Challenge Regarding Legitimizing Human Rights - Assignment Example

Name: Instructor: Course: Date: Opposing Debate (1) Human rights ought to be as universal as humanity itself; the notion of cultural relativism is an excuse to evade that moral principle. World over there lies greater challenge regarding legitimizing the aspect of human rights. Global justice universally will be achievable if international law and treaties acknowledge civil and political rights by offering reprieve to humanity irrespective of their political, social, and economic affiliations. In a democracy, human rights observe equal participation in international system. Thus, human rights body in a matured democracy wins registration across board. European Union basic fundamental rights of humans are what guarantee any nation to win entry of membership. Proper values of democracy and freedom of all also being a factor. This is a good political gesture to regional integration. Futuristic international law and institutional law as well as development are important where human rights are championed (Irina 39). In order to protect individual in a democracy and offer standardized playing field, it is the role of proper human rights watch. Universally human rights statutes cannot be implemented if cultural void of societal groups and cultural diversity are not inclusive. With this, common culture must be accepted wholly and made part of International law; this erases conflict in value-ridden society, and the norms and values system and belief that structures such group in a democracy. Cultural relativisms defeats this logic as it negates common practices as acceptable, its true diversity of norms values and practices can seem right; however, some nations mirror this premise of “relativism” to claim it is all not, what it seems to be while trampling human rights. Laws’ shaping human law denies stratification in human rights issues. Topic II The concept of human rights is only universal in theory. Its implementation cannot be effective unless the cultural values of each society are taken into account. Thus, cultural practices e.g. in third worlds, which are against human rights are not welcomed. However human rights allow to some extent culture diversity to thrive where practices are not stretched to harm human right. Culture diversity and practices composes a great length in pushing the agenda of human rights. Thus, culture and the value system of society globally is what defines global interactionism and thus human rights have to be anchored in them to offer freedom to practices and allow diversity in international system. It also functions well with the milieu that governs many states and treaties. Cultural values of society are integral if they are integrated in human rights. Culture is a way in which an individual in society is accepted; it is what defines a person within a group. If human right respects this trait, it is viewed as taking wholly individual differences and that is accepting cultural values practices enshrined in human rights. Human rights in a certain cultural setup have to accept that value systems are relative to come up with postulates. It has to be applicable to all in the intended societal group. Interests of a culture have to be inclusive in human rights law. Human rights law thus has to be accessible and can equally participate. Human rights culture has to allow its marketability in public domain, those in active participation; this can be through sources of new media to allow other diverse culture to accept and be informed about individual differences. Human rights culture thus tries to avoid conflict once different value beliefs, norms, and practices are incorporated. Culture is always changing; it is said to be static. It should be a reflection with possibilities of evaluating different cultural traits and analyzing aspect (Irina 38). Reasons being it would be viewed as shedding or eroding people’s diverse differences. Opposing Debate (2) Non-proliferation regimes are being established in efforts to preserve the military dominance of Western hegemony. Internal regimes are set of principalities and procedures, which actors in international system meet to discuss a certain area affecting international system. These regimes discuss various issues ranging from foreign policies; mostly these regimes have centered on security as a major concern. Powerful states are forming regimes that will benefit all other regimes. Thus, this hegemons are converging power and are able to direct foreign policies insecurity issues affecting them. This convergence creates a system order, for example, hegemons military dominance in security high zone countries is aimed at creating order and preventing foreseeable threat to the system states. Non- proliferation regimes thus are important in preventing WMD from falling into wrong hands. Regimes are regulatory; also plans and rules and given by hegemons and are agreeable amongst member states. Actors of hegemons have a role of protecting world peace. Hegemons has a wide role to play, other than the concern of military domination (Keohane and Nye 38-53). These areas include international trade routes, food security, and environmental issues amongst other political agendas. Military dominations by the hegemons bring a reason to think about such measures. First, there is no proper regime on security; security regimes mean that certain countries or actors have to offload part of their sovereignty; a feeling that causes security regimes a task to formulate. The recent nuclear armament is a clear example of how the issue of security can allow subjective debates. Krasner defines regime as intervening variables (Krasner 47). Hegemony dominance is a requirement as non-proliferation regimes functions where they are needed last, e.g. developing economies. In conclusion the effectiveness of hegemony in non-proliferation regime largely depends on political will and mastery on security of the North/South states. Topic II Non-proliferation regimes aim to prevent rogue states from acquiring WMD, which could eventually fall in the wrong hands. They perform a task of enforcing defined rules and obligations and implement them