allows unrestricted freedom of speech and expression as long as it does respect the rights and reputations of others, and such restrictions may be necessary for protecting national security, public order, health or morale. (Preamble). The derogation of Article 18, in effect has made the present government susceptible to legal and administrative action at the international level, more so, since Fiji is a party to the First Optional Protocol.

Conclusions

The international community, particularly the United Nations Organization needs to intervene politically and militarily in the Fijian issue, not only in terms of the gross human rights violations that are going on in that country, but also in terms of securing the protection and security of its one million odd population who are passing through a critical juncture under the present military junta. By establishing a de facto, illegal government in the country and systematically and flagrantly abandoning the constitution, it is seen to seek establishing its own laws and regulations to suit its power accession and sustenance on a long term basis.

Unless concrete action is taken by the UNO, under its own conventions, it would not be possible for a sound and acceptable democratic set up to begin in this island. With worsening economic conditions, high rate of unemployment and crime and perhaps a breakdown of the entire judiciary system in this country, the message is loud and clear that outside intervention only could save this country from a total catastrophe that could even obliterate this tiny island nation from the map of the world. As an international peace keeping agency committed to the preservation of world peace and harmonious community living, the UN’s role in Fiji cannot be exaggerated. It is necessary that the UNO rightly interferes in the political affairs of Fiji not only in terms of protecting the cause of its one million strong populations, but also in terms of its larger role and responsibility to the purveyors of democratic causes in the free world. Since the military government has polarized the country and rendered it amenable for the furtherance of military power, it is first necessary for the UNO to ensure a free and fair elections and ensure that the rights and privileges assured to the community, both in terms of the First Protocol and also as members of the world community is not compromised or sub served by the narrower interests of military rulers. The intervention of major democratic counties like the USA, UK, India, and the assistance and political succor offered by the UNO, need to play a larger role in the political and economic destiny of this tiny island nation.

However, it is believed that the democratic process would begin only in 2014. “Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama, who was reappointed as Fiji’s interim prime minister on Saturday, said he will ensure the general elections be held at the latest by September 2014 under an electoral system that is based on equal suffrage.” (Bainimarama: Fiji to Hold General Elections by Sept. 2014).

Works Cited

Bainimarama: Fiji to Hold General Elections by 2014. News. 2009. Web.

Constitution (Amendment) Act 1997. Fiji Sessional Legislation. 1998.

Human Rights Abuse Escalate in Fiji. Fiji Coup. 2009. Web.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Adopted and opened for Signature, Ratifications and Accession by General Assembly Resolution 22100A (xxI) of 1966 Entry into force 1976, in Accordance with the Article 49. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2007. Web.

Justice now Ratify to Protect all Human Rights ESCR- Net. Web.

Ligaiula, Pita. Fiji Military Chief Reappointment as PM. Brisbanetimes.com. au. 2009.

Preamble. The United Nations International Covenant on civil and Political Rights. 1997.

Preamble: Article 18. The United Nations International Covenant on civil and Political Rights. 1997.

Preamble: Article 22.The United Nations International Covenant on civil and Political Rights. 1997.

Tomuschat, Christian. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: New Yor, 1966. Audiovisual Library of International Law. 2008. Web.

What are Human Rights. United Nations Human Rights. 2009.

Wright, Elliot. Government Action against Methodists in Fiji Raises International Concerns. Global Ministries: United Methodist Church. 2009. Web.

Wright, Elliot. Government Action against Methodists in Fiji Raises International Concerns: Statement on Arrests of Fiji’s Methodist Leaders and Cancellation of Conference. Global Ministries: United Methodist Church. 2009. Web.

