Keith Haring Artwork and Inspiration - Essay Example

? Keith Haring artwork and inspiration Humanitarian intervention Humanitarian interventions refers to the threats or application of force by one country to another aimed at preventing/controlling intensified violations to human rights of the citizens or other people within that country without any permission by the country into which the country intervenes. This intervention may be done in either a forcible or non-forcible manner all meant at saving the nationals of such a nation that the intervention is directed. Forcible intervention may involve the use of military power to challenge the widespread violations of human rights while the non-forcible intervention may use such other tools as diplomatic or economic sanctions to probe the government of that country to stop the menace (Holzgrefe and Keohane, 2003, p. 18). Nevertheless, the debate on what appropriate manners should be employed in such interventions differentiates between two kinds of governance structures; the democratic as well as the authoritarian systems. There are different tools that are applied by either of such countries and thus the internal structure of governance has a definite role to play in regard of international interventions on matters of human rights violations. This paper therefore intends to evaluate whether there is difference in the ways that democratic governments intervening in human rights violations within other countries and such means of interventions that authoritarian regimes would apply for such a purpose. This paper evaluates the issue in reference to the concept of humanitarian intervention within the prevailing world politics. The human rights on the other hand are a set of inalienable fundamental rights that all persons are inherently entitled to by virtual of being humans. They are thus interpreted to be fundamental everywhere in the globe and should apply to all persons. The rights of persons may however be understood from the perspectives of natural or legal rights within the confines of local, national, regional as well as international frameworks. Merely all constitutions as well as human right conventions unanimously and universally support the supremacy of rights of persons. The constitutions often form the benchmark through which citizens and state interact and thus define the civil, political as well as protections of human rights. Moral values are basic constitutions of institutional management as well as the management of a country or society as provided for in the constitutions. However, the variance in the capacity to reason and make decisions on governance structures, legal regimes as wells as well as political frameworks by people makes the basis of the disparity that is observable between the choices that people do make. Moreover, there is the concern about the interconnectedness between the democratic regimes as well as the system of governance from one country to another. For instance, the study concerning democracy and the framework on human rights is an essential tool, which envisages the values of genuine and periodic elections, freedom of persons, human rights respect as well as universal suffrage (Unite nations, 2013, Para 1-2). On reciprocal basis, democracy as formulated and supported by constitutions provides the necessary environment through which the human rights are realized. This therefore takes us back to the definition of natural law as pertains to the supremacy of human rights. Authoritarian regimes on the other hand are defined as systems of governance where the institutional framework governing the people requires complete (blind) obedience to state laws as against governance by people’s freedoms. It therefore thrives in the structures of unquestioning obedience with the government or the ruling authority having absolute control over the people. For instance, totalitarianism as an example to such authoritarian regimes is a political ideology that is characterized by the government enforcing total control over all aspects of the lives of the citizens or her subjects. The government permits no freedom to the people, seeks to take charge of all aspects of human life and exercises a strong central rule to the subjects. The system was initially designed in a positive motive and bore the slogan “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” However, the concept was gradually corrupted to evoke the feeling of extreme authoritarianism where the rights of the subjects and the human dignity to all are compromised (Cotter, nd, para 1-6). National constitutions are meant to guide the relationship between legal as well as moral obligations and obligations of political systems within states or institutions. If analyzed differently, legal evaluation would be interested in understanding whether state constitutions presume natural law and within such a context, it is mandatory that one evaluate what the natural law requires. The absence of natural law ideally confirms anarchy in operation, which is against the confines of the modern day democracy. Modern day democracies are all envisaged towards good governance and equal participation of individuals in decision making practices involving own country. The state of authoritarian regime would be therefore misplaced and undesirable within the modern day context. Individual persons have the obligation to act morally towards others including while in