through collective agreement. Regimes are characterized by longtime commitment over a cause; they can throw an injunction over a certain international behavior; countries that are arm racing with WMD are a reason for long-term commitments of hegemons. Continued owning of WMD is seen to cripple world peace and order. Affected nations argue that their retention is not aimed for destabilizing piece; however, the idea of retaining those causes enough tension and viewed as threat in future. Therefore, nonproliferation regimes maintaining military dominance is a welcomed idea by collectivity of nations. This will avert possible start of war by signing legal biding treaties. Non-proliferation regimes ensure that countries with WMD never transfer with those without. Transportation of the same is averted because safeguards put in place must be observed (Keohane and Nye 15-16). In international regime, hegemons in non-proliferation ensure that countries are facilitated in nuclear energy requirements if they adhere to safeguards and continued inspection of their wares. This commitment is best, as it prevents safeguarded material from use militarily. Non-proliferation regime maintains only few countries held the nuclear ammos. The offense displayed by countries committed to safeguards and inspections greatly show the need for non-proliferation regime, as it is possible for countries to attack another. This arrangement goes hand in hand with international regime so that hegemony stability and control is achieved. Hegemons ensure fair distribution of power is fair when dealing with milieu domestically. Hegemon thus are a necessity as they are able to offer advanced conditions (acceptable) in international relations. Opposing debate 3 The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict is authentically rooted in irreconcilable religious worldviews. This premise could hold in on Israeli viewpoint, Jewish religion advocates nonviolence to Palestinians, religion in Israel observes ethnocentrism among Jewish people v Israel has however adopted a liberal stance after postmodernism and has observed ethnocentrism (Yaar 387). Israeli adoptions of secular political outfit brought inter conflict within Israeli social setup, which affected Gaza Strip and West Bank. This led to invasion by Israeli to Lebanon and connected that to Palestinian cleavage. Outwardly, it is a deep-rooted factor than secularism religious ways of life did not exist in a vacuum, but rather were practiced. The religious debate took the center stage, the Haracha, which is the religious observance and teachings of the Jews brought a discourse; whether in maintaining piece between the two nations, surrendering up parts of land in Israeli would be truce, or will cause conflict. This could not be, as Israelis three religious subgroups had a complete different setting. The Orthodox distanced themselves from modernity. Practically, the earlier idea was far-fetched. Later, this stance changed and this sub-group agreed to part with some parts of land for the purpose of piece. Secularism later took center stage and averted the idea putting it to mean religion had no place in control over territory and this would not assist in ending the conflict. This secular state of Israeli was a big discourse amongst Ultra- Orthodox Jews to agree. This was emergence of secular interest politically. In 1970s, Sephardi Jewry in Israel, Rabbi OvadiaYosef agreed to part with land; this was for peace, a position this leader held until the accord passed in Oslo collapsed. Palestinian as Zionists would argue retaining civil rights while others refuted such. Topic II Religion is only an emotional pretext used to justify secular interests in the Palestinian-Israeli. This is because nonreligious observers likened support for the Palestinian nation not in actual definitions but ideologically. It is in this right that Israelis attachment to their land is viewed in a secular manner, and the approach that was believed to bring commonsense dismissed. The party, which was formed “dovish religious Zionists” supported land for peace principle. Continued failing agreements and processes is a semblance of the secular domination of all ideological frameworks echoed by Israeli. Attempts to unilaterally withdraw from Palestine occupations was met with sharp reactions; one being reversal of the earlier ruling pegged on land for peace with rude remarks to Arab world, a total secular view pegged on religious pretext. Thus, during the conflict, religiosity and violence were mirrored, as Jewish communities were secular and observed traditional aspects and religious. Religious lager number was declining to return any part of land in West bank. Political behavior of Israelites is secular as well as its political leadership. Many large settlements that Israeli sits on were founded and acquired by secular politicians e.g. Ariel Sharon. A majority of secular people live in these settlements. Conflicts were thus real e.g. in 1980s, Gush Emunim (block of the faithful) attacked the Arab mayors and further threatened to destroy a temple mosque. Assassinations were carried out to non-secular observers bringing tension amongst the two. This generated conflict between the two nations, secular interests was unable to solve domestic issues, as the issue of territories brought apart the secularists. This advances that religion in this context was just an emotional pretext. Religion thus is just an insulation to secular interests by both nations. Additionally, the long differences between the two nations are because of irreconcilable differences. These differences are pegged on territorial and Israeli stay on west bank and Gaza. Works Cited Irina, Dana. A Culture of Human Rights and the Right To Culture. Journal for Communication and Culture, 1.2 (Winter 2011) 30-48 Keohane, Robert, and Nye, Joseph. Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little Brown, 1977. Print Krasner, Stephen. International Regimes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983. Print Yaar, Efraim. Religious-Secular Relations in Israel. Tel Aviv: Tami Steinmetz Centre for Peace, 1998. Print Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Read More