Introduction

Hurricane Katrina is considered one of the worst calamities in the history of the United States. The storm caused more than 1800 deaths on the Gulf Coast in New Orleans and resulted in an estimated loss of $161 billion in terms of damage (Gibbens). The hurricane is still the costliest storm in U.S. history due to its impact. It influenced 90,000 square miles of the land after approaching Mississippi and Louisiana’s coasts as a category three storm. In the City of New Orleans alone, 80% of the landmass was flooded (Gibbens). It affected around 15 million people, destroying more than 850,000 homes; approximately 300,000 to 350,000 cars were wrecked (Gibbens). Fifty floodwalls and levees were overpowered by the storm, leading to intense flooding, particularly in New Orleans. Hurricane Katrina caused a devastating impact on many people’s property. However, the cases of discrimination and evidence of human rights violations that occurred in New Orleans remain troubling events in America.

Violation of human rights became a significant issue in Hurricane Katrina following the unfair treatment of disaster victims. Unfortunately, the United States government failed to uphold federal rights in dispensing their civic duty to prevent the storm, protect the victims, and restore their livelihoods (The Associated Press). It was unable to defend its citizens’ liberties, such as the right to life, freedom from discrimination, and the right to have a safe reclamation and return to their property after the calamity (Kromm). The mentioned evidence reveals that the Bush Administration did not succeed in respecting human rights and protecting their citizens’ lives.

The law of the United States gives the government the responsibility to protect the lives of its citizens. Therefore, it stipulates that the government should do everything possible to protect its people against the loss of lives in the event of a natural disaster. In Hurricane Katrina, the state failed to save the lives of New Orleans people in several ways. For instance, it could not protect the citizens from a known flood threat by not evacuating the residents before it happened, putting their lives in danger (Vicino). The state did not fulfill its duty that involved ensuring the protective levels were in good condition. According to engineers who checked the levee system, there was incomplete construction, and the materials used were weak and susceptible to erosion. In addition, being unable to evacuate the residents, the United States government rejected some of the aid meant to benefit the affected population. Thus, the government did not succeed in providing enough humanitarian relief, food, water, and health resources during the aftermath.

After Katrina, there was discrimination, especially against the minority populations. The state failed to respect this right by formulating a discriminatory evaluation plan. The program to move the affected residents was biased based on owned property. For instance, it provided a policy for those residents who were owners of private vehicles (Vicino). Doing this would mean that victims who were not financially stable enough to own cars were not evacuated appropriately. Such treatment equated to racial discrimination since African Americans were twice likely to lack ownership of a vehicle as Caucasians (Vicino). Therefore, most vulnerable populations ended up in severe economic problems because the evacuation plan did not consider them appropriately.

Efforts to Resolve the Problem and Lessons from Failures and Successes

Following the structural challenge of human rights violations, there have been efforts to solve the hurricane’s negative impact. For instance, The U.N. Human Rights Committee was given the task of monitoring human rights policies implementation as an independent body (Kälin). The task force gathered information showing that low-income families, particularly African Americans, were less privileged in the evacuation plans. After reviewing the state’s practices and policies to rescue and evacuate the Louisiana residents, the organization gave some recommendations (Kromm). The government learned that it should increase its efforts to ensure minority groups’ rights are protected. This involves providing proper housing, healthcare, and education services to these victims.

There have also been lessons learned in terms of national preparedness levels when facing natural calamities. Following the failed readiness during the hurricane, the state has taken several steps to minimize the risk of fatalities in such events. Through homeland security, the federal government has built a response system that can handle the chances of an average hurricane season, tornadoes, wildfires, or any other catastrophic occurrences (Kromm). During Katrina, the government learned some lessons from the mistakes made in preparedness. They include command and control issues, hindrance of knowledge in preparedness plans, and coordination issues. All bodies involved in natural calamity response have learned that critical steps have to be taken in Defense response authority to impact positive change in coordinating emergency response (Kromm). By doing this, the state can put more value on its citizens’ right to life by protecting them more effectively.

The efforts towards restoring Louisiana’s original condition and other affected areas have made the government learn many lessons. The state should seek sustainable solutions in the management and coordination of the response. They should revisit the legal framework to ensure that discrimination does not hinder justice from being. The evacuation plans should be favorable for all the displaced persons in providing shelter, education, and proper healthcare.

