Achievements and Failures of Human Rights to Uninstall Regimes - Coursework Example

Achievements and Failures of Human Rights to Uninstall Regimes al Affiliation The Nature of Human Rights The current international human right system was conceived in the mid of the last century and thereafter took a strong development to protect the physical and mental integrity of humankind. However, despite efforts to make it look better, there have been developments that make it appear brutal and lawlessness, where some actors are vested with power, thus constraining the operative nature greatest achievement of humankind. Current human rights standards have been agreed and promulgated means to secure compliance by states with their obligations to secure human rights (Daniel, Sangeeta, and Sandesh: 2014). As a result, international tribunals hold individuals to account for their criminal abuse of power (Orna Ben-Naftali, 2011). Nonetheless, the preamble to the UN of the Human Rights disregard the contempt for human rights continues to result in barbarous acts that outrage the conscience of mankind. The incoming research will cover heavily on the failure of the UN in mitigating tyrant regimes. The research will center its discussion on the United Kingdom . Focus on United Kingdom Like her allies United States and France, the United Kingdom had one of the most extensive military activities globally in the last one century and up to date. The country was heavily involved in World War I, World War II, The Cold War, and recently, the War in Iraq. Up to date, The United Kingdom intelligence officers’ position in Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Iraq. The representative of the United Kingdom continued concentration on key major political significance of Iraq. However, the country has been involved in torture of terror suspects abroad (Philip, Ryan, 2013: 386). Attempts for more logical investigations have often been thwarted off by terror concerns and often withdraw from the issue. The research focuses on The United Kingdom for its continued presence in Iraq. In fact, UK’s eight year presence in Iraq energized militia activities. Currently, Islamic States of Iraq and Levant (ISIL), a Jihadist terror group has often claimed it is fighting militia activities in Iraq. What do they mean by carrots? And sticks The United Kingdom continued supporting the United States bilateral donor programs. The two countries were the first bilateral donors to introduce conditionality in its development co-operation policy in the early 1970s. Meanwhile, Gross Violations of Civil and Political rights in recipient countries provoked the cutting-off or reduction of aid (Daniel, Sangeeta, and Sandesh: 2014, 305). However, the United Kingdom refused to recognize economic, social and cultural rights as human rights and systematically applied a punitive conditionality, the linkage between human rights and aid which was routinely been identified as UK model for conditionality. For that reason, conditionality has with time been understood as a responsible systematic lasting and gross violations of some selected categories of human right that is directly specifically to a core group of fundamental civil and political rights. From the reflex, it became automatic to identify conditionality with sanctions that engaged punitive measures that were ranked under the name of conditionality. Bertola et al., (2014, p. 20)1 argues that conditionality encompassed both incentives (the carrot) and negative measures (the stick). Widyono (2007, p. 45) further argues that this depends upon the formulation since the carrots of today represent the sticks of tomorrow2. For that reason, the grant for promotion of human rights was awarded to the fact that it ceases to be awarded tomorrow that could amount to a form of a stick. However, there are sharp differences between carrots and sticks. Firstly, the global approach is different since the stick is different from the idea of a carrot, which is based on cooperation. The second approach of the actor is also different while the actor plays an active role in awarding carrots. The roles of these awards are rather passive. Decisively, improvement of the human rights situation in the third country can be seen as the objective to attain. The differences depend on the means applied. Largely, Carrots are active and co-operative schemes, which inject oxygen into societies, sticks are often the passive or negative attitudes that are non-co-operative, cessation of economic relation. Additionally, on one hand, Carrots are benefits whereas Sticks are very much the characteristics of the development of co-operation and the certain extent, which merge with the concept. Likewise, sticks imply, on the other hand that simply withdraw of measures that are currently benefitting the recipient. These measures focus on whether aid or trade is already natural in the relationship if fair elections are not held which are suspended by the agreement. A common example is the ongoing economic sanctions between Russia and United Kingdom, where UK is acting on behalf of EU (Boyle, 2009). What is the International Human Right Framework Charter/ treat Although Human rights have made tremendous efforts in minimizing wars and other human catastrophes, the situation cannot be classified as perfect (Daniel, Sangeeta, and Sandesh: 2014). The preamble to the UN call to attention figures, drawing attention to the terrible crimes against human rights committed throughout centurial wars and even happening now in Syria, Iraq, Lybia and Ukraine. By the very structure of the declaration, a lot has developed with time. For instance, in the second paragraph of the Charter, it is clear that the Barbarous act which have outraged the conscience of mankind, it is certainly true that from now on, the international community is fully conscious of the fact it wants such events not to reoccur in the history of the human race. Global human rights structure has largely failed to take into accounts the needs of the marginalized groups in the society. In particular, International Human Rights Law embraces all international legal