Category: Human Rights

Introduction

The non-governmental organizations have always played an important role in the development of the human rights norms at the United Nations (UN). Disregarding their success in lobbying the human rights, impact on drafting the important legislative documents and the recognition of the need for further cooperation between the official and societal players of the international policy-making processes, the benefits of the NGOs’ involvement into the UN are often questioned within the recent years.

Effective cooperation of the Human Rights NGOs and the UN bodies requires development of the appropriate model of their interaction and defining the extent to which the non-state actors should be allowed to influence the international policy-making processes.

This paper reviews the recent tendency for deepening the interaction between the official and societal bodies, and the increasing importance of the Human Rights NGOs in UN as an intergovernmental organization, on the one hand, and the main preconditions for criticism of the NGOs’ input on UN processes and framework, on the other hand.

The development of the model and procedures requires reaching consensus between preserving the existing structure of UN and providing Human Rights NGOs with opportunities for making a substantial contribution to drafting the important documents and ensuring their implementation.

The growing significance of Human Rights NGOs at UN

The definition of the role of NGOs

In general terms, the NGOs can be defined as organizations that are made up of activists and independent of any government. The programs of these organizations can include both domestic and international issues. The goal of these organizations is to narrow the gap between the legislation acts, government’s policies and their actual implementation.

Historically, the contribution of NGOs to the development of human rights standards within the United Nations was reflected in the UN Charter as the founding document of the organization. 42 American NGOs lobbied the US delegation to the UN conference in San Francisco in 1945 for inclusion of the human rights issue into the UN program.

The place of NGOs in the UN system is defined in Article 71 of the UN Charter: “The Economic and Social Council may make suitable arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organizations, which are concerned with matters within its competence” (Breen, 2005, p. 103).

Thus, the NGOs have got the consultative status within the UN and the Article 71 is aimed at allowing them to participate in the drafting of the important documents and treaties. NGOs made a significant contribution to drafting the documents which were incorporated into the International Bill of Rights afterwards.

A clear example of the input of NGOs into the ensuring the human rights is their work on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child. It is recognized that NGOs had both direct and indirect impact on the development of the Convention. At present, NGOs take part in drafting the treaty on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Breen, 2005, p. 106).

The professionalization of the Human Rights NGOs at UN

Over the previous decade, the NGOs became important actors of the international relations and with the increase of the interaction between societal players and the official institutions, a tendency towards the professionalization of the NGOs has been observed. Previously, the emphasis was put on the volunteerism of the NGOs participants, but with the recognition of the potential of the societal players and the growing size of the movement, the participation of the NGOs in developing the human rights protection strategies at UN was professionalized. “These internal changes, such as the division of labor, administrative structures and professional leadership, are necessary processes to ensure the ongoing success of the movement” (Martens, 2006, p. 20). These changes resulted in the growing interaction between the societal and official organizations and the growing importance of the NGOs’ representational functions.

On the other hand, the NGOs vary in the level of their professionalization and the level of their interaction and relations with the UN bodies consequently.

The growing reputation and the increasing importance of the Human Rights NGOs can be explained with the prolonged existence of the NGO sector within the UN, which allowed the representatives to acquire the necessary knowledge and expertise. “Officials seek contact with NGO representatives because they know that such contacts usually bring in. As a result, reliable materials and helpful analyses” (Martens, 2006, p. 24).

Along with the recognition of the NGOs representatives’ expertise, the growing job exchanges between the NGO and the UN staff prove that the Human Rights NGOs have become an integral element in the structure of the UN policy-making bodies and their significant impact on the UN legislative processes is undeniable.

Permission for influencing the international processes

Acknowledging the fact that the Human Rights NGOs make a significant contribution to drafting important international documents, it is the level to which they should be permitted to influence the UN processes.

Article 71 of the UN Charter is the only official basis which legalizes the NGOs’ involvement in general and the UN processes, in particular. After this article has been developed in Resolution from 1996/31, the required standards for the organizational structure and the accountability procedures at the NGOs have been mentioned but not specified.

Along with the advisory status of the Human Rights NGOs, the current mechanisms of the interaction of the societal players and the UN are being reviewed and further deepening of NGO participation is suggested (AIV, 2006, p. 27). The AIV offers the Human Rights NGOs should reopen their knowledge and expertise in the sphere for participating in the interactive dialogue as well as participate in the annual review of the human rights in the member states on a regular basis (AIV, 2006, p. 28).

The Human Rights NGOs play a vital role in the development and the protection of the international human rights standards. The NGOs have carved a niche for themselves in the structure of the UN, and the interaction of the societal and the official players is so close that the NGOs are considered as the integral element of the UN and depend upon their functioning to a certain degree.

Criticism of Human Rights NGOs input in the UN policy making

The role of NGOs in the global arena is growing along with the responsibilities such role creates. Accordingly, growing criticism of NGOs can be seen as one of the accompanying elements of their increased participation and responsibilities. The areas of criticism can be categorized into such aspects as legitimacy and accountability, politicization of interests, and human rights. A detailed analysis of those issues can be seen in the following sections.

Politicization

One of the areas of criticism directed toward NGOs can be seen through their participation in policy-making processes that involve multi-stakeholder scenarios. An example of such multi-stakeholder scenarios can be seen through NGOs’ participation in the United Nations-brokered World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) (Franklin, 2007). Generally, the participation of NGOs can be seen as a positive note, in which NGOs take a formative role in a process that was previously reserved for experts and diplomats (p. 310).

It should be noted, however, that such participation might create certain challenges to the established policy-making process. Such aspect is namely concerned with those NGOs representing local communities and/or disadvantaged groups. In that regard, the main point of criticism can be seen in that such NGOs cannot be free of politicized interests.

NGOs, as non-expert actors, might create “new frictions and unforeseen pressures for traditional policy-making and UN hierarchies whereby incumbents are confronted directly by the politically engaged voices that characterize NGO activism” (Franklin, 2007, p. 311).

Similarly, politicization can work in the opposite direction as well, with international intergovernmental organizations influencing NGOs. The linkage of NGOs to governmental institutions can be seen as an area of criticism in itself, in which NGOs might lose their autonomy and their independent stand, being funded by official institutions (Martens, 2001, p. 388).

Thus, politicization is an important area of criticism in the relations between NGOs and the United Nations. On the one hand, NGOs might create tension to the traditional mode of policy-making, while on the other, NGOs might be influenced to lose their autonomy as critical observers of official policies (p. 388).

Legitimacy and Accountability

The next area of criticism of NGOs can be seen to be derived from the previous one. The question of whose interests should NGOs represent is of great importance, answering which enlightens about whose interest NGOs should represent and what they should be held accountable for.

The problem of legitimacy can be seen in many perspectives, one of which is the fact that the legitimacy of many NGOs can be undermined through the lack of support for the opinion they represent. In that regard, the legitimacy of NGOs cannot be claimed on the basis of representativeness. Lacking support and representativeness, the involvement of a particular NGO in international decision-making can weaken the legitimacy of the international organizations themselves (AIV, 2006, p. 30).

Another point of criticism can be seen through their accountability or its lack thereof. There are cases of NGOs’ misconduct, the most prominent example of which can be seen through disruptions caused during WTO and IMF meetings. In that regard, the reliance on self-regulation alone might not be sufficient to hold NGOs accountable in their relations with such organization as UN (AIV, 2006, p. 33).

At the same time, it can be stated that many NGOs have sufficient power and authority, and thus, a risk of abuse might exist. Thus, such areas of criticism can be seen through the imbalanced capabilities and challenges presented by NGOs legitimacy and accountability.

NGOs and human rights

NGOs contribution to the development of Human Rights standards cannot be overstated. NGOs contribution can be seen through establishing and monitoring many human rights standards. At the same time, NGOs have faced criticism from states within such area of work. Despite the contributions, the lack of regulations has led to abuses from NGOs, which compromised Human Rights Commission and its mission.

Partly, such aspect might be related to the accountability factor mentioned earlier, as a demonstrative example of the lack of such accountability. The abuse specifically might be concerned with many NGOs pursuing political confrontation in the name of human rights (Breen, 2005, p. 118).

Apart from such conflict of interest and utilization of such purpose as protection of human rights, it can be stated that NGOs’ influence was incorporated into UN affairs. As stated by the former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, “even a cursory examination of the participation of NGOs in the decision-making systems and operational activities of the United Nations shows without any doubt that NGO involvement.has far exceeded the original scope of” the legal provisions under Article 71of the UN charter” (Blitt, 2007, p. 31).

Such influence of NGOs’ within the UN, combined with the apparent imbalance in NGOs’ representatives from developing and developed countries, show the extent of such influence.

The aforementioned statement indicates that the criticism directed toward NGOs is largely justified. However, such criticism does not imply ignoring past and future role of NGOs in such aspects as human rights, rather than pointing out to that the current system of relations between NGOs and the UN needs serious revisions.

The development of the model for effective interaction

The institutional framework for interaction of NGOs and UN

The current institutional framework of the UN limits the opportunities of the NGOs for the participation in the development of the human rights policies and predetermines the specific procedures which need to be observed before a particular societal actor is allowed to be present at conferences or to participate in drafting the documents and contributing to the development of the human rights norms.

There are four major options for applying for the participation in the conferences and achieving a consultative status within the UN. According to the legalized standards for the participation in the international policy-making procedures, along with requesting for accreditation for participation in a particular conference, NGOs can “establish working relations with special bodies of the UN, associate itself with the UN Department of Information (DPI), or ask for consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the UN (ECOSOC)” (Aston, 2001, p. 944).

The consultative status with ECOSOC is the most promising opportunity among all the above-mentioned options, which presupposes the greatest amount of rights and privileges. Despite the well-organized procedures for requesting the accreditation, a number of NGOs consider the public criticism of their activities as a significant hurdle for their involvement into the international processes, which would limit their opportunities for receiving the accreditation and/or a consultative status.

With the growing importance of the Human Rights NGOs and their professionalization, the UN established the standardized procedures for requesting accreditation and considering the appropriateness of every individual organization.

The major requirements for receiving a consultative status include the proper competence of the societal player in the chosen field, the conformity with the UN Chart and well-organized inner structure (Aston, 2001, p. 947). NGO can receive a general consultative status in case its program covers a number of ECOSOC issues, a special consultative status in case its program focuses on several issues or a Roster if it does not meet the requirements of any of these two subgroups.

Every four years, NGOs are obliged to submit the reports on their activities so that the Committee could make sure that the activities of the organization continue meeting the requirements of ECOSOC. Disregarding the fact that these procedures are standardized and well-developed for the purpose of minimizing the risk of occurrence of the procedural mistakes, the decision-making mechanism for allotting a consultative status to NGO is often criticized.

The AIV, for instance, offers minimizing the existing procedures and establishing a single procedure controlled by the General Assembly (UNGA) (AIV, 2006, p. 36). The AIV believes that these measures could improve the current situation and have a positive impact on further interaction of NGOs and the UN.

Acknowledging the need for closer integration of the UNGA and the non-governmental sector is insufficient for developing future strategies for their collaboration and requires defining the most appropriate model for enhancing its effectiveness and establishing the proper limitations for the extent to which NGOs can influence the policy-making procedures.

Consensus between the structure of the UN and the NGOs’ input into its processes

Considering the growing importance of the NGOs’ contribution to the protection of the human rights by UN, on the one hand, and the growing criticism of the impact of the societal players on the UN policy-making processes, on the other hand, it is important to reach consensus, considering both aspects of the problem.

