Category: Human Rights

The culture and ethical standards of any countrys population have an undeniable influence on its structure and rules. In particular, depending on various historical events and regulations adopted by people, there is a different attitude towards human rights. In the modern world, this problem is quite acute because people feel more strongly worthy of respect and support from the government. However, according to Benjamin (2010), human rights violations, especially against women and children, are more prevalent (p. 201). In various countries, related issues are regulated in different ways, causing controversy and misunderstanding. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the problem of human rights in China and the USA.

The USA is considered one of the most developed countries in the world. This applies to the spheres of science, technology, culture, and other areas. In particular, it is essential to note the high level of public awareness. For many years, the population of America was created from representatives of different countries. People understand that each of them is unique; therefore, they must live in an environment of mutual respect. Indeed, cultural and moral diversity is a fact and a positive asset insofar as cultures can pool their ideas, resources, and strategies in order to address common or shared problems (Twiss, 2011, p. 206). In addition, the history of America is associated with the relentless struggle for independence. Each of these reasons prompts the USA authorities to pay attention to human rights; thus, many citizens feel valued and protected. They know that they can seek support from the government, so they are not afraid to defend their opinion. Undoubtedly, this process requires additions, but the United States is already a good example in this area.

The situation in China can be called diametrically opposite, despite the relatively high level of development. First, it is essential to note that the Easts culture is radically different from the Western. It is particularly closely associated with Eastern religions, many of which are distinguished by cruelty. In addition, China is subject to the enormous influence of the political processes of the past associated with communism (Goodhart, 2016). As a result, the country has practically no freedom of speech and expression. Chinese citizens must strictly follow the established rules, and this system has developed so long ago that most of them do not even have thoughts of resistance. However, an outside perspective reveals the lack of human rights in this country and the need to fight for independence.

The main right violated because of cultural differences is the right to the personal dignity. In other words, some people are considered more valuable only because of their culture. These differences also violate the right to work and freedom of work, since hiring decisions are often made in favor of people of familiar culture. To improve the situation in both countries, an integrated approach is needed. First, it must be provided by the governments that should enact laws and regulations that support fundamental human rights. The main idea is that the rulers themselves support and observe these rights, respecting every citizen (De Schutter, 2012). Non-governmental organizations can also contribute to the development of human rights. In this matter, the policy of companies concerning employees plays a critical role. For example, now, one can often face discrimination based on race or gender in the workplace (Colella & King, 2018). If employers fight this, then people will feel much more secure and free.

Global government can do much more than NGOs to address human rights issues. They can manage these processes through laws, courts, and large-scale social actions. However, a great responsibility for the development of human rights lies with the citizens themselves. They must cultivate relationships based on mutual respect and assistance. This will help them be confident that they can receive support in any difficult situation, even regardless of the authorities. Thus, people will become more free and secure, contributing to the harmonious development of society.

References

Benjamin, D. O. (2010). Rethinking nonintervention: The challenge of the UN charter and protecting the dispossessed. Public Integrity, 12(3), 201-218.

Colella, A., & King, E. D. (2018). The Oxford handbook of workplace discrimination. Oxford University Press.

De Schutter, O. (2012). The role of human rights in shaping international regulatory regimes. Social Research, 79(4), 785-818.

Goodhart, M. E. (2016). Human rights: Politics and Practice. Oxford University Press.

Twiss, S. B. (2011). Global ethics and human rights: A reflection. Journal of Religious Ethics, 39(2), 204-222.

Introduction

Though limited in power and resources, the advocacy agency may advocate for human rights in different ways. Prisons have become centers of various law violations as the current system does not treat prisoners fairly. For the protection of human rights in prisons, it is important to examine the existing practices and incorporate the knowledge about the existing organizations and methods of promoting social justice.

Possible Ways of Advocating for Social Justice

The first way is to raise social awareness of the issue. Nowadays, social media is a powerful advocacy tool as it connects diverse voices to promote some cause or mobilize for change. Norander (2017) suggests that nongovernmental agencies rely on digital communities, utilizing action messages that are aimed at mobilizing the audience to do something for the organization or cause and to take direct action in the advocacy campaign (p. 4). The second way involves cooperation with policy entrepreneurs. Powerful or wealthy people have the tenacity to introduce changes during open policy windows (Cullerton et al., 2018). The correct presentation of agencies views to entrepreneurs may later promote the ideas of social justice and human rights. Other possible practices include meetings with legislators, board directors, or walking picket lines (Hoefer, 2019). Advocating for social changes is not a simple task for a single agency, so cooperation with other organizations and individuals is required in most cases.

The Prison Law Office

The Prison Law Office is an excellent example of a non-profit public interest law firm specializing in fair justice for prisoners. It consists of a small staff of lawyers who try to prevent unlawful treatment in California prisons. As the PLO (n.d.) claims, they engage in class action and other impact litigation, advocate for policy and law changes, assist individuals in administrative actions and lawsuits, educate the public, create and distribute self-help information (para. 1). The work of this agency helps to understand the correct ways of assistance by efforts of a small agency. Due to their lack of staff, they have to cooperate with other law organizations such as American Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project. The work process includes meetings with citizens at the town hall, cooperation with the governor as well as filing lawsuits. The PLO example supports the idea that agencies should work together with other entrepreneurs to reach their goals of promoting social justice.

Suicides in Prison

Suicides in prison have become a matter of concern for international human rights organizations. This phenomenon, particularly self-inflicted death, requires serious regulation. For example, to prevent this process, the European Court of Human Rights works to improve material conditions and promote rehabilitation and human dignity (Rogan, 2018). It investigates breaches of human rights and may award compensation to the victims. Special standards should be followed in prisons, and such organizations observe whether medical care is provided to prisoners with mental health needs or whether professionals are qualified to offer their services. Screening programs are implemented to examine suicide risk factors, and prevention strategies are utilized.