provisions, which attempt to protect human rights that have been developed to reflect the needs of a greater society against that of a smaller society. The 1948 Human Right Declaration affirmed four Key freedoms, freedom of speech, and though, the freedom of religion, and the freedom from want, as well as, freedom from fear. The philosophy behind Roosevelt’s thoughts is already expressed in Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Roosevelt and Black (2007, p. 43) further quote Roosevelt who says as the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy the freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear or want3. As such, global human rights remain to be a wide phenomenon given it ability to protect different parties proactively. Nonetheless, based on the significant influence of the global politics, there lacks a justification that global human rights are changing positively. Despite these undeniable recognitions of the right of resistance in the human rights declaration, Quigley (2005, p. 43) factors that persuasion for governments to see the concept enshrined in law is questionable4. With time, delegations in countries such as Cuba, Chile and France have been pursuing the most significant proposition and the inclusion of the right to resist oppression. In their pursuit, UN further failed to mitigate the development of regimes such as Cambodia regime or even the colonial era. However, in a west context, the right was defended by UK was optimistic for an eventual inclusion of the Right to Resistance as an autonomous right in the UN of Human Rights. For the Great Britain. Bull (2008) further argues that the existence of a right in the UN was a step that would be inopportune and dangerous if the right measures were not considered. As well, it could not have been possible to legalize the right to rebellion since it could lead to the rise of militant groups, hence extending the cycle of violence. In other words, tyrant governments exists in the first place given that the charter lacks a right to resist an act of tyranny and oppression since such response would encourage sedition. For such a provision, it could be interpreted as conferring a legal character on uprising against a government that was not tyrannical in the first place. Achievements and Failures in Education The UN goes further in stressing that education should promote the effective recognition and observance of human rights. 5Article 27 of the Bangkok Declaration reiterates the need to explore ways to generate international co-operation and financial support for education and training in the field of human rights at the national level and the established of national infrastructure to promote and protect human rights (Philip and Ryan, 2013: 311). Hence, it is clear that both declarations acknowledge the importance of education as conventional means of enforcing human rights. Lacoste (1994, p. 43) contends that the state that education is considered necessary also amount to a tactic admission that moral education should be provided to the society6. However, governments have ensured that such kind of education is only reserved to the academia that is for exam excellence but not for key ingredients. The problem is that the universal recognition of the family as an important and natural unit of the society is not entrenched on the UD. The concepts that arise after that is governments education are politically motivated where human rights fail to reinforce the moral education. The institutional failure of international human rights is that there lacks a standard achievement of human right for all people globally, which has lasting desirable ends. In this case, the achievement of such rights must imply that something common, which is in existence as well. Education is guided by common standards that provide the opportunity for prudence to emerge in an action concerning human rights. For that reason, human rights efforts fail to recognize education as a cultural substitute that lacks legal enforcements of human rights by the international community. Convincingly, the minimal achievement of human rights through missions such United Nations has recognized the ability of education to overcome the problem in formulating and setting down universal ideas, as well as rules and positive rights (Rhona, 2013: 52). 7Elefthriou (2004, p. 453) is under the view that a common exercise is the very nature of the problem of solving cultural discrepancies and disputes. In this case, the Bangkok Declaration seems to advocate the academic approach of responding to education as a way of treating human rights injustices. In this case, ethics is not an education in a common standard of achievement of human rights for all people of all nations. As well, the promotion of education in a way that champions human rights can be seen as an approach that does not seem to consider the moral principle at heart. The tyrant government, in this case, prevails since their citizens are taught education of a way of doing things but not as one geared towards establishing a monolithic duty in the society. For that reason, we recognize the importance of the family as expressed in a manner that champion’s compatibility with philanthropic friendship. Scholars such as Lee believe that, humankind can only achieve tranquility and, of course, a break from the harsh factor of political regimes if he or she maintains nature and prudence. Motivation for states of engaging in Human Rights Although states engaging in human rights have a wider foreign policy tools at their disposal for the promotion of international human rights norms. Reflectively, given that analyst of foreign policy often categorize the foreign policy tools available to states as sticks and carrots, one will refer to positive incentives that states may use in their efforts to shape their behavior of other states. States have used a variety of cooperative approaches and positive incentives in an effort to promote human rights norms in other countries. Different countries have a wide range of foreign policy tools at their disposal for the promotion of international human rights norms. As noted from the Carrot and Sticks analysis, human rights diplomacy is predominantly driven by Strategic interests rather than an even-handed concern for human dignity. The UN Human Rights Council, which replaced the UN Human Rights Commission has adopted the process commonly known as Universal Periodic Review, where each state has starting members of the council with no present a human rights report to the Council concerning human rights in its jurisdiction and then defend the report in the face of questioning. Arguably, the questioning in the Human Rights Council was done by states, not by independent or uninstructed persons sitting in their personal capacity. Reflectively, human rights might be motivated by strategic consideration, for instance, enemy, or antagonistic states sought to embarrass and delegitimize the reporting state. 