Preserving its intergovernmental body, UN should develop proper regulations which would allow NGOs contributing to the policy-making procedures but to the extent predetermined by the corresponding regulations. Deepening the involvement of non-state actors into the UN processes requires modification of the current institutional framework of UN.

For this reason, the views on the extent to which non-state players should be allowed to participate in the policy-making procedures differ significantly. States fear that further deepening of NGO participation would decrease the importance of their own role in the UN policy-making procedures. At the same time, the Article 71 limits the participation opportunities of the societal actors, defining their status and role as consultative.

Another important issue which should be taken into consideration for developing the appropriate interaction strategies is the possible misbalance between the representatives from the developing and developed country in the numerical sense. “Practice shows that ‘Western’ NGOs often advocate positions favorable to Third World countries” (Aston, 2001, p. 961). At the same time, considering the ethical and religious issues, this tendency would be regarded as violation of the rights of some member states.

The development of the model and regulations, which would allow the substantial contribution of NGOs to the policy-making processes and provide the necessary limits of their participation has proven to be a real challenge for UN, giving rise to the prolonged and intense debates. Deepening interaction of Human Rights NGOs and UN bodies requires taking into account the necessary modifications of the UN structure and the possible consequences of the imposed measures.

Conclusion

With the increasing importance of Human Rights NGOs’ role in the UN policy-making procedures, the extent to which these societal actors should be allowed to participate in the policy-making processes is debated. The development of the appropriate model and strategies for the effective cooperation of Human Rights NGOs and the UN requires considering both positive and negative impact of non-state players on the policy-making procedures and international regulations.

Reference List

AIV. (2006). The Role of NGOs and the Private Sector in International Relations. Advisory Council on International Affairs Web.

Aston, J. (2001). The United Nations Committee on non-governmental organizations: Guarding the entrance to a politically divided house. EJIL, 12 (5): p. 943 – 962.

Breen, C. (2005). Rationalising the work of UN human rights bodies or reducing the input of NGOs? The changing role of human rights NGOs at the United Nations. Non-State Actors and International Law, 5: p. 101- 126.

Blitt, R. C. (2007). Who Will Watch the Watchdogs? Human Rights, Nongovernmental Organizations and the Case for Regulation. International Journal of Civil Society Law, 5(4), 8 – 96. Web.

Franklin, M. I. (2007). NGOs and the “Information Society”: Grassroots Advocacy at the UN—A Cautionary Tale. Review of Policy Research, 24(4), 309 – 330.

Martens, K. (2001). Non-governmental Organisations as Corporatist Mediator? An Analysis of NGOs in the UNESCO System. Global Society, 15(4), 387 – 404.

Martens, C. (March 2006). Professionalised representation of human rights NGOs to the United Nations. The International Journal of Human Rights, 10 (1): p. 19-30.

Introduction: Human Right. Definition, Issues, and Prospects

Although one might have expected that in the XXI century, the issue of human rights would finally be resolved, the reality proves wrong. Granted that much has been done to give rights to national minorities, women and children, this population remains in the risk group.

Analyzing the key steps that the humankind has made so far in human rights recognition and comparing these achievements to the ones mentioned in Quran, one might possibly find the ways to improve the current state of affairs and evaluate how far the humankind has reached.

Revolutions Against Absolute Monarchies: Fighting for the Good Cause

Needless to say, the humankind had to go a long way to the recognition of people’s rights and freedoms, as well as proclaiming equality as the key principle of relationship between people and nations. That being said, it will be a good idea to take a closer look at the major steps towards the recognition of human rights.

France: long lives the First Republic!

When it comes to speaking of the fight for human rights, the French Revolution is the first thing that comes to people’s minds – and for a good reason.

The first nation to dethrone and decapitate their own king, Frenchmen were also the first to come up with the principles of “Freedom, Equality and Fraternity” (Censer and Hunt).

England: the Glorious Revolution and the constitutional monarchy

Although in the United Kingdom, the state is still governed by the principles of monarchy, it is quite obvious that the monarch plays a token role in governing the state (Wasserstorm 215).

After the Glorious Revolution, the fact that all people should enjoy their rights and freedoms has become obvious.

USA, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights

Historically dependent on a number of states, including Britain and France, the USA of the XVIII and XIX century have proven that they deserve to be treated like a sovereign state.

The recognition of the rights and freedoms of its citizens, however, came a bit later, i.e., in 17991, when the Bill of Rights was issued.

The rights and freedoms of the rest of the USA population, i.e., Africa Americas and Native Americans, after the Great Migration and the Civil Rights Movement (Marsh).

Eastern Europe: abandoning the serfdom principle

Eastern Europe has also faced a number of issues before coming to the idea of equal human rights. Started in the middle of the XVIII century (Watson 61), the emancipation of serfdom has finally led to the recognition of human rights in every Eastern European country nowadays.

Although high rates of racism are still registered in the region, the Eastern Europeans have doubtlessly come a long way to recognizing people’s freedoms.

Rise of Democracy and Human Rights: Still in the Process

Despite the above-mentioned evidence concerning the acknowledgement of human rights all over the world, a number of people still suffer from their rights being infringed.

Women, children and national and sexual minorities are currently in the “risk group” (Stacy). Since child labor, racial profiling and gender inequality still remains an issue, it must be admitted that the current laws on human rights should be reinforced.

Quran: The Most Ancient and Sacred Islamic Book as the Basis for the Laws on Human Rights

Considering the Issue from a Different Perspective: The Fifteen Postulates

Security of life and property: bi-al haqq and other details

One of the basic rights established in Quran, the security of people’s property has also been mentioned in a number of documents establishing the rights of people in other countries.

Protection of honor: echoing with the Western Law of Defamation

Weirdly enough, in the present-day European world, the emphasis is rarely made on one’s good name or on one’s virtues, for that matter.

In fact, a number of famous people, including politicians, for the lack of better methods, use the so-called negative PR strategies to remain in the limelight of public attention.

Therefore, though the laws concerning honor and its protection exist in almost every legislative system of the world, they are rarely put into practice. In the Islamic countries, on the contrary, the protection of honor is considered the second most important law of Quran.

Sanctity and security of private life: an iron curtain in one’s own house

Likewise, the Quran guarantees sanctity and security of private life. It is worth mentioning, though, that when it comes to discussing one of the most topical issues in the rights for a personal life, i.e., the rights of homosexual people, Quran does not provide a clear answer. Some theorists, however, claim that Quran “never addressed homosexual people directly” (Habib 259).

Security of personal freedom: the benefit of the doubt

According to the Quran postulates, every single person must be given the benefit of the doubt.

Right to protest against tyranny: when rebels have a cause

Quran also states that tyranny goes against human nature; moreover, it oppresses the latter, which means that tyranny does not have the right to exist.

A very legitimate point, it should be taken into account nowadays, especially in the light of such phenomena as technocracy, which is often considered as a tyranny of technology over people (Wood).

Freedom of expression: they will not excuse your French

As Quran postulates claim, every person has the right to voice his/her opinion, which also aligns with the major democratic ideas.

Freedom of association: political initiatives

The right to partake in political activities is also granted to people by Quran, which means that Quran encourages people to partake in the state affairs.

Freedom of conscience and conviction: choosing one’s own path

According to Quran, converting to the Muslim faith must be allowed for all those who would like to become Muslim.

However, it is important to stress that conversion from the Muslim faith to another one is not considered in Quran, which presupposes that it cannot be considered a barometer for evaluation of justice system.

Protection of religious sentiments: paying due respect to the Muslim religion

Quran makes it clear that Muslim religion is to be respected by both its followers and the rest of the world. Therefore, the ideas expressed in Quran can be considered the rules for establishing trustworthy relationships with the people of other beliefs.

Protection from arbitrary imprisonment: responsibility issues

Quran also gives its followers credit for being responsible for their actions, which could set a good example for promoting people’s rights all over the world.

Right to basic necessities of life: bread and cheese

It seems that the need to provide people with the basic life necessities must be communicated in every state’s constitution, yet in a number of countries, people are beyond the poverty line. Perhaps, the eleventh Quran principle might help introduce more justice into the existing human rights system.

Equality before law: no privileges for anyone

In Quran, everyone is equal before the law. The given idea is also conveyed in the constitutional law of a number of other cultures.

Rulers not above the law: equality at its best

It is crucial that, according to Quran, the people at the helm should be judged on the same merits as the rest of the population, which is a manifestation of democracy.

Right to avoid sin: the roads that we take

Quran also recognizes people’s rights to lead a righteous life.

Right to participate in the affairs of the state: encouraging political awareness

As it has been mentioned, being politically aware is welcomed in the Muslim countries.

Lex Talionis in Quran: Qusas for the Children of Israel

One of the most peculiar specifics of the Islamic legislation, the principle of Lex Talionis, is rarely used in the other states, yet remains a tradition in the East.

Guided by the principle “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” (Winspear 91), the given principle is one of the specifics of the Muslim criminal law.

One might argue that the given law is far too vague; others might say that this is an epitome of justice. It is important to stress, though, that the Lex Talionis principles are the privilege of Asia; most European and American states deny it.

Conclusion: Human Rights and the Cultural Specifics of the Islamic States

That being said, it is necessary to give credit to the human race – even in the face of such huge mistakes as slavery, people of every single nation have managed to keep with the basic principles of human rights. However, there is still a long way to go. Women’s rights still remain a problem as well as the rights of minorities. Perhaps, to provide a more reasonable approach, one has to consider the Quran postulates mentioned above in order to provide equal rights for everyone.

Works Cited

Habib, Samar. Islam and Homosexuality. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. 2010. Print.

Marsh, Carole. The Fight for Equality: The U.S. Civil Rights Movement. New York, NY: Gallopade International. 2004. Print.

Stacy, Helen. Human Rights for the 21st Century: Sovereignty, Civil Society, Culture. Stanford, CT: Stanfrod University Press. 2009. Print.

Wasserstorm, Jeffrey N. Human Rights and Revolutions. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield. 2007. Print.

Watson, Hugh Seton. Eastern Europe Between the Wars: 1918-1941. Cambridge, UK: CUP Archive, 1945. Print.

Winspear, Alban Dewes. The Genesis of Plato’s Thought. Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. 2011. Print.

Wood, Richard H. Technocracy. New Lincoln, NE: iUniverse. 2005. Print.

Despite the fact that they are not always put in place, the general notion of universal human rights is in the present day largely acknowledged worldwide. Even then, particular sections of the human rights policy are revealingly challenged by influential political players.

Human rights that articulate liberal ideals like non-discrimination, wide personal liberties and egalitarianism/ democracy expose the extent of this fact. Several communities which have political systems that are short of key liberal aspects and which as they acquire increased power end up challenging the norms of human rights.

Even then, prospects of the liberal human rights don’t rely solely on the scales of supremacy between communities with diverse political systems. It also relies on the way communities with moderately tolerant political schemes respond to the challenge of non-tolerant schemes.

Fastidiously, one main aspect is if advocators of liberal ideals believe they are vindicated to maintain these beliefs as universal human rights norms, or if they believe that some intolerant political applications ought to be esteemed internationally, the way that some liberals have debated.

This paper aims at discussing whether liberal communities are ethically obligated to revere the multiplicity of political ideology as well as to get accustomed to human rights consequently. The paper will begin by elucidating in a few words the concept of liberal ideology in the way we decipher it here, and reveals the way the insertion of these philosophy’s in human rights is disputed in the present day.