The System of Prisons

Educational materials may come in various forms. Mathews, who started his work as a correctional officer and later moved to community corrections, suggests that the system in prisons does not work properly and proposes a lasting impact (TEDx Talks). People are not assigned to prisons according to their needs for rehabilitation and treatment. Additional material like this serves as a great source of information and knowledge as it provides real-life experience. Situations that are usually described in these videos can be used in learning for practice as cases. The people who create podcasts raise social awareness, and their examples are well-suited for promoting policies concerning justice. The ideas of such individuals may be incorporated into human rights practices by presenting them as supporting material in speeches.

Conclusion

The study shows that cooperation is the best way for an advocacy agency to support human rights and protect social justice. Social awareness should be raised about the existing problems to promote the necessary changes. The system of prisons is corrupted, flawed, and requires special attention. It may be quite entertaining to look for the information in various podcasts and videos and incorporate the experience of others into practice.

References

Cullerton, K., Donnet, T., Lee, A., & Gallegos, D. (2018). Effective advocacy strategies for influencing government nutrition policy: A conceptual model. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 15(1), 1-11. 

Hoefer, R. (2019). Advocacy practice for social justice. Oxford University Press.

Norander, S. (2017). Advocacy. The International Encyclopedia of Organizational Communication, 1-5. Web.

Prison Law Office. (n.d.). About us. 

Rogan, M. (2018). Human rights approaches to suicide in prison: implications for policy, practice and research. Health & Justice, 6(15), 1-11. 

TEDx Talks. (2017). The surprising reason our correctional system doesnt work. [Video]. 

Introduction

Human rights are universal rights in the sense that they are held universally by all human beings (Donnelly 2007, p.4). Human rights are also said to be universal because most cultures and societies have upheld the concept of human rights throughout their history (Donnelly 2007). Therefore, the concept of human rights is acknowledged worldwide. For instance, most teachings in the Koran encourage the protection of human rights. In addition, traditional African societies strongly advocate for human rights. Moreover, the protection of human rights is an important doctrine in the traditions of Asians. However, some countries maintain that this concept is incompatible with some of their cultures. Therefore, there are divergent views on the universality of human rights. Some countries uphold this concept due to international pressure. This report discusses the universality of human rights.

Legal Enforcement of Universal Human Rights

The universality of human rights was legally enforced after United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Donnelly 2007). This declaration was adopted after United Nations members were convinced that the concept of human rights is universal. However, enforcement of international human rights norms was left to independent states (Donnelly 2007). In addition, the international community was given the right to intervene in situations involving massive human rights violations. The relationship between an individual and the state is also an important aspect of the concept of human rights (Donnelly 2007). Accordingly, to halt (2012), sovereign states are instruments whose main function is to serve the interests of their citizens. For that reason, the international legal system dwells more on an individual than the state (Halt 2012).

Disagreements on the Universality of Human Rights

Universal protection of human rights has very few opponents worldwide (Donnelly 2007). Nonetheless, some countries argue that the concept of human rights is incompatible with some of their values (Donnelly 2007). These countries maintain that cultural diversity should be left to determine whether certain occurrences are a violation of human rights or not. On the other hand, proponents of the concept of human rights argue that violations of human rights must be checked. In addition, atrocities such as ethnic cleansing and rape should receive the strongest condemnation. To guard against impunity, perpetrators of such atrocities must also be punished.

Examples of Situations Where Universality of Human Rights Was Applied

Sovereignty is derived from people and, therefore, their rights, interest, and security must be prioritized. State sovereignty has a legal value only when it respects human rights (halt 2012). Consequently, the principle of Right to Protect (R2P) has replaced that of sovereignty as the first principle of international law. For that reason, in situations involving massive human rights violations, other states have the right to intervene in the domestic affairs of an independent state. An example of a case where R2P was prioritized over the principle of sovereignty was when India intervened in Bangladesh. This was after millions of Bengalis were forced to flee to India due to a conflict in their country (Chatham House 2007).

Conclusions

Most cultures and societies have upheld the concept of human rights throughout their history. Therefore, this concept is acknowledged worldwide. However, the world is yet to come to a consensus on this issue. For instance, some countries claim that the concept of human rights is not compatible with their cultural values. Nonetheless, international laws prioritize the rights of an individual over those of a state. For that reason, all countries must endorse the concept of human rights.

References

Chatham House 2007, The principle of non-intervention in contemporary international Law: non-interference in a states internal affairs used to be rule of international law: is it still? Web.

Donnelly, J 2007, The Relative Universality of Human Rights, Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 29 no 2, pp. 281-306.

Halt, B 2012, The legal character of R2P and the UN Charter. Web.

A majority of contemporary work in social sciences is centered on exploring issues of social inequality and prevailing gender-based judgments. The article by Yamin, When Misfortune Becomes Injustice, examines the struggles and misfortunes of Brazilian women in the reconstructing socio-economic systems of the government (Yamin, 2020). Referring to concrete examples of mistreated women in the healthcare field, the author expresses the necessity to regulate the sector in terms of its commitment to providing gender-independent sufficient services. Moreover, Yamin highlights the closely-linked relationships between the competency of medical institutions and the democratic levels of a state. Hence, health rights can only be effectively reinforced in cases of socially-favorable government policies.

The second article similarly accentuates the importance of establishing a stable environment for the flourishing of basic human rights. Hahn et al. (2018) theorize civil rights to be the basis of developing the main social fields of education, healthcare, and career opportunities (Hahn et al., 2018). The main argument of the article concerns ethnic and racial minorities primarily while also mentioning the position of women in facing social injustices (Hahn et al., 2018). Inevitably, the political and historical aspects of the issue are considered in relation to the way certain reforms aided in shaping the contemporary American culture.