8In the UN Human Rights Council, state members are more likely to criticize their political adversaries than their political friends. For instance, concerning the case during the cold war, the state members of NATO or SEATO where violations of human rights against the communists states making up the Warsaw Pact. For their part, Mastny (2005) agrees that communists’ members of the Warsaw Pact often criticized NATO members of violations of socio-economic rights. For instance, Arab states are more likely to criticize Israel for human rights violations than criticizing of a fellow member of the Arab League. The section is attempting to justify that nations engage in Human Rights largely because of strategic decisions. Hence, tyrant regimes will naturally prevail since their governments do not have their interests at heart. The unpleasant fact is that human rights diplomacy is applied as a weapon to try to delegitimize target governments, which would rather advance the cause of human dignity in a balanced and even handed process. Many if not most states have used human rights diplomacy for political gain at one time or another. Thus, in a diplomatic perspective human rights are naturally applied as a vehicle for propaganda and tyrant best do so. As noted, the traditional diplomat traditional perspective is how wise to apply it publically to criticize a rival political faction. The new thinking might seek a balance between protection of personal rights on an even-handed basis and protection of traditional national interests (Rhona, 2013: 86). The realists’ policy-makers are interested in the balance of power diplomacy which focuses in defeating the bigger power. However, their approach is often criticized given that lack of moral dimensions to their foreign is the most critical part. In their criticism, US foreign policy was seen to ignore human rights violations in its different hemispheric states. In relation to that, Kissinger gave a speech in the Organization of American States (OAS) reaffirming US interests in democracy and human rights in the hemisphere. However, Kissinger was seen to engage in quiet diplomacy to reassure brutal, authoritarian allies in the region that the speech for domestic consumption. From Kissingers approach, most diplomats are concerned about the sovereignty costs or whether the opposition will arise to the treaty being negotiated since too much discretion in policy-making will be taken away from the state. As such, the ratification of treaties will usually involve at least part of the legislature acting according to the terms of the national constitution with the views of important legislators, which are taken into account often by some legislators who are included in state delegation. The concept further fails melts down given that negotiations of modern diplomats especially from democratic states constantly checks with proceeds from. For that reason, if the negotiation is not favoring the country, in most cases they will threaten to withdraw. For instance, human rights atrocities committed in Kenya in the year 2007, led to the indictment of senior government officials. As a result, the ICC nullified criminal charges against these individuals. However, a collective approach to reprimand these individuals was overtaken by threats to withdraw from the Roman statue9. Nonetheless, states pursue human rights diplomacy for the genuine and valid moral reasons. As such, like-minded states will naturally work out a hard to reach agreement at a Rome-diplomatic conference in 1998, in order to create the international Argentine Junta which will process of executing its forced disappearance of individuals. Some of these individuals were either tortured and murdered or harassed in diverse ways. The Reagan administration, however, saw the Junta as sufficiently anti-communists to merit support. Washington, therefore, pressured the Secretary-General to renew the contract with Van Boven. The developed Nations UK was busy ensuring that the right to rebellion is heavily considered. However, UN failed to recognize that when faced with the oppression that could be not be considered authentic right, but it could be seen as a last restore when faced with tyrannical or oppressive government. Likewise, the lack of evidence of consensus concerning a problematic issue, which had inevitable political ramifications, it was decided that this right would be included in the preamble of the declaration and not in the main body to it, which meant a clear diminishment of the legal and programmatic content of the right to resistance. Moreover, a direct recognition of the right to resistance does not appear in paragraph three of the UD. The preamble considers it essential if man is not be compelled to have a recourse as a last resort of the concept of rebellion. In this case, the need to protect human right using the rule of law is important. However, tyrant regimes exist since the right to resistance is not show as an authentic human right that all human beings enjoy. For that reason, the incumbent regime will in most cases be seen as the legitimate regime, whereas the rebels as the trouble causers. An important section of the preamble is the fifth paragraph that underlines the peoples of the United Nations have determined to promote social progress and