The paper will then scrutinize following a presentation, three protestations in opposition to liberal human rights. These are the significance of cooperative self-determination, the constricted international political task of human rights and the supposed parochialism of tolerant ideology. The synopsis is that not one of these doubts are realistic or credible.

Contestation of liberal human rights

“Liberalism”, as is the same with numerous other concepts, is construed by diverse authors in many different ways. Majority of liberals however, support three “normative political ideology” that we may refer to as “liberal principles”. These are:

1. Esteem for wide personal liberties that was epitomized by Miller’s “harm principle”, of which a community may only limit the liberty of citizens in order “to prevent harm to others” (Miller, 2007, 14), as well as Habermas initial rule of justice that proclaims “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.”(Habermas, 2001, 78).
2. A sturdy belief of non-discrimination, of which all able adults must be accorded similar primary rights.
3. The belief of democratic leadership, which stipulates that executive as well as legislative national influence eventually lies on systems that state all proficient grown-up citizens have identical official authority.

These three principles founded claims in the revolution of democracy in Europe which started towards the close of the 18^th century. The political organizations as well as legislation of the states aforementioned and several others have been fashioned by these beliefs.

An essential reflection underlying tolerant doctrine is the fact that they articulate how coercive political establishments take care of their associates’ fairly and capitalize on the patience to diverse stances and principles. Individuals with diverse political as well as religious principles and also unlike schemes of life may dwell mutually such that the supremacy of a certain faction over the rest is diminished under liberal ideology.

Modern intercontinental legislation on human rights allows for a sturdy dedication to liberal philosophy. An example is the – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights- (ICCPR) of 1966 which distinguishes several liberation privileges e.g. the free will of conscience, religious conviction and contemplation (art. 18), the choice of expression and view (art. 19) and the freedom of passive congregation and alliances (art. 21/22)

Any sort of prejudice by the decree, be it because of lingo, race, belongings, religious convictions, color, societal or national derivation, gender, political or any other outlook, birth or any other status (art. 26) and it also requests for “sporadic and authentic voting which shall be by collective and identical suffrage ” (art. 25).

Differentiation of these tolerant human rights from other classes of human rights e.g. the right not to be persecuted and the right to living, rights to due process like fair trial and the rule of law as well as cultural, fiscal and communal rights like health care food and housing.

To date, 167 nations are participants of ICCPR and have shown dedication to the provisos. Some moderate principles particularly are however occasionally debated in global discussions on human rights. Whereas basic security rights are mostly un-contentious, a few nations and agents have totally and openly queried if the rights of human beings should carry complete liberal principles.

A case in point is whereby Asian nations stressed on “the implication of nationalized and area particularities and assorted chronological, cultural and devout backgrounds” in the Declaration on Human Rights in Bangkok in 1993 for the understanding of human rights , that was vastly seen as a disagreement mitigating sturdier limitations on moderate human rights e.g. partaking in polls or freedom of speech.

Another example is the Organization of the Islamic Conference which has been piloting a global crusade opposing the slander of religions. Consequential declarations of the United Nations have been professed to hold up decrees barring profanity and as such limiting the tolerant right to freedom of expression (Freedom House 2010b).

Nevertheless, non-interventionist human rights are not only disputed by countries that have not entirely acknowledged liberal doctrine, or by clandestine agents which do not recognize liberal philosophy.

A strange attribute of existing political reflection is that even countless liberals do not acknowledge these ethics as a foundation for human rights. These liberals assert that freethinking doctrines are apposite for societies with liberal customs, but that it is not legal to incorporate them in collectively obligatory norms, given the assorted political ideals of unlike cultures.

John Rawls is in all probability the liberal political philosopher who has for the largest part put emphasis on this issue. Mutua formulates a report of the ethics that would administer a “reasonably just Society of Peoples” (Mutua, 2002, 93). As piece of these ideology, he conveys a register of human rights which encompasses basic security rights, a number of liberty rights, some due process rights, and a fundamental social right, but which intentionally requires complete liberal rights.

Human rights, according to Rawls interpretation, do not enclose complete liberty of conscience, fortification opposing discrimination, the freedoms of congregation, of alliance and of expression as well as a principle of egalitarian authority. Unlike Rawls as well as some other open-minded political theorists have defended the outlook that human rights- or another scheme of globally niting political norms- ought to incorporate liberal theories. Some examples are given by Geuss, Nussbaum and Jurgen Habermas.

As a result, the prospect of liberal philosophy as a branch of documented worldwide human rights does not just rely on the equilibrium of power between nations with tougher and those with feebler liberal practice (Habermas, 1992, 112). It also depends on if liberals assume that it is ethically tolerable to maintain open-minded philosophy in generally binding worldwide law, or whether human rights ought to permit some element of derogation from liberal philosophy (Nussbaum, 2006, 74).

In this paper we will scrutinize a number of explanations that have been so far given for not including liberal philosophies for human rights or objections against liberal human rights. (Geuss, 2001, 48) We will need to question if these protestations are compelling within a normative argument on what philosophies nations may maintain as globally binding human right philosophies(Habermas, 2001, 59).

Therefore the protestations petition mainly people who may be persuaded of the significance of intercontinental human rights and who embrace liberal political philosophies to be warranted in some communities, but who protest counting liberal ideology in human right standards (Nussbaum, 2000, 38). The three challenges that will be taken in account are not equally elite, but are often presented jointly and somewhat reinforce one other

Moral challenges against liberal human rights

The narrow international political role of human rights

The rights of human beings are just not the ones that each person has like the aspect of human rights is perceived in lawful as well as open dialogues. Quite a number of authors stress the fact that the starting point of human rights is in intercontinental lawful manuscripts and they also dispute that it is indispensable of them that they perform a certain worldwide political function – a task “in practical reasoning about the conduct of global political life” (Beitz 2009, 99).

A few authors have taken for granted that this function is relatively tapered and customized to particular uses. As an example Walzer pointed out that:

“I will take human rights to be rights which set limits to the sovereignty of states, in that their actual or anticipated violation is a (defeasible) reason for taking action against the violator in the international arena, even when – in cases not involving violation of either human rights or the commission of other offences – the action would not be permissible, or normatively available on the grounds that it would infringe the sovereignty of the state.” (Walzer, 2007, 109).

Accordingly, Walzer puts forth, the rights of human beings are somewhat distinct by the justifiable intercontinental fines that may ensue as nations contravene them. Human right by explanation, are norms that, in case are infringed or contravened, call for actions that would in normal situations flout the autonomy of a nation i.e., comprise a case of intercession into another country.

A soaring threshold is set-up by this situation that a right must attain so as to meet the criteria as a human right. The philosophy of non-involvement is among the fundamental main beliefs of global decree.

It deters commonly the intimidation as well as the use of force of one nation against others and other acts like intervening in relations among a country’s government institutions, prying in political actions like showing preferences to certain contenders in polls, and debatably fiscal as well as political intimidation. For both the firmness of the global order as well as the lives of the people who are threatened, it is quite apparent that intercession mainly by using force has prospectively severe outcomes.

As such, through the present global order that comprises of autonomous nations, intercession may be conceivably only be (ethically) permitted if certain offences of a severe nature are carried out. It may then be debated that infringements of liberal philosophies do not warrant “prima facie” included the prospective errors arising from intercession such that liberal ideology may not be embraced in human rights.

The key supposition forming the dispute however does not appear justified. Barry claims that his view of the concept of human rights reflects the “dominant trend in human rights practice” (Barry, 2001, 37). The global political practice of the rights of humans is made up of a wide range of varieties of political acts of which quite a number do not comprise of involvement. Charles Beitz spotlighted this actuality. Beitz lists six well-established types of international action in support of human rights (Beitz 2009, 33-40).

Duress by fiscal sanctions or armed forces involvement is the only kind that is categorized as foreign involvement. The rest which are five and are the auditing and reporting procedures in United Nations organizations, enticement in foreign guidelines e.g. by conditioning support on human rights values, backing in developing the state of affairs of human rights, pressuring social culture players, as well as the elimination of worldwide hindrances to the realization of human rights.

Although they create a key segment of global political acts that are pro-human rights, the effectualness of these sorts of acts remains uncertain. The tangible practice of human rights hardly goes against autonomy of a nation but in most cases pleas to the country’s political organizations, in so doing supposing that this nation shows autonomous power across its regions.

This outcome is affirmed by the acknowledgement of human rights norms in global decree. States have freely assumed their legal obligation to comply with human rights norms, but they have been reluctant to justify intervention, even in especially grave cases of human rights violations (Ipsen 2004, 1085). Assumptions may be made that rights are by explanation, norms for which there is an active machinery to impose them. Unfortunately, the global decree does not comprehend it as such.

Consequently, it is impossible to get an unambiguous report regarding the outcomes that may be warranted where there is infringement of human rights. Practically, nations only have to go through critics and symbolic acts.

Proposals hereby exert that human rights role in global practices of politics is majorly that one of an ethical one. With the idea of human rights, the general consensus is that they ought to be acknowledged openly as global binding norms and that they fit in a worldwide ethical discussion on political action. The rationalization of liberal human rights ought to tackle substantive ethical contemplation.

Western parochialism

An ethical criticism that has time and again been raised in opposition to liberal human rights is that they are “Western” and thus cannot be in universal norms, applicable in each and every state, as well as those having a non-Western cultural tradition.

For instance, Makau Mutua talks of “cultural biases of the human rights corpus” which is derived from “liberal theory and philosophy” (Mutua 2002, 23). similarly, Ingelhart asserts that his listing of human rights, which does not have central liberal principles, encompass the virtue that it isn’t “special to the Western tradition” thus not “politically parochial”. (Ingelhart, 2003, 45).

This path of criticism bases on empirical assertions concerning the origin of liberal principles as well as the support that they get from different cultural traditions all over the world. Generally, it is definitely true that liberal principles have found strong expressions from the Western political thought and that many views of citizens have been shaped.

Societies from the west; however, liberal principles aren’t the exclusive heritage of Western cultures although it is obvious that in a number of societies liberal principles are almost not accepted, within political societies and amongst citizens.

But what is exactly the reason behind these empirical observations being relevant for normative questions regarding the content of human rights? How precisely are we supposed to understand the argument behind the charge of “Western parochialism”? Lastly what may be the standard which human rights norms have to attain for it to be justified?

Different ways in which the argument may be understood have been sidelined. For our case, we are going to focus on two possible explanations.To begin with, the argument may be that only the norms that are shared in every culture can be capable of being justified as universal norms of human rights.

Basing on this standard of validation, the members in all the cultures have got to in a certain way already assent toward the norms that are entailed in the human rights. If a certain norm doesn’t find universal assent by a particular culture’s members, it can’t be a norm which is relevant to them, and for this reason is unsuitable as a universal norm of the human rights.

This standard of validation can be defended by Michael Walzer when he declares that the universal morality that allows cross-cultural criticism consists of “reiterated features” of the moralities of each and every culture, whereby the features have to “actually be shared across a society” (Walzer 2007, 10/27) as well as the support that they get from different cultural traditions all over the world.

Generally, it is definitely true that liberal principles have found strong expressions from the Western political thought and that many views of citizens have been shaped.

Societies from the west; however, liberal principles aren’t the exclusive heritage of Western cultures although it is obvious that in a number of societies liberal principles are almost not accepted, within political societies and amongst citizens.

However, it can’t be a satisfactory standard of verification for human rights norms to necessitate that they have got to be shared in each and every culture. As a matter of fact, Charles Beitz has asserted, it should be the role of human rights to be critical standards of all the social practices (Beitz 2009, 78).