The articles are both related to the discussed issues and themes through their connection to the fundamental research regarding the social injustice systems in their respective governments. Yamins work highlights the oppressive regime and its contribution to the stamina of womens health issues, while Hahn et al. demonstrate the detrimental effects of poorly constructed civil rights. The readings make constant links between human social characteristics and their implications for ones life level in their own ways. Most importantly, the connections between the intersecting inequalities and the described healthcare systems reinforce the idea of white male privilege. The analysis of the mentioned issues possible roots in Yamins work includes an observation of the healthcare institutions democratic nature, which, at the same time, can become unfavorable for the women receiving their services. Hence, the articles, like the goals of the course, examine modern structural inequalities regarding women and other minorities in healthcare and the legal apparatus.

While Yamin presents the reader with a longitudinal inspection of the regulation of female medical rights and frameworks, a few particular areas could be further discussed. For instance, the way health systems can be democratic institutions while simultaneously serving as spaces for systemic discrimination and marginalization (Yamin, 2020, p.173). If that is the case, what is the exact definition of democracy? Generally, the reductionist approach to understanding democracy includes the assumption that it is based on liberating qualities and equal opportunities for all social categories. Considering the authors statement on its possible discriminatory nature, does the author objectively favor democratic views or stay politically neutral? Furthermore, the articles depiction of political choices and their impact on the state of population inequality raises the question of whether the political party matters at all. Another interesting point concerns the influence of other countries in reforming Brazils human rights misconduct. With acknowledgment of the beneficial outcomes of such influence, what would be the next steps in achieving a more inclusive national environment?

The course reading and the external source both concern shared themes and issues of social inequality. In that way, Yamins work explores legal and political approaches to improving the healthcare system for women. Similarly, Hahn highlights the role of civil rights in determining the legal and social opportunities minorities receive. Therefore, both works emphasize the idea that the basic medical care rights set can be guaranteed in the case of a non-corruptive government structure. However, Yamin reiterates the lack of relevancy in discussing what it would mean to apply human rights to health (Yamin, 2020, p.173). This understanding is already an assumption in their work and does not require additional elaboration. On the contrary, Hahn devotes a significant part of the article explaining the enforcement of civil rights and the consequences of this action in improving the social determinants of health (Hahn et al., 2018). Still, both works present an analysis of the historical and political routes impacting the development of human rights and, in turn, the available public medical services.

In my opinion, the issues explored in both articles are crucial to analyze in the conditions of the modern socio-economic climate. In the context of modern American healthcare, many prevailing problems arise from remaining social inequalities. While the healthcare system is advantageous strictly for elite groups, the groups themselves generally lack female domination. Hence, the feminist movement still has a long way to go, even in countries as progressive socio-culturally as the United States. Ultimately, although popular and valid, I believe the political perspective is not the only limiting factor for social equity. Generational misconceptions and poor education regarding female hygiene and proper self-care promote negative attitudes on improving the systems problems. Therefore, major reforms must start in schools and educational institutions, where the foundational information is taught to future influential individuals. Most importantly, the analysis demonstrated the relevancy and prevalence of the issues in the contemporary world and consequently the urgency to act on them.

References

Hahn, R.A., Truman, B.I., & Williams, D.R. (2018). Civil rights as determinants of public health and racial and ethnic health equity: Health care, education, employment, and housing in the United States. SSM  Population Health, 4, 17-24. Web.

Yamin, A. E. (2020). When misfortune becomes injustice. In When misfortune becomes injustice. Standford University Press.

Introduction

The issue of human rights has featured prominently in many legislative processes and constitutions across the globe. One of the outstanding concerns revolving around peoples liberties is the publics right to know. Different declarations have identified the right to information as a fundamental human right that all governments need to take seriously. Unfortunately, the nature of this subject remains divisive since governments across the world tend to have their unique objectives to promote national security. Elsea identifies governments as bodies formed by the people to protect their interests (12). These aspects offer a glimpse of the nature of this topic and why it remains a source of contention in many countries. Since the ultimate aim of any government is to maximize security, the process of withholding sensitive information needs to balance the security concerns of the nation and the rights of the citizens.

Position Regarding the Publics Right to Know

Although Article 10 of ECHR and Article 19 of the UDHR declare that members of the public should be allowed to receive timely information about government actions. However, some loopholes exist whereby such a decision could have negative consequences. In the United States, many agencies acknowledge that the public should be allowed to seek and access federal government records (Roztocki 172). The passage of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of 1967 has led to this right. Under this law, all government agencies and organizations are required to provide timely information to citizens upon request. However, some issues will always remain divisive and capable of jeopardizing national security issues when they are exposed to members of the public.

The stability of a country will depend on the measures different agencies undertake to maximize national security. Tamunosiki observes that governments should be able to undertake projects and identify them as classified when they intend to safeguard citizens lives (67). Some government activities are directly linked to national security. Any decision to disclose them could allow terrorists and criminals to interfere with such activities and eventually affect the countrys security. Under FOIA, the government has the power to withhold any form of information or data if the ultimate purpose is to protect the interests of the greatest majority or the nation (Roztocki 176). The utilitarian theory by John Stuart Mill would support this ethical reasoning since it permits actions that will protect the needs and maximize happiness for the greatest majority. It becomes a powerful framework for helping analysts address this issue from an ethical perspective.

Some scholars have presented additional insights regarding their position on this ethical issue. For example, Elsea states that outlined exceptions concerning the question of information and the right to know are valid and acceptable (16). This happens to be the case since they help protect international relations, foster national defense, and promote the notion of public interest. Some of the data the government withholds could be aimed at protecting personal information. Tamunosiki reveals that they are critical exceptions aimed at safeguarding the rights of whistleblowers (69). These ideas explain the direction in which this ethical dilemma should take. Based on this information, journalists should be able to strike a perfect balance and engage in reporting practices that have the potential to promote national interests.