better standards life in larger freedom (Rhona, 2013: 194). However, the developed nations largely fund the United Nations, hence vesting interests in a particular party. In context, social progress can be understood interchangeably with human rights. Reflectively, for people to truly be effective, it is important to enjoy right for economic progress and the effectiveness of enjoy the progress and development that are necessary to the society. This further concerns the pillars of culture and economy. Wagner (2001) believes that such an approach encourages defending human dignity that will be vital to defend both civil and political rights. For that reason, it becomes impossible to ignore the revolutionary context. According to Bull (2008, p. 43), if human beings continue forgetting the success of the legal system, then it becomes justifiable that the UN will fail, given that most tyrant certainly do not recognize the rule of law. Challenges does it face Apart from the carrot and sticks situation, the human rights have faced significant challenges given that different members are often at different thresholds of policing. The United Nations Security Council members with veto power how often challenged to the rightful course to provide the right security approach. The Veto power includes United States, United Kingdom, France on one hand, and Russia and China on the other hand. Bouton and Sauger (2015, p. 54) establishes the Veto cannot be regulated neither can they self-regulate or regulate each other10. In other words, there are five superpowers, groups of three and two respectively. Certainly, members of the Veto power can use the carrots and sticks to attack members of an innocent country. Additionally, most countries are not signatories of the Roman statue meaning that dictatorial regimes in these countries can commit atrocities with much being done to them. A close example is Sudan. The reality of promoting coherent social, economic, cultural and political conditions accelerates the rebellion factors. In most cases, the rebellion factor will naturally prevail given the need to respond to illness, injustice and exploitation are ever prevalent. Thus, the right to start with the preamble and innovative concept of the indivisibility and interdependence of the two categories of the human rights, civil and political and economic as well as cultural is advancing over time. Reflectively, the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human rights states a section of common understanding of the rights and freedoms of the greatest importance for the realization of the pledge. Reflectively, the six paragraph of the preamble to pledge, relates to Article 55 and Article 56 of United Nations Charter, which promotes of Universal Respect for the observance of human right and fundamental freedoms. Human rights remain a vital concern for achieving a concept of rights and freedom that, in this case, are covered heavily in the General Assembly of the United Nations. However, governments are proving immune to Human rights sanctions thus crippling the entire process of declaration of human rights activities. Where how could it be said to be failing However, with time, Human Rights have failed to take its due course given that there have been challenges in attempting to implement it. A close aspect is the preamble in the connection between the rule of law and the effective protection of human rights (Rhona, 2013: 37). Convincingly, Human Rights should be protected by the rule of law. In that case, the law should be there, and the enforcement should as well be there. Politically, global superpowers have attempted to take control of the rule of law. Countries in the United National Permanent members have in most cases assumed policing of the same. As well, there have been international bodies, for instance, International Court of Justice (Bedi, 2007), which have assumed policing. Many of the human rights recognized by the UN help us to configure the rule of law, which highlights the equality before the law (Rhona, 2013: 267). The right to an effective remedy by the national tribunals becomes a critical concern. In fact, article 8 of the Declaration argues that the right to have an effective remedy by national tribunals and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as article which in most cases do not have total control of a positive thought (Rhona, 2013: 307). Article 18 and Article 19, which are the foundation of what is now known as the rule of law, are an indispensable requirement for an effective protection of human rights (Rhona, 2013: 89). As illustrated, the legal tradition acknowledged one clearly defensible exception of genocide does not include humanitarian intervention in the same category. Henderson (2010, p. 343) believes that a basic revision of the legalists tradition proposed here is the expansion of the first category of the jus bellum and just cause to include a broader range of exception rather than genocide. The multiplicity of possibilities arises from consideration as justifying causes for humanitarian intervention beyond genocide the recent experience in Bosnia with ethnic cleansing. In article 2 (7) of the UN Charter, it is clear that UN does not protect domestic jurisdiction, which challenges the notion by legitimating international action on behalf of human rights. Bahmueller (2003, p. 43) contemplates that any form of human rights violations within a state should generate a response from the wider international community. In fact, in the last twenty years, the idea of elements and strategy of such policies have had a focus on both state action and especially the work of nongovernmental organizations. International human rights have failed to respond to human rights violations which include genocide and ethnic cleansing where the true language of human rights is not fully applied to identify religious freedom, freedom of speech, assembly, and press. Fletcher (2008, p. 43) contends that scores of regimes throughout the world could be properly criticized for these abuses which should not be targets of military intervention. Reflectively, the assumption