It is obligatory to be possible for all of them to be critical of all the practices endorsed by the cultures where they take place. Slavery, the implementation of heretics as well as forced marriages have entirely been endorsed practices by particular cultures at specified times. If the projected standard of rationalization is prior agreement, then what we have to give up is the idea of human rights.

Although the charge of the “Western parochialism” may be understood in a different way, beginning with Joshua Cohen’s discussion concerning the justificatory basis of human rights norms. As Cohen attests, all human rights are generally applicable norms and need to be construed in a manner that they are acknowledged by people from different philosophical and religious traditions (Cohen, 2008, 96).

This condition doesn’t mean that human rights ought to be acceptable by all religious and philosophical traditions. The condition only suggests that human rights norms ought to be acceptable for all the people who embrace diverse and different religious as well as philosophical views. They are supposed to aim at being acceptable to a great variety of all these views.

Basing on this, Cohen argues for “justificatory minimalism” that follows according to his presentation:

Justificatory minimalism is animated by an acknowledgement of pluralism and embrace of toleration. It aspires to present a conception of human rights without itself connecting that conception to a particular ethical or religious outlook; it minimizes theoretical aspirations in the statement of the conception of human rights with the aim of presenting a conception that is capable of winning broader public allegiance — where the relevant public is global. (Cohen 2004, 192)

Basing on this presentation, justificatory minimalism makes of 2 central justifications. To begin with, human rights norms need to aim at “winning broader public allegiance” channeled to them. For the reason that people all round the world encompass different religious and ethical views, human rights need to recognize pluralism of these views furthermore strive to abide by them. subsequently, this entails a consequence that “theoretical aspirations in the statement of the conception of human rights” ought to be minimized. It is indeed possible to comprehend human rights norms indevoid of reference to a certain “philosophical theory”.

At present, Cohen doesn’t argue in opposition to liberal human rights. But he proposes that an argument against liberal human rights can be capable of having some plausibility, given justificatory minimalism. Ingelhart may perhaps provide a paradigm:

The Law of Peoples does not say, for example, that human beings are moral persons and have equal worth in the eyes of God; or that they have certain moral and intellectual powers that entitle them to these rights. To argue in these ways would involve religious or philosophical doctrines that many decent hierarchical peoples might reject as liberal or democratic, or as in some way distinctive of Western political tradition and prejudicial to other cultures (Ingelhart, 2003, 241).

Ingelhart asserts in his book that liberal principles rest on specified metaphysical doctrines concerning human beings’ status or else on fundamental doctrines regasrding their moral values. The doctrines are, seemingly, “distinctive of Western political tradition”; other societies have come up intensely with different doctrines. Universal political norms need to be interpreted a way that is adherent to typical Western as well as non-Western doctrines similarly their importance need to be understood.

Nevertheless, it is likely to explain liberal principles in such a way that is consistent to “justificatory minimalism”. As Cohen clarifies, justificatory minimalism “is animated by an acknowledgement of pluralism and embrace of toleration.” Precisely, it recognizes a plurality of diverse “ethical or religious outlooks”.

As a result, the tolerance approved by justificatory minimalism is intended for these different “outlooks”. Therefore, justificatory minimalism bases on a fundamental value that is intended for getting common rules that are accepted by lots of people from diverse ethical and religious outlooks.

At present, in nearly all societies, there isn’t any unanimity regarding to these outlooks. This doesn’t signify that cultural and religious disparities are at all times strongly present in social life, other than some people whose outlook differs from the view of the majority. Consequently, the plurality of both ethical and religious outlooks doesn’t just exist among diverse societies all round the world. It also subsists in societies.

We can at this moment notice that the underlying value of justificatory minimalism is similar to the value underlying liberal political principles. As mentioned before, liberal principles try to tolerate different attitudes and beliefs. They give out conditions that govern the domination of a particular set of ideas by any other particular set.

Justificatory minimalism bases on the same value of tolerance; it only moves the concentration from smaller-scale conflicts amongst the members of the societies to large-scale political conflicts amongst societies. For individuals who are truly concerned about tolerance towards different outlooks, it shouldn’t matter in principle whether conflicts occur either within or between the societies.

Therefore, liberal principles aren’t inevitably tied to particularly Western religious or philosophical traditions. Their appeal can be interpreted by any person who recognizes the plurality of ethical and religious traditions and also embraces the value of tolerance. Basing on this sense, liberal principles aren’t parochial.

The value of mutual self-determination

Critics of liberal human rights repeatedly create a further objection: liberal human rights are not compatible with acknowledging the value of self-determination collectively. For instance, Mutua attests against the full freedom of religion as part and parcel of human rights by asserting that “the most fundamental of all human rights is that of self-determination … Any right which directly conflicts with this right ought to be void to the extent of that conflict.” (Mutua 2002, 108)

How precisely might self-determination be at variance with liberal human rights? The subsequent argument may be made: given that a society is self-determined politically, others should respect the political norms carried out within the society since they have been freely chosen by the citizens. Societies upholding liberal human rights norms do not succeed to give the respect owing to all those self-determined societies that don’t accept liberal principles. As a result, not everybody should support liberal human rights.

Further clarifications are required approximately two aspects regarding to this argument. First and foremost, what’s here the behind the idea of collective self-determination? An individual may perhaps liken the notion to the principle of self-determination of peoples within the international law.

But self-determination collectively and legally, doesn’t correspond to the sense of self-determination that is needed in the argument. Various aspects of the legal principle turn out to be controversial, nevertheless it is approved that it is associated to the obligation of non-intervention in cases where people have attained statehood in its legitimate territory (Ipsen, 2004, 394).

As we have previously seen, the obligation of non-intervention doesn’t necessarily disagree with universal human rights practices, for instance, public criticism different states. Consequently, if liberal human rights are solely backed up by milder forms of international pressure that doesn’t total up to “intervention”, there isn’t any conflict amongst them and self-determination legally.

So the perception of collective self-determination as argued above has to be different from legal self determination. It must be a moral notion that includes more duties as compared the legal principle. Debatably, Gould defends self-determination as a moral value when she denotes: “self-determination, duly constrained by appropriate conditions, is an important good for a people, and the foreign policy of liberal peoples should recognize that good and not take the appearance of being coercive.” (Gould, 2006, 99)

The self-determination of a people tends to be “good”, here for instance, as a value that needs to be recognized by other peoples. To be certain, Goulds’ remarks with full respect to coercion advocaes that acknowledging this value implies only paying respect to the principle of non-intervention.

Actually, this value needs to justify duties that are strong. For instance, Barry argues that single states as well as international institutions should not offer incentives to the other countries to take over liberal institutions. Barry puts emphasis on “the great importance of maintaining mutual respect between peoples and of each people maintaining its self-respect” (Barry, 2003, 68).

Maintaining common human rights norms, that necessitate societies to take on specified political principles, seemingly refutes respect to societies that don’t accomplish the norm. Basing on Barry, we may possibly suggest that the value of collective self-determination offers the other societies a motive to “respect” self- determining societies.

Here is the second aspect of the objection regarding collective self-determination that requires clarification: basing on which circumstances can a society be assumed to be self-determined? It appears that the only way a society can be self-determined is if it is in one way or another governed by the combined will of all its members. This conflicts to being subjected to either an outsiders will or of part of its members.

But this condition should be of which strength? It is seemingly controversial whether self-determination necessitates everybody having equal formal powers in political procedures, thus the principle of democratic governance. We don’t have to settle this issue here. What we need to assume is that a self-determined society could possibly adopt political practices that in one way or another defy a number of liberal principles.

In addressing the argument that has been presented above, that seeks to attest that the value of collective self-determination gives a reason that contrasts to liberal human rights.

Basing on the fact that we are primarily addressing the supporters of human rights although denying the universality of liberal principles, we can possibly assume that the moral petition of the value of collective self determination depends on the respect for decisions absorbed by the peoples’ members. While paying respect to the self- determined decisions of a people, we eventually respect the options of individuals that was composed by the people.

Now, a procedure in incorporated for every collective decision that accepts different views of individuals as not only an input but also a common decision as an output. In a number of cases, the verdict could be liberally accepted by almost all of the individuals, but usually collective verdicts are taken that conflict to the will of most of the members.

Additionally, there isn’t any procedural guarantee that the result of a decision procedure is fair. Even the procedures that execute strict but real conditions of procedural fairness tend to yield choices that turn out to be significantly unfair, in the view of defenders of liberal principles.

Given such cases, defenders of liberal principles face problems. They can’t accept the fact that the society is self-determined as a satisfying motive to respect the collective decision since they carry that respect is in due course owed to the individuals, but not collectively as a whole.

Once respect is eventually guaranteed to the individuals, an individual needs to realize the fact that most people encompass different notions regarding the end collective decision, thus an individual needs to owe respect to all the sides of the controversy moreover come up with a reasoned option regarding the side that deserves respect especially when all things are considered.

When thinking that while making such reasoned choices, the decision made collectively is substantially unfair to those individual on only one side of the, then this must be a good motive for taking sides along with them and as well not respecting the decision. So far, they are believed as moral defenders by the defenders of liberal principles.

This is contrasted to local customs, they’ll be dedicated to seeing each and every violation of liberal principles as a significantly unfair treatment of particular society members. as a result, they have with them a very good reason that allows them not to respect collective decisions that defy liberal principles.

However, an individual may possibly argue out that this particular reason is overshadowed by stronger countervailing motives. To be specific, an individual may possibly declare that all of the individuals who seem to be treated unfairly must have made free alternatives, that in one way or another validate expecting from them to tolerate the burdens substantial to these decisions. The following are some of the reasons of this kind.

One of the reasons is that an individual could possibly mention as a matter of fact is that these individuals reside in certain societies in devoid of being forced to do so. As a matter of fact, if they were truthfully unhappy from the collective decisions absorbed within their society, then they would certainly leave.

However this argument supposes that individuals can relocate in other societies. This is almost not true. Most of the countries incorporate restrictive immigration policies; furthermore there are cultural as well as economic barriers against migration. Therefore, the likelihood of emigration can’t be a satisfactorily strong motive to anticipate from them to tolerate the burdens of unfair collective decisions within their society.

Another reason could possibly be the fact that individuals take part in the collective decision- making of all the people. Irrespective of the unfairness of the outcome, an individual may imagine that they’re dedicated to the outcome since they have implicitly agreed to the procedures.

However it isn’t clear why it should be the case ( with the exclusion of a problem that specific persons may decide to boycott collective decision- making based on uneven conditions). It is not irrational and immoral to take part in the political processes even though an individual isn’t disposed to agree to certain outcomes.

Taking part in collective decision-making, and acknowledging temporarily the procedures based upon while taking these decisions, is the sole likelihood they’ve to not only express their views but also manipulate the collective decisions in a calm and peaceful way. We can’t embrace their involvement against them.

In conclusion, the outlined reasons aren’t convincing. The value of collective self-determination doesn’t provide us with satisfying reasons to respect illiberal political practices in different societies.

Conclusion

In a synopsis, it can be stated that we have scrutinized three objections compared with including liberal philosophy in global human rights norms: the tapered political part of human rights, the supposed Western parochialism of liberal ideology, as well as the worth of mutual self-determination.

All these objections failed to elucidate proof of a persuasive argument. For as long as there are no other persuasive challenges facing liberal human rights, protecters of liberal doctrines have no principled ethical reason to keep off from maintaining liberal principles as part of global human rights norms.