Opposing Views of the Selected Position

While the government is compelled under the existing laws and declarations, the move to withhold some kind of information from members of the public is unethical and creates room for engaging in activities and projects capable of affecting the welfare of the population in the long term. In a congressional report by Elsea, it occurred that most of the initiatives the government identified as classified revolved around the creation of weapons that could kill entire populations (4). Some of the existing exceptions were also being misused in different countries to protect the personal interests of a small number of topmost leaders. For instance, the loopholes in law could be blamed for allowing some private citizens to engage in actions that could amount to money laundering and corruption.

The malpractices committed in the name of classified information have made it impossible for many countries in the developing world to remain poor due to corruption and ineffective governance. In the past, most of the declassified reports have revealed that the government works on lethal projects and experiments that could affect lives, such as the creation of weapons of mass destruction. Article 19 of the UDHR stands out as a powerful document intended to address this ethical question with finality (Sharma and Bhadauria 611). Since the government needs to engage in actions and projects aimed at safeguarding the interests of the people, any form of information should be available and shared with them promptly (Alguliyev et al. 3). However, these realities explain why the identified topic is divisive and remains one of the ethical dilemmas that citizens and governments should address from an informed perspective.

Sporting the Proposed Position

The available evidence is strong and capable of supporting the fact government should disclose any form of information to members of the public. The issues of corruption and dangerous project show clearly that leaders rely on established policies and laws to promote personal interests while putting their citizens at risk. However, the question of national security appears to carry more weight when it comes to the question of the publics right to know. Past case studies have shown conclusively that some types of data and information should not be made public since they might do more harm (Elsea 7). For example, the move to disclose personal information to members of the public could jeopardize the overall security and freedom of the individual.

It is also evident that constitutions are designed in such a way that they strike a balance between public and private information. Additionally, classified information regarding an ongoing security project needs to remain secret until the intended objectives are eventually realized (Elsea 8). Failure to do so means that the targeted enemies could get additional information after the decision is made to disclose the intended project to the public. Consequently, the involved parties will find it hard to complete the initiative, thereby affecting the overall security of the nation. In the recent past, cases of terrorism have been recorded in different parts of the world. The government has been relying on existing laws to engage in a wide range of activities aimed at safeguarding and protecting the nation against any form of foreign attack (Alguliyev et al. 5). These undertakings are sensitive and should not be shared with members of the public. When the government is aware of the demands of the public, the most important thing is to remain involved and focus on specific activities that could contribute to improved national security.

Due to the nature of the existing opposition and the demand for complete disclosure, the government must capitalize on the existing policies to only pursue what serves the interests of the people. Such a strategy will ensure that more citizens are supportive of all actions and projects even if they remain classified or top secret. The moral theory of deontology supports such a decision since it permits actions whose foundations or intentions are right. By applying such considerations, chances are high that more people will be in a position to address this ethical dilemma with finality.

Conclusion

The issue of sharing every kind of information with members of the public remains sensitive and capable of affecting the interests of both citizens and governments. From the above discussion, it is agreeable that some individuals support a scenario whereby nothing is hidden from the public. However, the argumentative process has revealed that any government must protect its interests and promote the safety of the people it serves. Consequently, there is a need for nations to have additional laws allowing their agencies to withhold sensitive information to balance the wider security concerns of the nation and the rights of the citizens. This strategy is evidence-based and capable of ensuring that some of the classified issues or projects are never known by the enemies of a given country. Such a move has the potential to empower and ensure that most of the targeted citizens are free to achieve their maximum potential.

Works Cited

Alguliyev, Rasim, et al. Information Security as a National Security Component. Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective, vol. 30, no. 47, 2020, pp. 1-18.

Elsea, Jennifer K. The Protection of Classified Information: The Legal Framework. Congressional Research Service, 2017.

Roztocki, Narcyz, et al. The Role of Information and Communication Technologies in Socioeconomic Development: Towards a Multi-Dimensional Framework. Information Technology for Development, vol. 25, no. 2, 2019, pp. 171-183.

Sharma, Mohit, and Sanjiv S. Bhadauria. Right to Information: Pros and Cons. International Journal of Advance Research and Innovative Ideas in Education, vol. 3, no. 6, 2017, pp. 609-620.

Tamunosiki, Ogan V. John Stuart Mills Utilitarianism: A Critique. International Journal of Peace and Conflict Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, 2021, pp. 65-76.

Introduction

David Little believes that human rights are directly related to freedom of conscience and religion. He is also convinced that the existence of human rights is what has contributed to autocratic regimes, the arbitrary use of force, and wars. The rejection of this concept is what leads to the emergence of such personalities as, for example, Hitler. David Little attributes the increasing importance of Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution to the rising police brutality and Hitlers undivided authority (2016). According to David Little, examples of arbitrary force are war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity (2016). The deliberate deprivation of economic, social, and cultural rights is another example of this concept (Cundall, 2020). A feature of arbitrary force is the imposition of beliefs on people, which means that dissent is forbidden (Little, 2016). The author thinks the arbitrariness of such actions lies in the fact that it is impossible to justify the truth of any religion through coercion.

David Little vs. Martin Luther King on Human Rights

It is not difficult to explain why arbitrary force is bad. There is no excuse for the many murders and humiliations inflicted on people when people who do not care about human rights come to power. History is replete with totalitarian and autocratic regimes that have inevitably resulted in the repression and persecution of innocent individuals (Little, 2016). An example of a reasonable restriction of human rights would be the establishment of a ban on the choice of residence and stay during the imposition of martial law. Another example would be allowed unimpeded entry into a dwelling in a zone of an anti-terrorist operation. However, it is clear that in any case where it is necessary to impose any restrictions on human rights, all objective and subjective factors must be considered. This is because the mere conduct of an anti-terrorist operation or martial law cannot justify, for example, the infliction of violence on ordinary people.