of non-intervention trumps human rights claims when the action is military, but not when it involves political or economic strategies to overcome human rights violations. What is the Charter based bodies UN Charter is referred to as Charter Based Bodies or Charter Based human rights bodies. Charter based bodies begin with an overview of the bodies addressing human rights concerns. Through Article 10 of the UN Charter, the General Assembly addressed human rights issues. Thus the scope of the charter is to make recommendations to the member states on these subjects. The charter seeks to enhance international cooperation in economic, social, cultural, educational, and health fields. This provision is enacted with the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, religion or language. Charter based bodies include Universal Periodic Review, Commission on Human Rights, Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council and Human Rights Council Complaint Procedure. However, in light with our on-going discussion, it is clear that UN for various reasons could have failed to alleviate global human rights atrocities using the same. For lack of appropriate policing or funding, charter-based bodies have failed to restore normalcy in war torn areas. For example, charter-based bodies have failed to secure the future of refugees in Sudan even after a dictatorial leader has permanently evicted these ethnic groups. What are treaties based bodies Treaty bodies are based on treaty law and apply treaty law even though they issue recommendations, which are policy-oriented through suggestion. All the distinction between legal and political bodies seems to do to reveal the tension between law and politics in human rights a matter that will turn later. Treaty-based bodies include Human Rights Committee, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and Committee against Torture Daniel, Sangeeta, and Sandesh: 2014, 286). Other include, Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, Committee on the Rights of the Child, Committee on Migrant Workers, Committee on Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Committee on Enforced Disappearances. In the UN human rights system, the distinction between charter-based and treaty-based bodies has become a commonplace. The treaty-based system comprises the bodies set up under the UN human rights treaties, while the charter based system includes bodies which UN first and foremost human rights council and the sub-commission on the promotion and the Sub-Commission on the promotion and the protection of Human Rights. Conclusion Reflectively, although there have been tremendous development of Human Rights, there have also been significant challenges in the same. Prior to the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration, there was multiple human rights injustice with colonialism being a recent problem. However, the enactment of UD meant that the key four freedoms were entrenched. Nonetheless, at a much advance discourse, the research has proved that human rights development has been challenged by diplomatic interests of members. In future, researchers need to advise diplomats on the best way possible to achieve human rights justices while legitimizing human rights justices. References B. Widyono. Dancing in shadows: Sihanouk, the Khmer Rouge, and the United Nations in Cambodia. (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Pub, 2003) C Bahmueller, Human rights violations. (Pasadena, Calif.: Salem Press, 2003). C. Bull No entry without strategy building the rule of law under UN transitional administration. (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2008). C. Henderson. The persistent advocate and the use of force the impact of the United States upon the jus ad bellum in the post-cold war era. (Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate Pub, 2010). Daniel Moeckli, Sangeeta Shah, Sandesh Sivakumaran (eds), International human rights law, (Oxford University Press 2014), the library has 1 copy available for standard loan. E. Roosevelt, & A. Black, The Eleanor Roosevelt papers: The human rights years, 1945-1948. (Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2003) F. Bértoa, J. Rodríguez-Teruel, O. Barberà, & A. Barrio, The Carrot and the Stick: Party Regulation and Politics in Democratic Spain. South European Society and Politics [2011] 1-24. G. Fletcher, Tort liability for human rights abuses. (Oxford: Hart.2008) Ilias Bantekas and Lutz Oette, International human rights: law and practice, (Cambridge University Press 2013) J. Quigley The case for Palestine: An international law perspective (2nd ed. Durham: Duke University Press, 2005) Kevin Boyle, New Institutions for Human Rights Protections, (Oxford University Press 2009) L Bouton, & A Saguer, Get rid of unanimity: The superiority of majority rule with veto power (London: Centre for Economic Policy Research, 2015). M. Eleftheriou Aquaculture challenges in Asia after the Bangkok Declaration on sustainable aquaculture: The next step : AQUACHALLENGE Workshop : Beijing, China, April 27 - April 30, 2002. (Luxembourg: EUR-OP, 2004) M. Lacoste, The story of a grand design: Unesco 1946-1993 : People, events, and achievements (Paris: Unesco Pub, 1994) Orna Ben-Naftali (ed), International humanitarian law and international human rights law, (Oxford University Press 2011) - available electronically through library online link to e-book Philip Alston, Ryan Goodman, International human rights: the successor to International human rights in context: law, politics and morals: text and materials, (Oxford University Press 2013), R S Bedi Shiv, The Development of Human Rights Law by the Judges of the International Court of Justice (Hart Publishing 2007) link to e-book Rhona K M Smith, International Human Rights, (6th edn, Oxford University Press 2013) V. Mastny, A cardboard castle? an inside history of the Warsaw Pact, 1955-1991. Budapest: (Central European University Press, 2005) Wagner, T. (2001). Fifty years after the declaration: The United Nations record on human rights. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America ;. Read More