What Are Human Rights and How Far are States Concerned to Promote or Protect Them - Essay Example

Module What Are Human Rights and How Far are s Concerned to Promote or Protect Them? Every country has the responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens by ensuring that all citizens and noncitizens within its boundaries receive fair and equitable treatment regardless of their gender, race, religion, sexual orientations and age among other factors. Democracy is the ideology whose main basis is ensuring equality for all and since many countries exercise democracy or its many variations, it means that many attempt to protect the human rights for the people under their protection. There is a direct correlation between the level of human rights protection and democracy, such that the closer to an ideal democracy a country is, the higher its likelihood of upholding high standards of human rights.1 This essay defines human rights, states the role of the state in upholding high human rights standards, and analyses Iceland and Pakistan and their levels of human rights protection. Definition of Human Rights By virtue of being human beings, people are entitled to rights and freedoms that should be universally accepted and available for everyone. In national and international laws, human rights exist as natural or legal rights; if they are not stated in the constitution, they are natural rights; otherwise, they are known as legal rights.2 Most public policies are based on the doctrine of human rights, including international and regional institutions, state policies, and activities of non-governmental organizations. However, due to the strong claims made for ideal human rights, they are hard to implement in they entirety, especially considering that many countries are just emerging from dictatorial and colonial rule. Moreover, it is not even clear what the term right means, mainly because in order to adhere to some of these rights, some people have to be favored over others. For instance, everyone has the right to a decent life; this means that states have to favor the unemployed people in an attempt to give them a life that is comparable to those who are employed. In any case, people believe they are entitled to some rights and privileges by virtue of their age, gender and economic status among other factors. Role of the State The state is responsible for enforcing the human rights of the people within its jurisdiction, and punishing offenders. It does this mainly by ensuring that people enjoy their human rights without interfering with those of others; laws, policies and Acts are the main tools used for this purpose. However, it does not mean that human rights have to be written; since they are basic rights, it means that if someone infringes into the rights of others, it is clear, though there may be some complications where religion and culture are involved. The level at which a government can enforce human rights is dependent on the structure of the government, with ideal democracies and dictatorships having the most and least respect for human rights respectively. Nowadays many countries lie between these two extremes, and their level of human rights enforcement varies depending on how much they share a characteristic with these two opposite ends.3 Most constitutional republics have a clause of human rights in their supreme law, which is uniform across all states. The level of implementation of these rights varies from time to time as governments change, changes in political stability, social factors and other environmental factors. The state ensures that all its people’s rights are protected at all times as conditions may permit. For instance, the basic rights of the people are limited if the country is in a state of emergency or undergoing a military coup. Moreover, the state is charged with ensuring that all local or international individuals, corporates, and other entities respect the human rights of its citizens wherever they may be.4 State Analysis As mentioned above, various states have varied levels of implementation of human rights; this section will analyze two countries, one with a high rating for respect for human rights, and the other one that does not do so well in the same. Iceland is known for its comprehensive system of human rights while Pakistan is an Islamic country that has all the provisions for human rights, but performs poorly in terms of implementing them.5 Iceland. According to the US Department of State, Iceland has a constitution that protects people from unlawful and arbitrary deprivation of life, unexplained disappearances, torture, and cruelty, dehumanizing and degrading treatment and punishment.6 The report shows that these freedoms were adhered to with small infringements spread out all over the country. The main prisons and detention grounds including Litla-Hraun and Reykjavik were overcrowded, making it impossible for convicts to serve their sentences due to lack of prison space; this resulted in unfair detention. Prisons are monitored by independent bodies and prisoners had fair access to visitors and religious services. The country did well in terms of the justice system, whereby arrestees are informed promptly of the charges against them, are charged and tried in accordance with the constitution. The government lasted a year without interfering with the freedom from arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home and correspondence. The government of Iceland respected the rights to speech and the freedom of the press and at no time were there any complaints against the government, its agencies, corporates or the people in relation to infringement of these basic rights. Over 92 percent of households in Iceland have access to the internet, and 95 percent of the population between ages 16 and 74 years access the internet free from any form of government monitoring. Moreover, the government did not interfere with the academic or cultural