The beginning of the second half of the twentieth century in the history of the United States is a serious milestone, full of various events. These include McCarthyism, the Cuban Missile Crisis, John and Robert Kennedy assassinations, and the Vietnam War. Among these undoubtedly striking events is the struggle of ordinary American citizens for their rights and, in general, the protest movement in the United States. In the postwar decades, the United States did much to strengthen the countrys economic and military strength and position in the world, maintain domestic stability, and raise the standard of living. Yet many citizens of this country had, and still have, problems that prompted social protest and the struggle for their rights.

There were not enough voices at the time to declare their opposition to the racist agenda. Too much cruelty was happening back then  family separation, murder, discrimination in all walks of life. Martin Luther King writes about the unbearable scale of injustice in his letter to Birmingham Prison. He appeals against racism and against the imposition of bans on demonstrations in the United States. The letter repeatedly mentions the word rights, suggesting that the issue of respect for human rights is the key theme of Kings letter. He writes that failure to follow the law in one place threatens justice everywhere (King, 1994). This judgment correlates with David Little, who believed that arbitrary force would cause undemocratic regimes to intensify, leading to a widespread increase in violence.

Martin Luther Kings letter contains the idea that injustice is something that hurts not only the black population of America but the entire nation. This idea is one of the most critical thoughts of the letter. When the magnitude of the problem becomes so enormous that it affects the interests of the whole country, action must be taken (Cundall, 2020). King is convinced that no group will voluntarily give up the privileges it has received (1994). As David Little thought, rulers will only increase their leverage once in power by suppressing peoples rights (2016). Therefore, according to King, it is necessary to organize a massive pressure on the authorities by human rights defenders (1994). Black people in America could no longer wait until they were given equal rights and had to arrange a fight to get them.

In addition, King mentions that there are not only just laws but also unjust laws. The second type can hardly even be called a law because it does not conform to the norms of morality (King, 1994). In David Littles article, there is no such subdivision of statutes. Still, he did mention that provisions introduced into the law can, if not adequately controlled, quickly become a weapon in the hands of an undemocratic regime (Little, 2016). Although the authors use different terminology, the overall message of their work is the same.

Conclusion

It can be said that when it comes to human rights, different authors tend to agree. King and Little recognize the unacceptability of injustice and the arbitrary application of force. While King focuses on issues of racial injustice, Little is more concerned that the consequence of not respecting human rights can be war mass killings. For both authors, recognizing the value of human rights guarantees that arbitrariness will not be tolerated and that democracy exists in society.

References

Cundall, M. K. (2020). Philosophical introductions: Introductory readings in philosophy. Cognella Academic Publishing.

King, M. L. (1994). Letter from the Birmingham Jail. HarperCollins.

Little, D. (2016). Human rights, religious freedom, and peace. BYU Law Review, 6(4), 1215-1236. Web.

Every state has the primary responsibility of promoting and protecting human rights. To realize these responsibilities, both local and national governments have to educate the public about human rights, create awareness, raise, and train public officials on the significance of freedom. Governments employ legal instruments that oversee social security in adherence to the 1952 convention and utilize the 2012 social protection floors recommendation to ensure human rights are protected. Additionally, governments implement the International Convention on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), where special measures protect and assist young adults and children.

Human rights are absolutely and evenly protected worldwide by adhering to the 1998 Human Rights Act, the main law that allows for freedom to be safeguarded. Public authorities must treat every individual with the equality, fairness, dignity, autonomy, and respect they deserve through the law. Moreover, since laying down the principles that brought human rights into the international law realm in 1948, the Universal Human Rights Declaration has diligently protected this freedom using on-the-ground activities and legal instruments. Lastly, through the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, European members established an international treaty to safeguard similar privileges in Europe.

Several ways exist through which governments can improve human rights around the world. Making a difference revolves around speaking up for what people care about, with one brave voice being enough to create awareness around an issue. The other way to improve human rights protection is by donating or volunteering in global organizations where such initiations empower communities towards escaping fundamental challenges like poverty and natural disaster resiliency. The other ways to improve human rights protection throughout the world, by mention, are to choose fair trade and ethically make gifts, listen to others stories, stay connected with social movements, and stand up against discrimination.

Bibliography

De Than, Claire. Human Rights. Pearson Education Limited. 2019.

Introduction

Over the past several years, various parts of the world have seen the infringement of human rights through humanitarian crises. Human rights violation has become commonplace in some societies in the world, especially the nations that have been torn by the war for the past several years. As the situation currently stands, Syria tops the list of the nations that have widely witnessed an extensive violation of human rights. The war-torn nation is among the few nations in the world that have exploded in relation to their political setups.

Other nations like Iran have also made international headlines with government reports denying the people their civil rights. The situation in North Korea is equally disturbing, with the government being the instigator of violence and restrictions against innocent citizens. While the member states of the United Nations continue with their efforts to intervene in the war-torn countries, it is clear that issues like sovereignty and the personal interests of the members of the Security Council are some of the main challenges that have led to the delay in solving the underlying issues.

The complexities of finding solutions to the core problems in Syria are understood clearly by the Security Council of the United Nations, but there is a need for a quick solution to be developed because of the high death toll. This report looks at the human cost in Syria and other nations, with a close focus on the violation of the right to life. The paper promotes the protection of the right to life for humans across the world in war-torn nations.

Human rights violation in the civil war

As a human rights advocate in the U.N, issues of the abuse of the right to life and liberty would be the most important to promote. These issues are particularly important to me because I value life and believe in promoting human dignity. The U.N is the best place to address these issues because the organization is charged with protecting human rights through its member states. It is important for the United Nations to look into the matter of human rights violations in the war-torn nations across the world. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights claims that humans are entitled to the right to life, security, and civil liberty (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights par. 3).