power. Equally, the constitution is effective to define political powers endowed to persons as deemed right in public administration and as such forms the basis for evaluation of the behavior of individuals either in political status or otherwise as applied by the judicial systems (Global politics, 2010, p. 328). Nevertheless, there are concerns from human rights activist as to violations of human rights in both the modern day democratic regimes as well as the other regimes that represent authoritarian governance structures. Various instruments are adopted and utilized against the human rights through which psychological torture and physical pain in inflicted on these persons. The UNHCR has frameworks that describe the universal human rights, which all persons regardless of their status within the society must be accorded; among which the right to dignity and freedom forms the basis. A study by Hurd on how legal the humanitarian interventions are globally identified various conflicting positions with some supporting it while others arguing against. The arguments against cite such repercussions as have been witnessed within such countries as Rwanda and Libya where the humanitarian intervention was associated in worsening the conditions. On the other hand, progressive developments in international legal frameworks have accepted the legality of international humanitarian intervention (Hurd, nd, p. 304). In a study on morality of humanitarian intervention, Nardin found out that the discussion is permitted only through application of nonintervention principle, which dictates that states should not use force or apply their authority within the confines of other sovereign states. The United Nations charter supports the principle and allows a nation to take active role in defending its self against an attack but prohibits the application of force against territorial integrity and sovereignty of other independent states. In such a framework, the principle forbids forceful intervention into another country even in instances where the intervention was meant for protection of human rights. This therefore reveals little or no support of humanitarian intervention by the international law. Nevertheless, a traditional norm supports intervention of humanitarian grounds for the purpose of moral concern where wrongs are punished and the innocent are protected. The UN charter conflicts with the tenet but back up such an international humanitarian intervention where rulers violently treat their subjects. This therefore illustrates that the traditional tenet supports the moral basis of such a humanitarian intervention as against the modern day international law (Nardin, nd p. 1-2). It is however, imperative to understand morality as a basic tenet to human beings despite the fact that different human societies may have varying definitions to morals. Political and moral frameworks are in constant tags on this concept of humanitarian intervention though having roots in liberal as well as democratic governance structures. There are differences in the understanding of humanitarian intervention by both authoritarian and democratic regimes as well as on practices acceptable in intervention on humanitarian grounds. There is also a notable difference between the acceptable mechanisms of authorizing humanitarian interventions by the two regimes. The democratic regimes have been adopted as basic measuring grades on which to measure acceptable leadership and governance structures across the globe. Democratic principles have been used in defining normative discourse that surrounds the rights of human beings across the globe. Conditional sovereignty in human rights defines the nations as free agents, which constitute the international community. These principles define some universally acceptable sovereignty conditions, which include the rights and privileges that human beings are entitled in spite of what regime of governance structure prevails in the nation (Greaves, 2008-2009, p. 59-65). This therefore shows that human rights are universal structures and government institutions are obliged to uphold. This therefore overrules the existence of distinctions on ways through which authoritarian and democratic nations intervene in humanitarian basis. The intention to spread human rights forms the basis of justifying the intentions of countries to intervene on humanitarian basis within other nations. Humanitarian intervention takes various forms such as humanitarian aid, economic sanctions as well as the military action whenever there is absolute intensified disregard of human rights within a country. In efforts to combat such extremities in violations to human rights as were experienced in the reign of Hitler in dictatorship, the United Nations developed a charter to which member countries consented to in common accord against violations of human rights within a state. The consensus therefore empowered affiliate countries to adopt appropriate measures towards regulation of violations of human rights through application of such humanitarian intervention mechanisms as discussed above. Socialization process however has been shown to have an influence towards the type of governance structure that rules over the society. This explains the differences notable between democratic governance structures as well as the authoritarian governance structures. However, universal adoption of morality may inhibit effectiveness in delivering