Theoretical Foundation

Looking at the article “Where Black Lives Matter Began” by Jamelle Bouie, it is clear that there was unfair treatment of black families by the Bush administration following the disaster. The article mentions Reverend Al Sharpton’s words that show how black people face inequality even in Modern day America, “We have an incredible tolerance for black pain” (Bouie). There is a vivid indication of how there was a violation of the freedoms from discrimination against minority groups, especially black people. Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath provided a better picture of the racial injustices in America.

The YouTube Video Two Years after Katrina and Thousands are still Without Homes shows the violation of human rights to have a home. The video presents the devastating condition of displaced people that are still homeless (“Two Years after Katrina”). The grieving residents say that the government has never fulfilled its promise of providing shelter for them after the hurricane. There is suffering in those families, making them work overtime to sustain themselves. The federal government ought to ensure that all homeless people find a place to live (“Two Years after Katrina”). All people affected by the hurricane have the right to get sustainable housing facilities as compensation from the government. Keeping them homeless is a human rights violation.

Conclusion

Hurricane Katrina will be remembered as the worst storm that hit the United States. It portrayed the level of racial discrimination that existed in America at the time. Although disaster unpreparedness played a role in the consequences of Katrina, the government failed to act swiftly, leading to high casualties and the destruction of property. Human rights were violated due to the unequal treatment of people of color which shows the imperfectness of the international laws provisions. It is advisable to revise a set of policies to ensure the implementation of a fair system of actions destined to protect human rights, lives, and property.

References

Bouie, Jamelle. “If You Want to Understand Black Lives Matter, You Have to Understand Katrina.” Slate Magazine. 2015. Web.

Gibbens, Sarah. “Hurricane Katrina, Explained.”Environment, 2019. Web.

Kälin, Walter. “A Human Rights Perspective for Major Natural Disasters.”Brookings, 2016. Web.

Kromm, Chris. “Remembering Katrina As a Human Rights Disaster.”Facing South, 2015. Web.

The Associated Press. “U.S. Government Accused of Katrina-Related Human Rights Abuses by Amnesty International.” Daily News, 2010. Web.

“Two Years after Katrina and Thousands Are still w/o Homes.”YouTube, uploaded by Brave New Films, 2017.

Vicino, Thomas J. “The Human Rights Impact of Hurricane Katrina.”College of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2015. Web.

Introduction

The issue of human dignity comes into sharp focus in the situation debilitating terminal illness and/or end-of-life matters. Such a person may feel diminished both physically and mentally; and may reach a point where s/he may be entirely dependent on the efforts of other parties and having their fate controlled by them; this may ultimately progress into a state of complete incapacitation, such as coma.

For a person who was entirely independent during the healthy portion of life, this dependence would have a negative effect on the feelings of self-worth and self-determination; as such, have an effect on the dignity of the person even in death. The problem has raised the issue of assisted suicide to end a life of suffering and the role of such a patient in deciding when and how they will die rather than waiting for the natural mechanisms to grind to a halt.

Euthanasia and the Society

Religious organizations form an important part of the society, and their position is bound to affect the outlook of the society regarding any issue. The views of these organizations have a narrow range oscillating between complete condemnations and prohibition of assisted suicide; and justification of withdrawal of life support systems [DDNC].

A major common ground, however, among these organizations is that self-determination intrinsic in every person does not extend to deciding to live or die; and that life is sacred and should not be destroyed in any form. As such, a person can not claim dignity in death by choosing to end his/her own life in the face of an unbearable illness. While religious views do not represent those of the whole society, it is important to note that they are widely accepted as true, and they go a long way in shaping the views of the society at large. It is also important to note that some, albeit limited, portions of the religious front has started to recognize that life can degenerate to a point where it is no longer worth living, and should be let to end. However, all dignity is given by God.