References

Barry, B. (2001). Culture and equality: An egalitarian critique of multiculturism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Beitz, C. R. (2009). The idea of human rights. Oxford: Cassese.

Cohen, J. (2004). Minimalism About Human Rights: The Most We Can Hope For? In: Journal of Political Philosophy 12. 190-213.

Cohen, J. L. (2008). Rethinking Human Rights, Democracy, and Sovereignty in the Age of globalization. Political theory 36. 578-606 .

Freedom house. (2010b). Poilcing belief: The impact of blasphemy laws on human rights. New York.

Geuss, R. (2001). History of illusion in politics. London: Cambridge.

Gould, C. C. (2006). Self-Determination Beyond Sovereignty: Relating Transnational democracy to local autonomy. journal of social philosophy 37. 44-60.

Habermas, J. (1992). Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demok. Frankfurt: ratischen rechtsstaats.

Habermas, J. (2001). Zur legitimation durch Menchenrechte. Hauke Bronkhorst , 386-403.

Ingelhart, P. N. (2003). The true clash of civilization. Foreign Policy 135 , 62-70.

Ipsen, K. (2004). Volkerrecht. Frankfurt: Frankfurt M.

Mutau, M. (2002). Human Rights: A Political and cultural critique. New York: Blackwell.

Miller, D. (2007). National responsibility and global justice. London: Oxford.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Frontiers of Justice. Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge: MA/ London.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Walzer, J., N. (2007). Making sense of human rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Labor conditions of migrants in the construction sector are characterized by high levels of work-related trauma and injury, low payment, and various socio-economic issues. The report by Francois Crepeau addresses the deaths of migrants in the central Mediterranean Sea and evaluates the European Union border control analysis, migration policy, and the application of values and human rights in the European region.

The report analyzes the contemporary issues regarding migrants and proposes a human-rights-based framework to address the problems surrounding them. It is based on providing search, rescue, support, and legalistic integration of working migrants, refugees, and other individuals seeking shelter in the EU with the purpose of integrating them into the EU legal framework. According to Crepeau (2015), once refugees and illegal migrants feel the protection of the law, the number of crimes committed by and towards migrants would be significantly reduced.

This report has a strong moral, humanitarian, and legalistic foundation. It is based not only on various documents that make up the code of law in the EU and the UN but also on personal observations of the special reporter, who traveled across different countries in 2013-2014. However, the author does not provide enough information about the political attitudes of the general populace towards migrants. Humanitarian concerns are pointless without the goodwill of the population of the countries the migrants will reside in. As such, the attention should be focused on building a positive image of a migrant worker. As Crepeau (2015) mentioned, the EU is facing a demographic crisis as well as an employment crisis. Migrants, on the other hand, bring hard-working talent with them and can stimulate the economy. The report should be focusing on these issues as well, as the refusal to grant migrants more working rights and securities revolve around the negative perceptions of thereof by the rest of the population.

Work Cited

Crepeau, Francois. “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants.” OHCHR, Web.

Prisoner rights and prisoner voting are UN-mandated issues, as the organization seeks to uphold the rights of all individuals and ensure they are not being violated. Scotland is one of the nations inside of the EU that does not allow prisoners to vote. The report prepared by Christina McKelvie et al. (5) analyzes the legalistic and human rights background of the issue and proposes to abolish the ban on prisoner voting in Scotland, in order to pay respect for the greater devolved responsibility for the democratic process.

In the report, McKelvie et al. (8) highlight the important contradictions behind the blanket ban, namely the lack of understanding behind the purpose of the prison, the influence of the media and the public press, as well as the potential consequences for democracy and human rights. According to their findings, the deprivation of the right to vote would encourage the criminal to oppose society and commit more crimes, not less. The reports also point out that the opposition to the right to vote operates on emotional factors rather than legalistic arguments or logic. Lastly, the ban on voting violates Article 3 Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 21 of the International Convention of Human Rights, and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (McKelvie et al. 26).

The report is well-entrenched in the legal frameworks of Scotland, the EU, and the UN. It is supported by numerous citations from local and international acts regarding the rights of prisoners and individuals in general. However, the report does not address the ethical issues behind the ban and does not have enough academic research to back up some of its claims.

In addition, the report dismisses the political and justice views of the majority of the society as “emotion-driven” and “influenced by the mass media” (McKelvie 27). The paper asserts the purpose of prisons as correctional facilities without consulting the opinion of the population on such matters. In a democracy, the voice of the people should prevail over individual opinions and concerns. The paper does not show any of that, which construes a weakness.

Work Cited

McKelvie, Christina et al. Prisoner voting in Scotland. 2018, Web.

Human rights and their protection on the international level is a complex topic that requires additional attention. Even though various institutions, for instance, the International Criminal Court (ICC) are concerned with ensuring that legislation protecting the rights is followed, the reality reflects a need for further improvements. This paper will analyze the international and domestic tribunals, economic sanctions, ICC, and institutions that can promote human rights successfully.

The relative merits of domestic institutions versus international tribunals are in the fact that in most cases ICC or other institutions have to consider the regional specifics and local laws. Voeten states that international organizations were successful at developing legislation and systems of human rights, while on the regional level states prosecuted criminals for their actions (119). Criminal prosecution in comparison to civil litigation refers to the sides between which disputes occur, in the first case it is the state versus an individual or an organization. The former allows a country’s officials to ensure that human rights are followed within a specific territory on a large scale while the latter enables individuals to protect their rights.

The decisions of treaty bodies shaped the interpretation of human rights by defining and developing specific standards, for instance, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Economic sanctions should be imposed when a country commits political, military, or other actions that violate international treaties and human rights. The ICC can be depended upon for enforcing global standards because this organization was established to protect a variety of human rights internationally. The jurisdiction of this court allows it to decide on cases of international importance, however, due to the nature of the prosecution process and a need to adhere to specified conditions under which the ICC is cable of working on the case. If human rights were considered more seriously, the institution that would have a significant likelihood of success would be the United Nations due to the institution’s contribution to the development of the human rights system globally. Overall, the topic of human rights and their protection through economic sanctions and other strategies requires additional attention from the states and international institutions.

Work Cited

Voeten, Erik. “Competition and Complementarity Between Global and Regional Human Rights Institutions.” Global Policy, vol. 8, no. 1, 2017, pp. 119-123.

Introduction

Nowadays, we live in the world, in which the most of the leading countries declare the supremacy of law based on the democratic values and the human rights. However, the discussions of the problem of the human rights protection are still urgent in the society. The cases of their violations do still occur in the modern world.

The aim of this essay is to discuss the problem of human rights in the USA and all over the world.

The Definition and Explication of the Human Rights

Various organizations as well as the individual scholars explain the term of the human rights from their own point of view. Many of them describe it in context of the issues actual for the society of their native countries. The United Nations Organization proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10 December 1948 (“Universal Declaration” n.pag.).

The document was signed one year after the end of the World War II, when the mankind was concerned about the recovery of the social well-being and about the prevention of the repeat of the terrible events of the WWII in the future. The document laid the foundations of the law protection of the human rights.

The first article of the Declaration states, “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” (“The Universal Declaration” n.pag.). The text of the document supports the highest human values and encourages people to behave ethically in relation to each other.

However, we know from history that the simple declaration of the human rights is not enough to make the society free from the bias, hate, and violence. The racial discrimination in the United States was the obvious example in this respect. The decades were necessary to overcome it.

The activity of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL), which is responsible for the protection of the human rights in the United States, is based on the following key principles: striving to learn the truth and state the facts, taking consistent positions, and facilitating and supporting partnerships (“Human Rights” n.pag.).

The human rights are often supported by the legal documents of the international law and the local law of the particular countries. The individual rights in the US were firstly proclaimed and legally documented in the Declaration of Independence of 1776, which was written by Tomas Jefferson (“A Brief History” n.pag.).

However, the struggle for the human rights and other democratic values did not stop at that time. Nowadays, the US Constitution guarantees the human rights to every citizen and it maintains them as the legal rights (Dowling p.96). Their realization is the responsibility of the US government. Many human rights movements strive to monitor the realization of human rights and make public aware of the cases of their violations.

Conclusion

In order to sum up all above mentioned, it should be said that the human rights are the vital element of the jural state. They are supported by the numerous legal documents. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed after the WWII. It proclaims the highest values including the personal freedom and the equality of rights for all. In the US, the human rights are guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Works Cited

“A Brief History of Human Rights”. Humanrights.com. 2013. Web.

Dowling, Noel T. “Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.” Essential Human Rights 243 (1946): 96-100. Print.

“Human Rights”. State.gov. n.d. Web.

“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. Un.org. n.d. Web.

“Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. Ohchr.org. 2012. Web.

In order for all human beings to be treated equally, human rights have been outlined in the laws and regulations of the world. Even for people who are detained because of one reason or the other, they have certain rights as human beings which should be respected. However, there are times when various people, most especially governments, violate rights of people in various ways.

These mostly takes place when they know that the public has limited knowledge regarding what is going on and there is minimal probability that this will ever get to be known. In detentions for example, the main aim of the government is to get as maximum information as possible from the detainees (Briggs par 2).

Temptations are usually high that the people involved in the extraction of information will use any means possible to get what they want. At times like this, the media plays a crucial role in keeping the public aware of what is taking place in various government institutions. Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq is one such place where violation of human rights was brought to the attention of the public by the media.

Abu Ghraib prison was previously used by former Iraq president Saddam Hussein. The US officials in Iraq took over after toppling the Iraq president (Shane par 3). Hardcore criminals and suspected terrorists are kept in this prison cells. During the war on Iraq, the American military held a lot of prisoners captive and placed them in this prison.

The main reason being it is a maximum security prison where escape was highly unlikely. However, US did not observe all its commitments to be fair to human beings. Inhumane acts were perpetrated on detainees during the period of 2003 to 2004. There were rumors that American soldiers were mistreating the prisoners and using uncouth means to get information from them but very few people believed that.

This was until what was exactly going on was leaked to the public. CBS television news show was able to get pictures of Iraq detainees being humiliated by us military personnel in 2004 (Sontag par1). The pictures depicted the dehumanizing conditions that the detainees were compelled to go through all in the name of extracting information from them.

These pictures were leaked by a soldier, Joe Darby, who had found them on a camera belonging to one of his colleagues. Though he had been promised that his identity would not be revealed, he was later exposed. However, the full state of affairs in Abu Ghraib prison came to the knowledge of the public when a report by the military into the first pictures leaked to an online magazine.

The pictures of detainees being tortured had also been aired on an Australian television. In the report from the American military, pictures of inhuman acts being perpetrated to Iraq detainees were shown (Task Force on Detainee Treatment par 4). Coincidentally, the dates of the pictures from the military report were the same as the dates that Joe claimed the acts took place.

Pictures of naked detainees heaped together on the floor were shown. Similarly, there were pictures of male detainees who were forced to wear women underwear on their heads. On the same note, detainees were subjected to adult pornography. It is crucial to note that most of the detainees were Muslims and these acts were against their religious beliefs.

In one of the pictures, there is a naked man and two soldiers who seem to be threatening the detainee with a dog (Fischer-Lescano 693). Torture of detainees seems to be the order of the day which is enjoyed by the soldiers. Similarly, there are pictures of several detainees who seem to be dead.

The extent of human rights violations by the US soldiers cannot be over emphasized. The United Nations declaration of human rights is very explicit on how all human beings should be treated. To begin with, article one of the declaration states that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. As a result, people should act towards one another with the spirit of brotherhood.