on humanitarian intervention as explained by the disparities noted in local societal/community understanding (O’Neal, 2010, p. 20-22). This therefore shows some room to have democracies intervene in different mechanisms from such as would be adopted by the authoritarian regimes. The liberal peace theory is applied to have an effect on international matters of human rights and such interventions on humanitarian grounds and it states that the best way to intervene in human rights by international community is to have the democracies take a leading role. The democratic as well as peaceful nations have the paramount role in intervening for common interests to all humanities within such countries where such is not accorded. This therefore puts the democratic regimes on the forefront in interventions on humanitarian grounds as against the authoritarian regimes. Humanitarian intervention implies that there exist limits of state sovereignty where the international community is empowered to intervene in such circumstances that the sovereignty of rights to individual nationals of a state are not accorded. The sovereignty of such a state into which intervention is directed is in essence compromised because the humanitarian intervention provides for no seeking of permission to intervene in the affairs of the nation but on the contrary, through the backup of international human rights, other nations are allowed to intervene. The ICISS provides support for humanitarian intervention to halt ethnic cleansing and mass killing as provided for by the Security Council with an obligation of conducting an effective as well as efficient intervention practice (Panajoti, 2009-2010, p. 75-80). It is however worth noting that military humanitarian intervention is guided on some frameworks, which dictate that the intervening state will have no support to either of the conflicting sides but that on the contrary, it would be neutral. This means that such interventions as air strikes or the classical land confrontation is not the purpose of the intervention as it has likelihood of increasing the casualties and as such no realize the mission of controlling the mass violation of human rights. Application of a political ideology is therefore not a consistent factor that humanitarian intervention considers because human rights are universal and are not defined on basis of either authoritarian or democratic system of governance. It therefore supports the similar intervention mechanisms that democracies and the authoritarian regimes should apply in humanitarian intervention (Kreide, 2009, p. 95-97). The ideology of human rights as applied in many instances is quite abstract whereas it should encompass the basic daily living of human beings. Crimes against humanity such as perpetuated through violence, war, bonded labor and authoritarian regimes have been broadly pointed to have perpetuated such vices in their regimes. The UN (formed in 1945) have been instrumental in defining and instigating human rights on international scope ever since. Besides governments actively pursuing on enforceability of such human rights, civil groups as well as international communities are empowered to pursue the observation of such fundamental rights whenever a prevailing regime fails to honor them. Other human rights that have been often overlooked are access to health care, freedom to slavery or bonded labor, gender as well as racial persecution and rights to accessible basic education have been in the forefront. The challenges to human rights are numerous and often result to the mass violations in some countries. Poor institutional frameworks and government policies perpetuate the mass violations of the rights in many nations. Moreover, the reigning regimes of power may be opposed to international confines of human rights and as such would perpetuate these violations. Some superpowers and developed countries also set precedence for the third world countries to follow in perpetuating such vices when the fail to consent to such defined international frameworks on human rights. This therefore explains the tag that exists in definition of efforts espoused by the democracies as against the frameworks held to by the authoritarian regimes driving states (Council on Foreign Relations, 2013, para 1-5). In the analysis of global trends in humanitarian intervention reveals that the intervention trends are on decline. Players in the field of humanitarian aid reasons that the ‘humanitarian space’ is contracting over years and that efforts should be leveled to contain the situation as humanitarian intervention would forever be required so as human societies exists. Basic principles of intervention by humanitarian aid include impartiality, independence as well as neutrality and are the basis of attending to this declining trend of humanitarian intervention (Collinson and Elhawary, 2012, p. 1-3). The humanitarian space as defined in interventionist approach is greatly influenced by political forces, legal actors as well as institutional frameworks of governance. The system/regime of governance therefore is seen to have a critical part to play in influencing such methods of intervention that are to be adopted towards correcting cases of human rights violations. The political actors are obliged to ensuring that the subjects are protected against political and such other violations of their rights. Basic to the successful intervention in humanitarian