While humans are always expected to suffer at war times, the cost should not include a significant number of innocent citizens. The civil war in Syria has resulted in one of the highest death tolls for civilians in recent decades. Many reporters have called the situation in Syria a tragedy that could have been prevented by the U.N. It is apparent that these statements are true because the members of the United Nations have failed to make any significant interventions against the perpetrators of violence and killings in Syria. In essence, the members of the U.N have failed to come up with a mutually acceptable plan to apply in Syria. While the U.S. advocates for military action, Russia has actively called for diplomatic solutions.

As the nations in the organization continue with their discussions on the best way forward, more citizens are dying day by day in Syria. The killers are absolutely prejudiced in their killings and threaten to wipe out even more people with their deadly weapons. It is high time for the U.N to look at the crisis from a human rights violation perspective, rather than from the sovereignty point of view that the members have assumed for the past two years. Syria has not been obliged to the requirements of the Human Rights Committee; hence, the U.N should force the government to submit reports on its efforts to protect human rights (Monitoring civil and political rights par. 1).

The United Nations Security Council should be in the limelight of ensuring members of the U.N are actively engaged in the development of a solution to the situation in Syria. Over the past two years, the member nations of the Security Council have failed to come up with a mutual plan to help to alleviate the high death rate of innocent people in Syria (Zurayk 8). The personal interests of the members of the Security Council have taken the first priority; hence, the U.N. has failed to meet its responsibility to protect human rights in the country. The conflict of interests between the U.S., the U.K., France, China, and Russia has resulted in delayed action to solve the humanitarian issues in Syria (Weiss 11).

The United Nations Human Rights Council should also address the issues concerning the violations of human rights in Syria. The advisory committee in the council should be charged with the development of the most feasible solution to the situation in Syria (United Nations Human Rights Council par. 1). Different nations have reported varying death rates in Syria; hence, the Human Rights Council should look into developing a valid report that would reveal the actual situation in Syria. The real culprits of the deaths in the country over the past two years might prompt the Security Council to come to a consensus on the most appropriate interventions. The extensive torture of the citizens in Syria, Iran, and North Korea should be the main subject of the Committee Against Torture (CAT). The CAT is charged with the responsibility to highlight the inhumane treatment of citizens (Committee Against Torture par. 1).

The level of abuse of the right to life

The situation in Syria is one of the worst-case scenarios of the abuse of the right to life. In 2013, the rebels that were killing innocent people in Syria started using chemical weapons that have taken the lives of tens of thousands of innocent civilians (Pita and Domingo 391). The case has seen the citizens becoming victims of the rebels and the government. Syrian citizens have nobody to protect them from excessive bombings, and there is a severe lack of the basic needs of the people.

The situation is similar in Iran and North Korea, where the people are denied their rights to civil liberty, and they are tortured and killed mercilessly (Greig 49). The crimes against humanity in these three states are an indication that the right to life has been compromised extensively, and the United Nations should act immediately to alleviate the effects of such issues on the citizens (Robertson and Hoffman 307).

The responsibility to protect

The responsibility to protect is a mandate accorded to all the member states of the United Nations. It was developed to give provisions that gave the individual states the obligation to protect human rights within their jurisdictions. The mandate to protect rights in different states also falls on the international community. Such a responsibility grants different nations the duty to take part in the protection of human rights if the concerned states are unable to attain the same (The Responsibility to Protect par. 3).

This should be conducted through a defined procedure, which is deliberated by the Security Council. Many times, the Security Council has advocated that diplomacy should have been used to solve any underlying issues in various nations, but on rare occasions, military action may be considered. The main issue in Syria, Iran, and North Korea are that the respective governments have been involved in humanitarian crimes. It is the obligation of the organization to ensure human dignity is upheld even during times of civil war in different nations.

Conclusion

The right to life has been violated repeatedly in different nations over the past few years. This has happened on the watch of the United Nations, and its various agencies have failed in their obligation to compel the associated governments to protect human rights. The universal application of human rights, and specifically the right to life, has been compromised in Syria, Iran, and North Korea. The perpetrators of the abuse of human rights are the rebels and the governments of the respective states.

The lack of respect for life in a nation like Syria has seen the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people over the past three years. Civil wars should be solved as fast as possible by the U.N., but internal conflicts between the interests of the members of the Security Council have resulted in delayed action by the U.N. in Syria. The United Nations should compel the associated nations to uphold the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as soon as possible to reduce the human cost of the wars in the respective nations.

Works Cited

Committee Against Torture 2014. 

Greig, J. Michael. Intractable Syria? Insights from the Scholarly Literature on the Failure of Mediation. Penn. St. JL & Intl Aff. 2 (2013): 48-182. Print.

Monitoring civil and political rights 2014. 

Pita, Rene, and Juan Domingo. The Use of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Conflict. Toxics 2.3 (2014): 391-402. Print.

Robertson, Cheryl L., and Sarah J. Hoffman. Conflict and Forced Displacement: Human Migration, Human Rights, and the Science of Health.Nursing research 63.5 (2014): 307-308. Print.

The Responsibility to Protect 2014. Web.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 2014. Web.

United Nations Human Rights Council 2014. 

Weiss, Thomas G. Military Humanitarianism: Syria Hasnt Killed It. The Washington Quarterly 37.1 (2014): 7-20. Print.

Zurayk, Rami. Civil War and the Devastation of Syrias Food System.Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 3.2 (2013): 7-9. Print.

Introduction

Good morning, I stand here to bring to your attention a crucial issue that has gained more significant attention than ever. First, it is essential to mention that human deserves the right to have a good and safe life. With this in mind, I would wish to question everyone here on whether human right has received proper implementation and the support it deserves in the state and across the globe. In 1948 the United Nations enacted a global program to spearhead the implementation of human rights (Zajda, 2020). Although the program is commemorated to date, the world is highly divided with diverse discriminations and opinions against particular races, religions, gender, and caste.