Article five states clearly that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment (Froomkin par 5). This article is very clear that there are no exceptions as it regards inhumane treatment of people. Not even a prisoner should be subjected to any kind of torture. It is sad that of all the countries, the United State would allow torture of detainees to take place under its very own watch.

The military doctors like all other doctors have taken an oath of alleviating human suffering and do anything within their ability to save lives. Unfor6tunately, they were the ones involved in the heinous acts. The acts were designed and in some instances committed by the doctors. Instead of ensuring that no human being was subjected to harm, they helped in the infliction of harm.

It is important to note that doctors are supposed to put human lives first than national security (Casteel 76). To them society is expected to be crucial and this is their duty to the community. As a matter of fact, confidence of medical reports is one of the rights bestowed to clients.

As a doctor, one is not supposed to reveal the medical information of a patient unless that is required by law. Nevertheless, the doctors and physicians at Abu Ghraib gave out medical information of patients and the same was used to torture the detainees. Moreover, if prisoners are on hunger strike, doctors are not supposed to feed them by force.

Military medical practitioners went against these requirements and forcefully fed detainees who were on hunger strike (Cannon 73). It is worth noting that this was not only against the doctors and physicians code of ethics but also against human rights. The medical information that was gained from the medics was later used by the government agents to extract information from the detainees.

Moreover, it has been alleged that psychologists were present during interrogation where detainees were subjected to traumatizing conditions (Institute on Medicine as a Profession par 5). Though some people have argued that doctors were following orders and could not have avoided doing what was required by authorities, evidence has it that one can avoid that.

Among the torturous acts that are depicted in the pictures are naked human beings that are compelled to form a human pyramid. In the first place, it is degrading to force a human being to take off his or her clothes in front of others. Telling them to form a pyramid in that condition is excruciating. The dignity of a human being is in his or her ability to uphold self-esteem.

People are bound to lose self confidence and self-esteem if they are compelled to undress and perform various acts in that situation. This is psychological torture that can lead to depression and even suicide (Strasser 56). It is against the Muslim culture to be naked in front of other people. This is what the US soldiers forced the detainees to do, go against their culture.

Whether one expects to get information from a detainee or not, torture can never be justified. According to the 1984 Geneva Convention no exemptions whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, should be given to warrant torture on human beings. Sexual abuses are also reported to have been committed by the soldiers on the detainees.

Some of the detainees who were interviewed said that soldiers said they will rape them as well as their wives. Detainees are shown in the leaked pictures and video tapes being forced to stand in compromising positions while holding their buttocks. How a normal human being would do this to a fellow person beats logic. Some pictures also show detainees lined up in sexually explicit positions (Hersh par 6).

The inhumane acts went to the extent of male detainees being compelled to masturbate in front of camera. In some of the pictures, detainees can be seen to be piled up while they are naked. There are also images of the American soldiers sitting on top of these detainees. It is very cruel to jump on top of people who have been piled up. This inflicts injuries on these detainees.

Naked detainees can also be seen standing on boxes while there have sand bags on their heads. This is probably not the worst part of it. The climax of cruelty in this torturous expedition is the attaching of wires on the fingers, toes and private parts of male detainees to trigger electrical shocks (Carvel par 3). It is unimaginable that a man can do these to a fellow man knowing very well the kind of pain that this person will undergo.

Rape can also be manifested in some of the pictures. Some detainees were raped by guards. This was done in front of other detainees. These is dehumanizing as it makes one to lose self esteem. Rape itself is a very tormenting issue for any lady (Task Force on Detainee Treatment par 4). Nevertheless, the fact that the action was committed in the full view of other people makes the victim feel worthless and unable to even protect her own dignity.

Several detainees can be seen to be having injuries on various parts of their bodies and furious dogs near them. These injuries would probably have been as a result of dog bites. In other pictures, detainees have been chained to beds or doors and dogs let free to threaten them. It remains unclear whether these detainees survived the ordeal. Detainees are unarmed in the prisons where they are placed (Briggs par 7).

Moreover, the detainees would not have resisted any order to warrant the use of dogs. Why the American soldiers decided to use dogs on the detainees remains a mystery. What is more sickening in the pictures is the fact that the American soldiers seem to be enjoying each bit of the heinous actions. A female soldier is seen in one of the pictures giving thumbs up sign while a detainee who seems to be in excruciating pain is lying down.

On other pictures, soldiers pose for pictures with bodies of detainees. How a human being can find it comfortable to be happy for torturing another person to death is shocking (Zimmerman 74). On the same note, the fact that the soldiers got time to take pictures while torturing the detainees is a proof enough that they enjoyed doing it. Posing cheerfully for a picture with the body of a person you have killed is the height of animosity.

Evidence shows that some guards urinated on naked detainees while they laughed at them. This was done in order to show the detainees their inability to do anything to the American soldiers. A soldier also jumped on a detainee’s leg which had been injured from gun fire. As a soldier, ethics demand that one is supposed to ensure safety of a detainee unless the detainee is armed and reacts otherwise.

On the contrary, American soldiers made sure that this injured detainee will never heal properly. As if that was not enough, the soldiers continued beating the injured detainee on the wounded leg with a rod. In some instances, the guards even poured phosphoric acid on detainees (Benjamin par 4).

All these took place because the soldiers thought there was no way information about what they were doing would leak to the public. Nobody was there to tell the world what went on inside the closed doors of the Abu Ghraib Prisons, at least to the best of their knowledge. They treated the detainees with such cruelty that one would wonder whether the soldiers were really human beings or they had turned into animals.

Fortunately, the media was there to bring these atrocities to the knowledge of the world. Media is not just there to report the politics that usually dominate the daily news (Benvenisti 35). It is the work of the media to fight for social justice by exposing various injustices that take place in the society.

People all over the world need to know the truth of what is going on in society. There are a lot of evils happening in society and somehow concerned organizations are not ready to explicitly say the truth. On the same note, governments have been proved to manipulate state organizations making it difficult for the truth of what exactly takes place to see the light of the day.

Therefore, the general public needs a watchdog that will help to expose what governments as well as other corporations are doing. In this regard, investigative reporting is very crucial in closing the gap of information that exists. Investigative journalism is a branch of journalism in which a reporter carries out in depth analysis of a topic of his or her interest (Hersh par 6).

Usually, investigative reporting reports about topics that are of public interest for example, corruption, crime, corporate wrong doing and various government scandals. Investigative reporting involves analysis of social and legal issues of the topic. To begin with, investigative reporting will help in shedding light on some societal issues like government practices which have for a long time been kept in the dark.

Moreover, it entails investigation of important documents and scrutiny of government and business practices in order to understand their effects to society. However, since investigative reporting is based on solid evidence, it will enable the public to get a clear picture of what is really happening in various sectors of the government (Casteel 87).

In this regard, media played a very crucial role in exposing the Abu Ghraib pictures. To begin with, such a massive violation of human rights required huge exposure that was only possible through the media. It is the role off the media to fight for social justice whenever possible (Task Force on Detainee Treatment par 4). This can be achieved through bringing any vice perpetrated in the society to the knowledge of the public.

There is no way that one can commit atrocities if he or she knows that the public will know about the same. Media ensured that pictures from Abu Ghraib received as much attention as possible. By doing this, the media was ensuring that each and every member of the society got to know what our elite American soldiers had turned into in Iraq. On the same note, media brought the picture of what is expected from our soldiers whenever they are on duty in any given part of the world (Benjamin par 5).

Moreover, media repeatedly outlined what is contained in the UN Convention of Human rights. All this was done in order to show the public how far the soldiers had gone against the law. It is important to note that media tried as much as possible to bring the inner meaning of the pictures to the public. Many people might have just looked at the pictures as one of the tragedies that are usually witnessed in the world.

But no, that was not just another calamity. It was animosity at its worst and that is what the media wanted the general public to know. Besides the explanations that were given by the media regarding the issue, pictures were broadcasted in a sequential manner to give emphasis to the matter (Shane par 7). Various media stations not only in America but also in other parts of the world show cased the issue to varying extents.

While ordinary citizens might not have known who was responsible for what particular role as far as the Abu Ghraib torture was concerned, media took that duty of informing the public on the role of each concerned party. The ethical requirements that were breached by various people were also enumerated by the media thus making the general public understand the density of the issues.

Physicians and other medical practitioners are expected to be the course of healing for people not the cause of suffering. The oath to which these people subscribe to during their graduation is their covenant to the general public (Sontag par 9). Media brought to the public knowledge that in more than one occasion, this covenant was defiled by the same people who are supposed to respect it.

As a matter of fact, it is the role of media to inform the society on every issue that takes place. Where the government goes wrong, people should be told. On the same note, media has the role of ensuring that whatever is broadcasted has supporting evidence and is not based on hearsay. Every person in the society tends to believe that before media airs any news, they should carryout investigations.

In the case of Abu Ghraib pictures, media confirmed their authenticity before bringing them to the attention of the public. Most importantly, media forms a very good channel through which one can shed light on any vice in society (Froomkin par 6). If the Abu Ghraib issue was first reported to a different agency, chances are that it would have been covered. Media can bring out a story about any issue in society without revealing the identity of the person who leaked the story.

Moreover, one will be confident that if he or she leaks a story to the media the public will get to know about it. This is why the media was essential in exposing the vices that were going on in Abu Ghraib. Notably, the authorities could have known what was going on at Abu Ghraib. There was no way all those atrocities would have taken place without the knowledge of the authorities.

But they chose not to take any action until media focused on the issue. Even after the matter had been exposed, the investigations that were carried out by the department of defense were shoddy (Cannon 87). All they cared about was how to justify their actions or exonerate themselves from blame. It was up to the media to play its role of informing the society on what was going on.

Medics used military excuses to violate fundamental regulations of their profession. In the pretext that they were safety officers, medical practitioners were involved in interrogation of detainees which is against their professional code of conduct. Medical practitioners did not apply independent judgment during the course of duty as required.

Although the Army Surgeon General had recommended the adoption of international medical standards and reporting of abuse against detainees, that did not happen. Those on the ground did what they thought was good. It is only through the media that this information was disseminated to the public.

One way of non-violent fighting for human rights in the society is by exposing the people who are involved in various acts that violate human rights. When even a small hint about the probability of one committing an act that violates human rights is brought to the knowledge of the public, people fear to commit that act.

Media may not have the necessary legal capability of preventing or stopping human rights violations from taking place, but they can make the responsible departments aware. That was what the media did. Media focused on Abu Ghraib issue explaining it from all angles possible.

On the same note, media ensured that the public got to know who would have stopped the vices and who allowed them to go on (Zimmerman 69). The chain of responsibility was made open so that citizens and the world in general would know who bears the blame of allowing Abu Ghraib torture to take place. While most people feared to use the correct names to refer to what was going on in Abu Ghraib, the media did not.

Torture and various human rights violations were called by their names. Avoidance to use the correct name is one of the ways of avoiding to address an issue. Notably, the media helped in initiating investigations in to the allegations. America, being one of the countries that strongly advocates for respect of human rights by being a signatory of the international convention against torture, should not have allowed such actions to take place under the watch of senior state officials.

Bringing the pictures to the attention of the public meant that more people became aware of what was taking place and thereby started investigating the matter. On the same note, all investigations require evidence or suspicion in order to commence. Media helped in providing the evidence that was required in order for various organizations to start investigations into Abu Ghraib issue.