manner is a political environment that can ensure the ease of communication and thus enable the citizens to air their grievances. A democratic environment empowers subjects to participate actively in decision-making and in electoral processes through which good governance system is put into place. Moreover, the intervention by democracies in international humanitarian matters would adopt favorable policies as against authoritarian structures, which thrive through limiting the powers of their subjects. The subjects are required to obey without questioning, a structure which has higher potential of infringing human rights as against correcting them. In conclusion, the modern day world politics are increasingly getting inclined towards democratic governance. The subjects are empowered to participate actively in matters of decision making through such mechanisms as democratic voting. This therefore implies that authoritarian regimes are facing pressure for reformation and are expected to ensure that they comply with the foregoing trends. Democracies are therefore shown to be distinct in matters of governance from the authoritarian regimes. This difference would therefore explain the necessity to have them act differently in humanitarian intervention as compared to the manner in which the authoritarian regimes act. The literature reviewed in this paper shows that human rights are universal and are not defined by the system of governance in place. Despite the foregoing debates on what level of intervention is allowed in international relations towards state sovereignty, a basic fact remains that humanitarian intervention is not subject to approval from the government of the subjects whose human rights are deprived. Humanitarian interventions represent a large array of practices including application of force by one country to another aimed at preventing/controlling intensified violations to human rights of the citizens or other people within that country without any permission by the country into which the country intervenes. This intervention may be done in either a forcible or non-forcible manner all meant at saving the nationals of such a nation that the intervention is directed. Forcible intervention may involve the use of military power to challenge violations of human rights while the non-forcible intervention may use such other tools as diplomatic or economic sanctions to probe the government of that country to stop the menace. The international community is increasingly appreciating the role such interventions play in restoring order within states faced with such vices besides halting human sufferings. The united Nation leads in the policies and regulation of humanitarian intervention across the globe. Bibliography Collinson S. and Elhawary S., 2012. Humanitarian space: a review of trends and issues. Available at:< http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/7643.pdf> (Accessed on 26 November 2013) Council on Foreign Relations, 2013. The Global Human Rights Regime. Available at:< http://www.cfr.org/human-rights/global-human-rights-regime/p27450> (Accessed on 26 November 2013) Cotter B., (nd). Hannah Arendt and “the Right to Have Rights.” Available at: < http://isanet.ccit.arizona.edu/noarchive/cotter.html > (Accessed on 26 November 2013). Global politics, 2010. Debating . . .Is humanitarian intervention justified? Available at:< http://www.palgrave.com/politics/global/about/Is-Humanitarian-Intervention-Justified.pdf> (Accessed on 26 November 2013) Greaves W., 2008-2009. The intervention imperative: Contradictions between liberalism, democracy, And humanitarian intervention. A journal of politics, 8: 52-79 Holzgrefe J. L. and Keohane R. O., 2003. Humaniterian intervention: Ethical, legal and political dilemma. Available at:< http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam034/2003269355.pdf> (Accessed on 26 November 2013) Hurd I., nd. Is Humanitarian Intervention Legal? The Rule of Law in an Incoherent World. Available at:< http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~ihu355/Home_files/is%20hi%20legal.pdf> (Accessed on 26 November 2013) Kreide R., 2009. Preventing Military Humanitarian Intervention? John Rawls and Jurgen Habermas on a Just Global Order. Special Issue: The Kantian Project of International Law. Available at:< http://www.germanlawjournal.org/pdfs/Vol10No01/PDF_Vol_10_No_01_93-114_Articles_Kreide.pdf> (Accessed on 26 November 2013) Nardin T., nd. The Moral Basis of Humanitarian Intervention. Available at: < http://www.cgpacs.uci.edu/files/cgpacs/docs/2010/working_papers/terry_nardin_humanitarian_intervention.pdf> (Accessed on 26 November 2013) O’Neal S. R., 2010. Humanitarian Intervention that Promotes Self Determination: An Argument for Community Based Understandings of Human Rights. Available at: < http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/government/_files/pdf/honors-theses/shane%20o%20neal.pdf> (Accessed on 26 November 2013) Panajoti T., 2009-2010. Humanitarian Crises and World Politics: the Conflict between Ethics and Pragmatism in Humanitarian Intervention Decisions. Critique: A worldwide journal of politics. Available at: < http://lilt.ilstu.edu/critique/Spring2010%20docs/Panajoti_Treva.pdf> (Accessed on 26 November 2013) United nations, 2013. Democracy and Human Rights. Global issues. Available at: < https://www.un.org/en/globalissues/democracy/human_rights.shtml> (Accessed on 26 November 2013) Read More