Dignity and the Medical Practice

The issue of dignity in a medical setup comes into sharp focus in an environment where the facility serves clientele from a diverse ethnic and/or racial background. The patients may feel that they are not receiving the appropriate respect from the very onset, and usually worry of the amount of the same that they would receive as soon as they are completely under the care of the medical professionals. As such, some African-Americans for example, feel that they have to ‘earn’ their dignity by doing or saying something before they enter into long-term care of the professionals (Dupree, 2006). Examples of such actions include making prior funeral arrangements so as not to burden the immediate family with such when inevitable demise occurs.

Another area where issues of dignity arise is that of life support; many people from this group are of the opinion that life support should only be maintained if their cognitive abilities are functioning, that is they are not in a vegetative state; and if there is a good chance of reversing the condition. Such sentiments suggest that these people are of the opinion that dignity is intrinsic to every person (rather that earned); and that self determination, including in death, is more-or-less a human right; and that artificial prolongation of a low-quality life is an infringement of this right.

References

1. Death with Dignity National Center (Not dated). Religion and Spirituality.
2. Dupree Y. Claretta (2001): Human Dignity and Advance Directives: A Black American Perspective. The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity.

Introduction

Human rights have always been controversially considered by people. Historical epochs presented different views of countries upon the standards of the human rights they kept to, and therefore certain norms were imposed on the citizens of those countries. For example, in the Ancient World the institution of slavery was an ordinary phenomenon which was thought not to violate any human rights and freedoms, as far as slaves were not considered to be human beings. Also, racial discrimination has recently been an ordinary thing for the human society and only the several recent decades brought substantial positive changes in the situation. One of the most prominent roles in this process was played by the implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN, by the development of the national and intercultural awareness of various nations of the world, and by the introduction of the Universal Jurisdiction. Accordingly, this paper will focus on the possible issues caused by the international force of laws on “the crimes against the Jewish people” (Sprinzak, Yosef, David Ben-Gurion & Pinchas Rosen, p. 154).

Main body

To begin with, it is necessary to consider the essence of the concept of human rights. The first point that is understood by people on hearing this concept is that equality of rights and opportunities should be granted to all people irrespective of their racial, sexual, etc. belongings and social positions. However, the concept under consideration is much wider that the above stated freedoms. To avoid the any possible kind of ambiguity and misunderstanding in this respect, the United Nations Organization adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December, 10, 1948 (Landorf, Hilary, and Martha Fernanda Pineda, p. 322).

Drawing from this declaration, the concept of the “crimes against the Jewish people” can be viewed as completely grounded. The same can be said about the possible introduction of the concept of the “crimes against the Black people” that an African country might think possible to launch. To understand these issues better, it is necessary to consider the basic ideas of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. First of all, the declaration under consideration provides the general statements about the equality of all people on Earth: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” (UN, Article 1) Drawing from this, crimes against any particular ethnic group or the whole humanity are outlawed, and the idea of “crimes against the Jewish people” implemented by the Israeli Government in 1950 is viewed as a reasonable one.

Moreover, this statement can be referred to the crimes against Black people or any other ethnic group discriminated in a certain country. Also, the further provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights detail the conditions under which human rights are violated, and the former coincide with those stipulated in the Israeli Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” (UN, Article 5)