It is important to note that lack of awareness about an issue that is taking place will in itself be a hindrance to investigations (Benvenisti 93). By making public the pictures of Abu Ghraib, the media was able to disseminate the necessary information to sensitize the public on what exactly was happening in the prison. In this regard, it enabled various lobby groups to start investigations.

Another way through which the media helped in starting investigations into the Abu Ghraib matter is by highlighting the extent to which ethical codes were being breached. Doctors, physicians and nurses all used the military uniforms and national security as an excuse to go against their ethical code of conduct (Institute on Medicine as a Profession par 8).

Similarly, military officers went against the international laws on how to treat detainees and committed crimes against humanity on the detainees. All these were brought to the fore by the media. It was, therefore, easier for various professional bodies whose members were involved in these acts to take the necessary steps.

Arguably, the media was very essential in exposing the seriousness of the matter at hand. The coverage that media gave to the pictures was substantial to tell any person that the pictures were not just any news. Moreover, various media platforms sought advice and opinion from experts in the field of human rights and military detainees to expound on the Abu Ghraib pictures (Carvel par 5).

In this way, the picture of the atrocities that were being committed to detainees was made clearer thus enabling lawyers and other groups to know how to position their cases. Moreover, media tried as much as possible to find the people who were responsible for each function in the prison. Those in charge of discipline were exposed. On the same note, medics who either designed or allowed various forms of torture to take place, or those who actually perpetrated the atrocities were exposed.

It was therefore easier to note the person who was to blame for each action. This highly propelled investigations into the matter. Besides, the pictures were very clear and everybody would see who was doing what and this necessitated investigation (Briggs par 9). In addition, the fact that the pictures went viral to the whole world compelled the government to take some steps and actually carry out investigations into the issue.

Was it not that the media exposed the pictures; chances are that the government would have looked for ways of concealing the crimes. The reaction of the government was to relieve some soldiers form duty for taking part in the heinous actions. Department of defense of the United States carried out investigations into the matter with the aim of finding officials who bore the greatest responsibility.

Those that were found to be responsible were charged in courts-martial. Some were dishonorably dismissed from service while others were imprisoned. Some specialists were also imprisoned for taking part or allowing torture of detainees (Task Force on Detainee Treatment par 8). On the same note, some superior officers were demoted as was recommended by the research carried out by department of defense.

This notwithstanding, it is important to state categorically here that nothing much was done by the government. To begin with, the bush government did not accept that what happened in Abu Ghraib was tantamount to crimes against humanity. Instead, they sought to use a different name in order to diverge from the truth. People were tortured and that is not a secret.

What was more disgusting was actually not what the pictures depicted prima facie, but the fact that the soldiers enjoyed doing this. People usually take pictures to remind them of the good memories that they will not want to forget (Fischer-Lescano 721). That is what torture in Abu Ghraib was to the American soldiers, good worthy memories that they could not afford to lose.

All vices in society need to be exposed and the people involved ashamed. America is the world’s loudest advocator for human rights. How it could allow its own soldiers to torture and even kill unarmed detainees all in the name of national security is hard to understand.

Consequently, media had to play its role of informing the public. Somebody had to expose the atrocities that were being committed to the detainees and media presented the best channel. While media may not have gained access to all the information regarding the authorization and directing of torture at Abu Ghraib, it helped in bringing justice by exposing what was going on. Thanks to the media people the world was able to know how far the authorities can go all in the name of getting information from detainees.

Works Cited

Benjamin, Mark. “Salon Exclusive: The Abu Ghraib Files.” Salon, 16 February 2006. Web.

Benvenisti, Meron. Abu Ghraib: The Politics of Torture. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, 2004. Print.

Briggs, Bill. “Big, Striking Horror:’ US military Doctors allowed Torture of Detainees, New Studty Claims.” NBC NEWS. 4 November 2013. Web.

Cannon, Michael. Abu Ghraib. Maitland: Xulon Press, 2005. Print.

Carvel, John. “Abu Ghraib Doctors Knew of Torture, says Lancet Report.” The Guardian, 20 August 2004. Web.

Casteel, Joshua. Letters from Abu Ghraib. New York: Essay Press, 2008. Print.

Fischer-Lescano, Andreas. “Torture in Abu Ghraib: The Complaint against Donald Rumsfeld under the German Code of Crimes against International Law.” German Law Journal 6.3(2003): 689-724.Print.

Froomkin, Dan. “New Questions about Abu Ghraib”. The Washington Post, 18 June 2007. Web.

Hersh, Seymour M. “Torture at Abu Ghraib.” The New Yorker, 10 May 2004. Web.

Institute on Medicine as a Profession. “Medic, Military, and Ethics Experts Say Health Professional Designed and Participated in Cruel, Inhumane, and Degrading Treatment and Torture of Detainees; Seek Policies to Assure Conformance With Ethical Principals.” Institute on Medicine as a Profession, n.d. Web.

Shane, Scott. “U.S. Engaged in Torture After 9/11, Review Concludes.”The New York Times, 16 April 2013. Web.

Sontag, Susan. “Regarding the Torture of Others.” The New York Times, 23 May 2013. Web.

Strasser, Steven. The Abu Ghraib Investigations: The Official Reports of the Independent Panel and Pentagon on the Shocking Prisoner Abuse in Iraq. New York: Public Affairs, 2004. Print.

Task Force on Detainee Treatment. “Detainee Treatment.” Task Force on Detainee Treatment, n.d. Web.

Zimmerman, Frederick. Basic Documents about the Treatment of the Detainees at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Ann Arbor: Nimble Books, (2004). Print.

Introduction

Assessing the effectiveness and acceptability of governmental activities is always a challenging and ambiguous task. Because the government’s key responsibility is to take care of its citizens guaranteeing their security and welfare, sometimes its activities collide with the interests and values of people. The issue becomes more critical in the case if the government clings to power and desires to preserve it by any means.

Before the rise of the Internet, it was rarely the problem because it was easier to detect opposing citizens and make them change their minds. However, as most people moved communication to the virtual dimension, it became harder to manage them because they have got a platform for expressing their opinions, which are not always beneficial to the ruling party. Nowadays, governments face the challenge of the so-called e-democracy, and they should choose either to provide their citizens with the ability to communicate freely and be overthrown or fall upon censoring their expressions and remain in power.

This paper aims at finding the answer to the following question: is it morally acceptable that a theocratic government censors its people’s expressions on the Internet to remain in power? The answer to this question will be crafted through providing the background concerning the peculiarities of e-democracy in the theocratic states and the strategies of cyber censorship deployed by Saudi Arabia and Iran. The primary idea of the paper is to disclose moral opacities of the issue, conduct stakeholder impact analysis, and speculate on the collision of values of the theocratic governments and people.

Democracy with a Theocratic Face

It is vital to determine the specificities of theocracy and democracy before studying the combination of the two. In general, democracy is the rule of people. The peculiarity of this political system is that people acting as a group decide what is better for their state and themselves. It is characterized by freedom of expressing opinions without regard to their character, the right to vote in and out of the ruling party, several candidates for ruling positions, the protection of human rights, etc. (Hadi par. 1).

Theocracy, on the other hand, is the rule of God in the face of a religious leader, who governs the country based on the postulates of a particular religion. The primary way to become a theocratic leader is to persuade people and lawmakers that an individual is sent by God and acts on His behalf, i.e. is a prophet (Hadi par. 2).

It means that theocracies in their pure form, for the most part, exist in the Muslim world. Unlike democracy, people living under theocratic governments are obliged to accept any governmental decisions just like they do accept the will of God. The challenge with theocracy is determining the right religion. It is especially acute in the case of several branches of religions, e.g. various sects.

Nowadays, however, these two political systems can coexist introducing a new political phenomenon – theocratic democracy. The foundation of the new system is still theocratic, i.e. religion is the source of law. Nevertheless, people are granted some freedom of expressing their thoughts and their rights are protected to a particular extent. It means that theocratic democracy is about finding the right balance between the rule of God and the rights of people (Stein par. 8).

It makes this political system unstable because the interests and values of governments and citizens often collide leading to conflicts. However, it can be seen as the first step towards the transition to democracy and separating religion from the state (Ben-Yehuda 223).

The Challenge of E-Democracy

With the rise of information and communication technologies, people have got an opportunity to participate in the political decision-making process (Freeman and Quirke 143). This phenomenon is referred to as e-democracy. Its primary objective is to provide citizens with the platform for sharing their opinions, which later will be used by the governments to design policies or adopt new laws. In addition to it, governmental institutions provide people with the latest information about the decisions affecting the country’s life. The key idea is to receive feedback and propositions from people to improve their lives and the quality of governmental services (Kreiss 3).

However, establishing e-democracy as the platform for sharing expressions is only possible in the countries with absolute democracy, i.e. when people’s opinion is taken into consideration and their rights are guaranteed and protected. Such platforms grant an opportunity to speak up publicly without regard to the fact that the audience is virtual. The character of similar expressions may vary from positive to extremely negative.

It means that people might choose to criticize the government’s activities and decisions and even promote the idea of overthrowing the ruling party calling for radical measures such as upheavals and mass disorders. The limitation of e-democracy and freedom of communication on the Internet is that an individual never knows, who is hidden behind the nickname. It means that negative expressions might bear a strategic objective of heating masses and bringing them out to the streets to become a new authority.

However, there are instances, in which the government is not interested in receiving feedback, especially when people start criticizing its activities. Because sometimes leaders feel the threat of being overthrown, they might choose to fall back on what is known as cyber censorship. This mechanism implies checking the character of an individual’s opinion and not letting to post it if it is too negative or calls for radical actions.

Simply speaking, cyber censorship is about limiting freedom of expression. In most cases, it takes the form of blocking social networks and forums, i.e. platforms for communication, restricting access to the Internet and viewing the materials containing provocative content, and deleting it right after detecting (Rininsland par. 2, 7). From the political perspective, the primary goal of cyber censorship is to avoid the distribution of dissatisfaction with the government’s performance and its policies to remain in power.

The challenge of e-democracy is especially acute in the case of theocratic states. In fact, speaking about these countries, an individual implies the total absence of e-democracy because people do not have the right to free access to whatever they want to read or watch and, what is more significant, express their opinions regarding the policies of their authorities.

The justification for cyber censorship in the case of theocratic states is that government is the reflection of God’s power, so, it has the right to control people’s activities on the Internet including what they read and post. I believe that a similar statement can be a source of moral opacity because even though people know that they are censored by the government, they might not realize that censoring their expressions on the Internet could be morally problematic.

Cyber Censorship as a Tool for Remaining in Power

Gulf Countries, i.e. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, together with Syria, Iran, and Yemen are among the states, which are extremely censored. The level of Internet filtering in these states is either substantial or pervasive. When it comes to political issues and Internet tools, the level of censorship is pervasive, i.e. total absence of freedom (Rininsland par. 15). This paper, however, will choose Saudi Arabia and Iran out of the list mentioned above because these two countries are included in the top ten most censored countries in the world. In addition to it, they are theocratic states.

Saudi Arabia is number three in the world’s most censored countries. The decision to intensify the cyber censorship strategy was made after the outbreak of the Arab Spring in 2011 to guarantee safety to the political regime in the country. The foundation of the strategy is prohibiting publication of any opinion opposing the postulates of sharia, violating national interests and promoting those of the foreign states, harming social order or security, and enabling criminal activities (Committee to Protect Journalists par. 22).