Discussion

As observed in my country and most probably everyones residence, children and minority groups stand at the receiving end of any human violation. For this reason, it is evident that most people still live under threat despite efforts to ensure equal treatment. In some instances, people have been subjected to death while others are still nursing injuries due to mistreatment from those who think they are superior to others.

To end this menace, I stand here today proposing the establishment of a universal commission that aims at handling issues revolving around human rights violations without partiality. The body is to be empowered by all countries across the globe, which should also aid in enacting policies that align with the moral standards of human beings for equal treatment. People should be enlightened on the need to celebrate the goodness in diversity found in others without partiality concerning power, race, and rank.

Conclusion

As I end, it is clear that human rights violation remains a significant issue that calls for universal attention. Although institutions against human rights have been established before, aligning them with the current forms of human mistreatment is necessary. Today I stand to challenge you to be inspired to take necessary actions whenever we encounter any form of violation and embrace the need for equal treatment.

Reference

Zajda, J. (2020). Current research on human rights education globally. Human rights education globally, 1-12.

Introduction

Privacy rights are significant among human beings since they enhance their dignity and protect their information. Every person has the right to conceal information about themselves from the public. Privacy is essential for personal data protection, maintaining social boundaries, building trust, and protecting someone from aggressive public actions. Therefore, various legislation helps protect the privacy of people. Technological advancements have led to sharing information over the internet and other social platforms. The information shared can be manipulated for the advantage of specific people, becoming detrimental to the victim and their families. Therefore, personal and broad social functions protect people from harsh social conditions and beliefs. Privacy is significant since it helps individuals feel safe on a public platform and about the information they do not want to share with others.

Definition of Privacy

The term privacy is multifaceted and attracts various meanings according to the existing circumstances. The most common meaning is the state in which an individual is not observed and disturbed by other people in the society or within a social space (Scheuerman et al. 14-17). Therefore, the individual lives in peace and confidence in whatever they are doing. The term is defined as the state in which an individual is free from the public watch (Pursehouse et al. 200). The latter definition sounds chaotic since the society, the public, acts as the enforcer of moral ethics and would watch over individuals to correct them from immoral behaviors. The most efficient definition of privacy is the right to be left alone, or an individuals freedom from interreference or intrusion from the government or other public members (Pursehouse et al. 203). Privacy protects individuals physical property and non-physical property like information. Therefore, privacy is individuals property and information protection from any external interference.

Legal Privacy

Human dignity is a broadly accepted ethical concept that allows an individual to be treated rationally. Privacy is one of the rational manners in which an individual in society must be treated. Consequently, various governments have formulated legislation protecting individuals from societal intrusion and interference (Barrett-Maitland and Jenice). Countries constitutions provide for the right to privacy under Bill of rights. Moreover, human dignity that promotes privacy rights is a universally accepted concept. Therefore, the right to privacy is protected at the global level. Some of the international instruments protecting an individual from public interference include the Universal declaration of human rights, among other international protocols on human rights. Legal privacy promotes the obligation to respect other peoples properties and information.

Power of Privacy

Protection from external interference is significant since it boosts individuals confidence in their information and property. Technology has led to collecting and using individual data in various activities. For instance, companies utilize individuals information on product use to market their products and develop new products. Moreover, eavesdropping on mobile communication is done to fetch information that can be used against an individual in public spaces (Virant-Doberlet et al.). Therefore, the absence of privacy can lead to mistrust and insecurity among the members of society. Privacy rights ensure that individuals information is stored, used, and shared in a manner consistent with their interests and the circumstances in which the data is collected. Privacy is powerful since it protects people from harsh governments and personal data interference, builds trust, maintains social boundaries, and protects reputation.

Importance of Privacy

Protection from the Government

Governments have excessive power over their citizens and use the power to target and punish specific individuals. In countries with dictating governments, individuals opposed to the government may have their properties forcefully searched and used against them. Moreover, personal information like identity, age, and family data are in the governments custody. Consequently, the information can be used in a manner consistent with individual interests (Agozie and Kaya). Although some governments may use such information for the public good, information owners may be put at risk. Therefore, protecting such an individuals privacy is crucial due to personal dignitys universality (Chang et al. 450). Some governments may aim to attack and punish individuals who protest against various actions taken against the public interest (Chang et al. 445-448). Individuals private rights against the harsh government are protected by law. Therefore, governments are limited to attacking and searching individuals property with their consent or justifiable reason. Privacy is robust since it protects individuals from harsh public actions.

Personal Data Protection

Human interactions have been revolutionized through technological inventions. The inventions in information technology, like the development of social media platforms, have eased communication and interactions (Andrew and Baker 566). The use of social media requires individuals to create user profiles that reflect their information like geographical location and marital statuses. Although the social media platforms have features that allow individuals to share information, they wish the public to see, the information can be manipulated to individuals disadvantage (Andrew and Baker 578). Moreover, various organizations have adopted technology in collecting and storing data. Such data is at risk of manipulation and use that contradicts an individuals interests. Privacy of data protects the shared data from manipulation and allows data use with consent only. Therefore, privacy help individuals feel secure when sharing their personal information.

Maintain Social Boundaries

Various communities and societies have set rules that guide peoples behavior and culture on social platforms. Social boundaries involve the set rules that direct culture and help manage chaos since they what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in society (Trepte 551). The digitized social platforms bring together individuals with different social boundaries. Consequently, the individuals may fear expressing themselves due to fear of being judged by people of contrary cultures. Privacy rights help protect sensitive information about individuals that may lead to poor judgment by others. Protected information includes individuals sexual orientation, marital statuses, and information relating to their families (Andrew and Baker 578). Consequently, the information on peoples way of life cannot be shared in public spaces. The individuals interact safely without fear of their information being shared in public. Privacy promotes social integration by limiting the kind of information shared in public spaces.