Further on, the idea of “crimes against the Jewish people”, as well as the one of “crimes against black people”, relies much upon the Universal Jurisdiction as one of the most updated concepts of the modern judicial system. For example, according to one of the basic documents of the Universal Jurisdiction, the “Princeton Principles”, “the following offenses can be tried by any court in the world without regard to where the crime occurred or who committed it: piracy, slavery, war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, genocide, and torture.” (Hawkins, p. 347) These provisions again coincide with the ones used by the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1945 and by the Israeli Government in 1950 in their rulings about the crimes against humanity on the whole, and crimes against the Jewish people in particular. Nevertheless, some “states have not yet adopted a norm of universal jurisdiction for genocide, crimes against humanity, and other human rights abuses, but some are moving in that direction”, and this fact can cause ambiguity in international court rulings, concept interpretations and possible outcomes of the decisions made according to the Universal Jurisdiction (Hawkins, p. 347). Also, the vague formulations used by the Israeli Government in the law prohibiting crimes against the Jewish people can be used by the opponents of this law to challenge its adequacy. As well, in case if an African state launches the law on “crimes against black people”, the same issues can be faced. The following passages discuss the possible controversy in case if the concepts similar to “the crimes against the Jewish people” are implemented in other states, for example in African ones (Weisburd, p. 225).

As it is obvious from the above discussion, the concept of “the crimes against the Jewish people” was first coined during the 1945 Nuremberg Tribunal Sittings concerning the criminals of the World War II. This concept was derived from the idea of crimes against humanity as the most serious ones to be punished by the death penalty. The Jews, as the nation that suffered most of all during the Nazi occupation of Europe, insisted on the admittance of Holocaust against them, and introduced the law providing the criminal responsibility for the denial of the fact of the Holocaust. In 1950, after the creation of the independent state of Israel, the Government of the country adopted the law operating with the concept of “the crimes against the Jewish people”. The opening paragraph of the law stated that “a person who has committed one of the following offences…is liable to the death penalty” (Sprinzak, Yosef, David Ben-Gurion & Pinchas Rosen, p. 154)

Moreover, the law mentioned defines “the crime against the Jewish people” as an act that can be included in one of the further listed offences including “killing Jews, causing serious bodily or mental harm to Jews, placing Jews in living conditions calculated to bring about their physical destruction; imposing measures intended to prevent births among Jews, forcibly transferring Jewish children to another national or religious group; destroying or desecrating Jewish religious or cultural values and inciting to hatred of Jews.” (Sprinzak, Yosef, David Ben-Gurion & Pinchas Rosen, p. 154) Black people have also been subject to severe discrimination, and physical destruction, carried out by whites in the countries of Europe and in the USA. Any African state might desire to defend black people in the same manner as Israel did. Although, the first sight at these provisions provides the clear view of what should be considered as the crime against the Jewish people and punished by the death penalty, the further consideration poses serious problems concerning this law, as well as any similar law of the same kind.

First of all, the statements that seem clear and exact might become the subject of numerous interpretations. Not in all cases these interpretations might be correct, but certain people violating the law could use them to avoid the criminal responsibility. For example, the first point defining the crime against the Jewish people, concerns killing of Jews. However, it is ambiguous as for what kind of crime it will be if a Jew is killed for some other reason that racial hatred. Also, it is unclear who defines whether this or that particular crime was committed with the racial or some personal motivation. The same can be said about crimes against black people, as racial hatred is not the only motivation for people to kill others. Accordingly, the implementation of the concepts “the crimes against the black people” might cause considerable ambiguity, especially if they are executed in conformity with the Universal Jurisdiction.

Further on, the implementation of such laws in the Universal Jurisdiction might lead to the confusion of the legislative and judicial norms of different states. For example, if a person commits “the crime against the Jewish people” in Israel, he or she is tried according to the Israeli laws. However, the international nature of this law provides for the possibility of trying the person who committed this crime abroad. Accordingly, the laws of the country where the crime was committed might differ from the Israeli ones, and the trial procedure might become an insolvable issue for all the parties concerned. The same is the situation with crimes against black people as far as international jurisdiction is not yet adjusted to the uniform demands of the laws considered. Black people are still discriminated, for example in employment opportunities, educational and career prospects. Social discrimination, often resulting in violence and killings of blacks, is also a serious issue.