All in all, the government placed a legal ban on criticizing its policies and primary ideas of Islam. The tool for reaching this objective is monitoring all Internet activities intending to detect potential violations of the law. All blogs, personal websites, online forums, electronic archives, and any means of traditional Internet media including news websites should be registered and licensed. Anonymity is undesirable and in case of being detected, an individual is fined. Also, YouTube and Viber messaging service as the tools for connecting with the outer world and finding out opposing opinions were blocked (Al-Khair par. 2).

In addition to it, Saudi Arabia’s censorship policy is characterized by a strict filtering policy. It means that all websites containing any information opposing the postulates of Islam, raising the issues of human rights, discussing religions, or criticizing governmental policies are blocked and their license is withdrawn. Tackling sensitive issues entails fines and, in the most severe cases, arrests, and prosecutions (Committee to Protect Journalists par. 23).

Iran’s rating is number seven in the list of the world’s most censored states. It is the global leader in imprisoning journalists. The cyber censorship strategy has several dimensions. First, one of the ways to guarantee Internet security is the extremely low speed of connection (Esfandiari par. 3). It might seem ineffective, however, the speed of connection is so low that it is nearly impossible to upload the video content, e.g. from YouTube, or open websites. It should be noted that this limitation is only true about home networks because Internet cafés offer higher speed.

Nevertheless, they cannot solve the issues because of the second dimension of cyber censorship policy – Iranian authorities block social networks and news websites. Still, the strategy of Iran is more peculiar if compared to Saudi Arabia. Instead of blocking all websites containing sensitive content such as anti-Islamic, immoral, and criminal information, and criticizing the government, the design and launch fake versions of popular websites and search engines (Committee to Protect Journalists par. 35).

This technique is intricate but, at the same time, fruitful because the government has a perfect opportunity to control people, who think that they are free to share their opinions and visiting the chosen websites. So, it creates another moral opacity – people do not know that they are censored. In addition to it, there is a relatively small circle of journalists, who are allowed to cover a relatively small number of topics in the press.

Ethical Concerns Surrounding Cyber Censorship

Even though the issue under investigation is morally opaque because people either do not know that they are censored as in the case of Iran or do not think that cyber censorship is morally problematic like in Saudi Arabia, numerous ethical concerns are surrounding it. It should be kept in mind that the only instance under speculation is when censorship is the part of the governmental political strategy, i.e. when people are not allowed to express their opinions on the Internet freely or gain access to the desired information, and this process is controlled by the government and empowered organizations. The situations, in which citizens choose to be silent or distance themselves from the easily accessible provocative information because of their religious, moral, or any other considerations, are ignored.

To begin with, it is vital to conduct a stakeholder impact analysis. There are two major stakeholders involved – the governments and the rest of the mentioned countries (Iran and Saudi Arabia), i.e. the citizens of the theocracies. The justification for such division is that there are only those, who are affected whether they are ordinary people, businesses, or website developers and those, who determine the rules of the game, i.e. the governments and organizations responsible for controlling that the adopted regulations are followed. What is at stake for the governments is that they remain in power and know whether their regimes are endangered.

Cyber censorship strategies have a positive impact on the governments because they guarantee that any plan to overthrow the ruling party is detected at the earliest stages if expressed online. The possibility of mass dissatisfaction with the state policies is not taken into consideration because the right to freedom of expression and access to information is not the fundamental one in the case of theocracies.

As of the other stakeholders, i.e. the citizens, they are interested in freedom of access to information and sharing their opinions. Of course, the impact on them is negative because their freedoms are suppressed and they are obliged to live under the rules, which implies the absolute absence of the freedom of choice. Living in the twenty-first century, when information is all around us, limiting access to it cannot but lead to dissatisfaction with the governments’ actions and the desire to develop alternative sources of access to obtain it such as various applications for breaking the governmental bans, etc., which are illegal.

The foundation of the desire to have the freedom to use information is the experience of the Western governments, which provide the freedom of deciding whether the information is morally acceptable to the citizens. However, it is vital to keep in mind the type of government. Because we speak of theocratic states, we should remember that initially no freedoms and human rights are guaranteed and the government is the source of God’s power on earth.

Second, it is necessary to recollect when the governments tightened censorship policies. In fact, it happened after the outbreak of the Arab Spring. So, it is logical to assume that the justification for taking this step is not only the desire to remain in power but also save the citizens from the dreadful destiny of other countries involved in the upheavals. Of course, the desire to save the lives of the leaders is strong, however, thousands of people died in the course of the upheavals.

So, the version that similar strategies aim at caring for the citizens has the right to be expressed. It is still unclear why the governments have chosen to arrest those violating the adopted rules, but it might be for the sake of public education, i.e. teaching the lesson and highlighting that the state interests should be of higher priority than the personal ones.

When speaking of tightening censorship in response to the revolts in the Arab world, it should be stressed that any community is the combination of both peaceful and military dissidents. Unlike peaceful dissidents, who use the Internet for educative and entertaining goals, military groupings often see it as a means for sharing provocative and anti-governmental messages and promoting dissatisfaction with the state policies.

Nowadays, it is not a secret that the Internet is a powerful tool for propaganda. And, in fact, it was the Internet that helped gather masses and generate the way of recent upheavals in Arab countries. So, the ethical concerns regarding the limitation of the freedom of expression and access to information have dual nature. On one hand, of course, there is the suppression of personal rights and freedoms, and it is a negative feature of the theocratic states.

On the other hand, however, it was a necessary step because it is almost impossible to draw the line between peaceful and military objectives of using the web. It means that the government had to make a complicated but vital choice: either censor almost all activities on the Internet to maintain power and guarantee national security or show respect to fundamental human rights such as freedom of expression and access to information letting the demonstrates overthrow the existing regimes and cover the country with another sweeping wave of unrest, which would inevitably lead to bloodshed and violence.

Finally, it should be highlighted that the governments block only those websites and personal blogs, which provide anti-Islamic, anti-governmental, or criminal content. That said, any peaceful activities on the Internet and personal affairs are not affected. It means that the state cares for the endurance of the Islamic nature of the political regime, i.e. preserving its unique nature, and keeping crime rates at low levels. Also, even though there is the conflict of the primary stakeholders’ values to a particular extent because people are not granted the right to express their opinions freely and have the access to the desired information, they still can communicate on the Internet, but should not raise sensitive issues or demonstrate the desire to share them.

Conclusion

Bearing in mind everything that was mentioned above it is possible to answer the central question of this paper: is it morally acceptable that a theocratic government censors its people’s expressions on the Internet to remain in power? My answer is yes, it is. The justification for this position is that the governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran act by their nature. Because they are the theocratic states, the fact that they fall upon cyber censorship is a normal manner for designing and developing their political systems.

During the times before the rise of the Internet, they deployed the same model of behavior assuring the total control over the lives of their citizens, and I cannot see the justifiable reasons for changing it now, in the era of the newest technologies. Because leaders of theocratic states act on behalf of God, people should fear them just the way they fear God and follow the rules adopted by the government just the way they live under the will of God.

That said, controlling people’s activities on the Internet could be compared to God controlling their thoughts and deeds. It should be said that similar cyber censorship policies are perfect for achieving the primary strategic objective of these states – preserving power. They have no significant disadvantages being an excellent tool for controlling the moods of the society and guaranteeing the safety and endurance of the chosen political regime finding out whether there is the risk of upheavals and being overthrown. I believe that it was a well-thought decision based on both internal and external developments.

These strategies will last unless Saudi Arabia and Iran demonstrate the desire to separate religion from state and switch to democracy or, at least, update their political system to theocratic democracy. As for now, it is unlikely to be true, but nobody knows what tomorrow will bring.

Works Cited

Al-Khair, Waleed Abu. Saudi Arabia: Prime Centre of Content Blocking. 2014. Web.

Ben-Yehuda, Nachman. Theocratic Democracy: The Social Construction of Religious and Secular Extremism. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Web.

Committee to Protect Journalists. 10 Most Censored Countries. 2015. Web.

Esfandiari, Negar. Censorship. 2011. Web.

Freeman, Julie, and Sharna Quirke. “Understanding E-Democracy: Government-Led Initiatives for Democratic Reforms.” Journal of eDemocracy and Open Government 5.2 (2013): 141-154. Canberra. Web.

Hadi, Abdul. Difference Between Democracy and Theocracy. 2015. Web.

Kreiss, Daniel. “The Problem of Citizens: E-Democracy for Actually Existing Democracy.” Social Media + Society 1.2 (2015): 1-11. Sagepub. Web.

Rininsland, Ændrew. Internet Censorship Listed: How Does Each Country Compare? . 2012. Web.

Stein, Jenice. How To Build a Theocratic Democracy: Israel’s Lessons for Egypt. 2012. Web.

These are fundamental rights and freedoms accorded to every individual irrespective of his or her gender, religion, color, race, language or ethnic group. Under human rights, there is no discrimination as the rights are mutually dependent, interconnected and undividable. For example, every human being has the right to live and express opinions freely; and right to social and economic rights including food accessibility, the right to labor and the right to acquire education.

In order to ensure these rights and freedoms receive the required recognition, countries have enacted them in their constitutions and many of them are now international laws and treaties. The standard for universality of human rights forms the foundation of global human rights. The debate on human rights started in 1948 during the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since then, the subject of human rights has been inalienable (Amnesty International USA, 2010, p.1).

Are Human Rights a Western Concept which is imposed on Asia?

Depending on one’s culture, human rights can be an imposition concept of the west. For example, inhabitants of South East Asia argue that although the notion of human rights is universal both in ideology and in theory, it has so many obstacles due to socio-economic concerns, cultural dissimilarities and the patriarchal scenery of Asian society.

Premised on ground of morality and ethics, universal human rights focus on creating an equal society without regarding cultural backgrounds. Many Asian countries apply a communitarian ethic that regards societies more than individuals do. Thus, it is difficult to have universal human rights in Asia. In western countries, marriage is a contract, while in Asia marriage is an alliance between lineages.

Thus, it is not possible to accept women rights in Asia. In many western countries, gay marriage is acceptable but polygamy scorned. On the other hand, these countries denounce infanticide but allow abortion terming it human rights. The cultural and religious background in Asia does not allow this hence, making human rights a concept of the west (Shashi, 2002, p.1).

What is globalization and how does it affect Asia?

Globalization is the propensity of technologies, businesses and philosophies extending to all parts of the world due to economic integration brought about by the movement of goods, people, resources and ideas. Globalization has affected Asia’s security for example, due to economic integration; Southeast Asia is now in peace.

On the other hand, Asia has witnessed a rise in transnational threats and weakened regional institutions. Due to enhanced economic growth, there have been shifts in balance of power leading to economic stagnation in Japan and China. Moreover, globalization has strengthened national power although previously seen as a threat to sovereignty. In Indonesia and China, globalization has brought political and economic changes.

Many countries in Asia initially administered under authoritarianism are now democratic courtesy of globalization. Although globalization poses negative effects like migration, food scarcity, growing foreign debts, energy concerns and organized crimes, its benefits outweigh these negative effects (Rakesh, 2002, p.1).

References

Aharon, D., 2005. The Caste System Web.

Amnesty International USA., 2010. Human Rights Web.

Keswick, M., 2003. The Chinese garden: history, art and architecture. Harvard University Press.

Nuvich, A., 1998. Dangdut thrives in SE Asia-Malaysia embraces genre. Billboard, 110.

Rakesh, P., 2002. Globalization: Effects in Asia and Beyond Web.

Shashi, T., 2002. Are Human Rights Universal?. Web.