Building Trust

Trust is significant for social, economic, and cultural development. Various mechanisms help build trust among community members. For instance, business activities are guided by laws that prohibit sharing of consumer data (Trepte 560). While trust has broader social significance, it is built at individual and familial levels. Consequently, sensitive information about individuals is shared with close family members only. For instance, health status information is shared with the patients close relatives (Trepte). Banks share financial information of their clients with permitted persons only. Protection of sensitive information enables individuals to gain trust in social institutions. Consequently, people share sensitive information with hospitals without fear, among other social facilities. Privacy promotes peoples trust in social institutions promoting social and economic growth.

Reputation Protection

Reputation is essential since it determines individuals social standing in society. Therefore, society embraces people with an excellent reputation and shies away from what is perceived as immoral. People share information meant to build on their reputation and hide from the public information that would be judged poorly (Jain et al. 2160). However, with the increasing use of social media, private information may get to the public. If the information is shared with a society that dissociates itself from such information, the individuals reputation may be at risk. Moreover, some cultures prohibit specific activities and may discriminate against anyone opposed to such a culture (Barrett and Saxe). A bad reputation is detrimental to the victim and anyone close to the victim (Jain et al. 2159). Furthermore, the individual may be subjected to harsh reception in social spaces due to their bad reputation.

Privacy is crucial in protecting individuals reputations from public judgment. Various legislation limits the kind of information that can be shared with organizations. For instance, information on political beliefs and sexual orientation is limited from being shared. Therefore, the individuals can only share information they are comfortable with (Kim et al. 1130-1140). Violating privacy may lead to unequal opportunities and other forms of discrimination in social spaces (Jain et al.). For instance, gays may be denied opportunities in companies instead of same-sex individuals. Privacy rights protect the reputation and reduce discrimination in the society.

Barriers to Privacy

Although privacy serves essential roles in society, various factors encumber the enjoyment of private rights. Privacy barriers can be normative, physical, and behavioral, depending on the circumstances. Normative barriers involve recognized moral behaviors prejudicial to individuals in a given society (Vitriol et al. 104165). For instance, some societies are opposed to lesbianism, limiting the expression of lesbians in society. Physical barriers involve poorly developed systems that hinder the protection of an individuals information (Riegger et al. 156). An explicit example of a physical barrier is a vulnerable communication system that can be easily hacked into and vital information about people retrieved. Meanwhile, behavioral barriers include individuals reputations that may portray them as having characters they do not have (Vitriol et al. 104165). Normative, physical, and behavioral barriers to privacy cause restlessness and insecurity about information among society members.

Conclusion

Privacy is robust for promoting economic and social development in a society. Although there is no clear definition of privacy, it means individual protection from public and government interference. People are comfortable with others knowing the information they consent to and feel insecure if their private information is shared. Advancements in technology have led to sharing information on various digitized systems. The shared information is at risk of manipulation. Consequently, trust and personal reputation may be destroyed by sharing crucial information. Organizations may use shared information to ignore individuals interests. Lack of privacy leads to discomfort and mistrust in public and social institutions. Privacy rights help protect individuals private information from manipulation. However, privacy is subject to normative, physical, and behavioral barriers. Therefore, privacy is powerful since it protects individuals from external interferences in the technologically advanced society.

Works Cited

Agozie, Divine Q., and Tugberk Kaya. Discerning the Effect of Privacy Information Transparency on Privacy Fatigue in E-Government. Government Information Quarterly 38.4. Web.

Andrew, Jane, and Max Baker. The General Data Protection Regulation in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism. Journal of Business Ethics 168.3, 2021: 565-578. Web.

Barrett, H. Clark, and Rebecca R. Saxe. Are Some Cultures More Mind-Minded in Their Moral Judgements Than Others? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 2021: 20200288. Web.

Barrett-Maitland, Nadine, and Jenice Lynch. Social Media, Ethics and the Privacy Paradox. Security and privacy from a legal, ethical, and technical perspective. IntechOpen, 2020.

Chang, Younghoon, et al. The Role of Privacy Policy on Consumers Perceived Privacy. Government Information Quarterly 35.3, 2018: 445-459. Web.

Jain, Ankit Kumar, Somya Ranjan Sahoo, and Jyoti Kaubiyal. Online Social Networks Security and Privacy: Comprehensive Review and Analysis. Complex & Intelligent Systems 7.5, 2021: 2157-2177. Web.

Kim, Dam Hee, S. Mo Jones-Jang, and Kate Kenski. Why Do People Share Political Information on Social Media? Digital Journalism 9.8, 2021: 1123-1140. Web.

Purshouse, Joe, and Liz Campbell. Privacy, Crime Control and Police Use of Automated Facial Recognition Technology. Criminal Law Review 2019.3: 188-204. Web.

Riegger, Anne-Sophie, et al. Technology-Enabled Personalization in Retail Stores: Understanding Drivers and Barriers. Journal of Business Research 123, 2021: 140-155. Web.

Scheuerman, Morgan Klaus, Stacy M. Branham, and Foad Hamidi. Safe Spaces and Safe Places: Unpacking Technology-Mediated Experiences of Safety and Harm with Transgender People. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction 2. CSCW, 2018: 1-27. Web.

Trepte, Sabine. The Social Media Privacy Model: Privacy and Communication in the Light of Social Media Affordances. Communication Theory 31.4, 2021: 549-570. Web.

Virant-Doberlet, Meta, et al. Predator-Prey Interactions and Eavesdropping in Vibrational Communication Networks. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7, 2019: 203. Web.

Vitriol, Joseph A., and Gordon B. Moskowitz. Reducing Defensive Responding to Implicit Bias Feedback: On the Role of Perceived Moral Threat and Efficacy to Change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 96, 2021. Web.