Conclusion

Thus, the answer to the question whether it is a good idea to rely on the concept of “the crime against the Jewish people” is negative. The drawbacks of the modern judicial systems of many countries, as well as the imperfection of the law itself, do not allow the modern society to be sure about the effectiveness of such a law. As for the law on crimes against black people, it is also not an adequate idea because the definitions of such crimes will always be challenged, and such laws will cause more controversy than bring solutions to the issues of human rights.

Works Cited

Hawkins, Darren. “Universal Jurisdiction for Human Rights: From Legal Principle to Limited Reality.” Global Governance 9.3 (2003): 347+.

Landorf, Hilary, and Martha Fernanda Pineda. “Learning History through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Social Education 71.6 (2007): 322+.

Sprinzak, Yosef, David Ben-Gurion & Pinchas Rosen. “Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, 5710 – 1950.” Crimes against the Jewish people, crimes against humanity and war crimes. № 64 (1950): 154 – 158.

UN. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” 2009 UN.org. Web.

Weisburd, A. Mark. “International Law and the Problem of Evil.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 34.2 (2001): 225.

Being a superpower, the United States’ position on any matter has an impact on other nations; hence its position in important matters is very crucial. However, not all matters need to be attended by the US since there is the United Nation which is tasked with such obligations although all countries have to come up strongly especially in areas of human rights. The rights of everyone must be safeguarded and protected by all means and no violations should be advocated whatsoever. Basic rights such as freedom of speech and movement/mobility are important to safeguard and to ensure development in all areas.

The priorities in the protection of human rights should be very clear and outlined so that no human rights abuse is tolerated by anyone. The first thing is to put an end to extrajudicial killings and detentions which will be in a bid to end intrusion to the freedom and the right to truth and justice (Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 2003).

Genocide should be the next on the list of priorities to be tackled in areas where these injustices are present. The UN and U.S. should guard against dictatorial rulers and any other perpetrators of these injustices and bring them to book. They should also check on impunity in the whole world as this can tend to be a getaway by some local leaders. Torture of victims and protection of witnesses should also be on their list. Moreover, they should actively protect suspects from torture and ensure that the witnesses are properly protected against any attacks.

They should aim at scrapping the death penalty from the judicial process since no one has the right to take any man’s life. Freedom of speech should also be checked from being violated especially in areas where dictators exist. Moreover, the right to information should be guarded by looking into issues regarding press and media freedom.

In being actively involved in these fights, the US will prove that it has commitments to truth, justice, and human rights. The world will be watching to see if the US can keep to its standards or just continue watching injustices against innocent people all over the world.

How the “Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” might be applied to a contemporary conflict.

Torture, cruelty, inhuman or degrading treatment, and punishment have been used by many rulers to intimidate other people or those who oppose them. The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment should be used in such situations to uphold human dignity and rights. Some of the contemporary conflicts which need to be checked would include terrorism, pollution and waste management, ethics, security, and workforce globalization (Ulbrick, 2005).

Many countries have ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment hence consented to uphold its values. When a conflict occurs it is always best to solve the cases amicably especially where many nations are involved. Torture has been used in the past to force suspects to reveal information that may lead to saving lives. In issues of security, there is always a need to bend such laws to suit the conditions so that people’s safety is guaranteed. When suspects are being interrogated, some torture should be applied especially to the suspects who are less willing to divulge information.

Terrorism has made the world inhabitable, stressful, and uncertain to live in while the suspects who perpetrate such acts remain at large. Though they may be protected by this convention, they should be out-rightly be subjected to some torture to reveal information that can lead to the end of terrorism (Donnelly, 2003, p.67). The application of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to conflicts will depend on the case involved but most of the conflicts will involve bending the rules to achieve some objectives.

References

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. (2003). US Dep’t of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2002: Syria, Web.

Donnelly, J. (2003). Universal human rights in theory and practice. Second Edition. New York, Cornell University Press. Web.

Ulbrick, J.T. (2005).Tortured Logic: The (Il) legality of United States Interrogation Practices in the War on Terror. Journal of International Human Rights, Vol.4, Issue, 1. Web.