freedoms of its people nor did it interfere with freedoms of assembly, association, religion and movement. The Iceland government cooperated with UNHCR and other organizations for the wellbeing of refugees, internally displaced persons, stateless persons and other persons of interest.7 The Icelandic people have elaborate political rights that enable them to participate in elections as voters or as candidates, which resulted in free and fair elections in which people from both genders were elected evenly without any discrimination. Moreover, the prime minister, who is the head of government and leader of the majority party, is openly a lesbian, a fact that drew views internationally more than in Iceland. Overall, there was transparency in government offices, whereby the government does not object to scrutiny of suspected cases of abuse of office and infringement of human rights by independent bodies.8 The Iceland government effectively enforced laws allowing for equal rights of persons regardless of gender, age, race or disability; it also protected minority vulnerable groups from societal abuses, and trafficking in persons. These groups that were central to these provisions of the law include women, children, Jews (and other racial minorities), people with disabilities, ethnic minorities, and LGBTs. Finally, workers’ rights and freedoms were respected in accordance with the constitution.9 Pakistan. The government and its agents participate in arbitrary and unlawful killings, most of which are politically motivated. Politics also has a role to play in extrajudicial killings by angry mobs and security forces that operate independent of the government. Suspects die in police custody, and prisoners of war are killed by the armed forces. The Society for Human Rights and Prisoners' Aid reported that in 2009 over 72 people died after an encounter with the police, and 168 prisoners died while serving their sentences. The army has been reported to pick people from their residences in villages, allegedly for questioning, and then these people are found dead later on with broken bones, bullet wounds and other evidence of torture. The government of Pakistan has failed to stop these infringements of human rights despite criticism by international and independent observers.10 Prisons in Pakistan fail to meet international standards; they are characterized by overcrowding, sexual abuse, torture and unlawfully prolonged detention. In Pakistan, prisons do not qualify the description of correctional facilities; the conditions are so harsh that instead of reforming, they result in hardening of convicts. Prisoners have chronic health problems and malnutrition due to appalling conditions including lack of water, poor hygiene and lack of a medical system for prisoners, poor ventilated and inadequate lighting among others. The prison system discriminates against minority groups, whereby Christians and Ahmadi communities are treated poorly compared to Muslim majority.11 The law prohibits arbitrary or illegal arrest and detention; however, authorities vary in the degree of abidance to the law, ranging from fair to poor adherence.12 In addition, numerous cases of denial of a fair trial exist whereby a person is presumed guilty before conviction by a court of law. Use of excessive force to settle minor disputes is a normal occurrence in Pakistan, whereby bombs and suicide attacks are common phenomena. Though the people and the media are free to criticize the government, criticizing the military usually results in arrests, beatings, kidnappings and killings; this resulted to self-censorship of the few operating media houses. The government monitors internet activities and limits access on any suspicion. Finally, among other discriminative policies, homosexuality is illegal in Pakistan, and there are no laws to protect LGBTs from discrimination. Conclusion Human rights are universal and apply to everyone; however, the extent to which a person enjoys these rights depends on the willingness and ability of the ruling elite to assure residents of these rights. Many governments attempt to assure residents of their rights and freedoms, but the level of success varies with countries. Even countries that have almost perfect records for human rights assurance have their flaws; therefore, the idea is to keep changing the laws and policies to make them suitable for people. Works Cited Cheibub, Jose Antonio, Jennifer Gandhi, and James Raymond Vreeland. “Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited.” Public Choice 143.1 (2010): 67–101. Web. 4 Mar. 2012. Claude, Richard Pierre, and Burns H. Weston. Human Rights in the World Community: Issues and Action. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. Print. Donnelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. Cornell University Press, 2003. Print. Goodman, Ryan, and Thomas Pegram. Human Rights, State Compliance, and Social Change: Assessing National Human Rights Institutions. Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print. Hollyer, James R., and Peter Rosendorff. “Why Do Authoritarian Regimes Sign the Convention Against Torture? Signaling, Domestic Politics, and Noncompliance.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 6.3-4 (2011): 275–327. Web. 4 Mar. 2012. Human Rights Watch. Human Rights in Pakistan, 2012. Web. 4 Mar. 2012. Icelandic Human Rights Center. Introduction to Icelandic Law. nd. Web. 4 Mar. 2012. McCorquodale, Robert, and Penelope Simons. “Responsibility beyond Borders: State Responsibility for Extraterritorial Violations by Corporations of International Human Rights Law.” The Modern Law Review 70.4 (2007): 598–625. Web. 4 Mar. 2012. US Department of State. 2010 Human Rights Report: Iceland. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. 2011a. Web. 4 Mar. 2012. US Department of State. 2010 Human Rights Report: Pakistan. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. .2011b. Web. 4 Mar. 2012. Read More