Which of the Human Rights Acts do you find the most important?

(Please critically reflect upon the question and bring in the literature. Answers should be between at least 1000-1500 words (excluding bibliography).

1. Was Hannah Arendt just in her claims against the treatment of A. Eichmann? Given state boundaries, what are the utilities and difficulties of the ICC and ICJ today. Explain using specific examples.

2. To start, is cosmopolitanism achievable? If so, what are some empirical examples of its existence today? Whether it is possible or not, is cosmopolitanism a favorable outcome or does individual state sovereignty provide some benefits?

3. Is cultural relativism a sufficient argument against the creation of the international body of  human rights protection (IHRP) as it exists today? In other words, what is natural (universal) about natural rights?

4. How does Civil Society participate in the practice of IHRP? Give specific examples. )

It should be all the information in here: (All the week discussions)

———

Week 1 Discussion

Please, answer ONE of the following.

1.) Which of the Human Rights Acts do you find the most important? Please explain.

2.) What is the largest challenge facing international human rights protection today? Has globalization and technology increased awareness and protection? Or, has the development of international trade led to greater levels of exploitation? 250 words
students examples:Steven

In my humble opinion, when talking about the Human Rights Acts, I believe the most important is Article 15.  Which states that “1. Everyone has the right to a nationality. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. The reason for this is because Nationality, as well as our spiritual beliefs for example, is a part of our identity and our way of being. Our nationality can explain who we are, why we do things, and what we fight for. We our not limited to just a “legal” nationality because of birth, nor can we not be limited to our choices of nationality due to race and religion. This Act gives us a right to be the people that we truly are and express ourselves better.

another exampleslucasI find The Universal Declaration of Human Rights the most important. It laid the modern framework for the liberal west’s interpretation of human rights and successfully enabled a century-plus long expansion of human rights that translated into historic levels of freedom of speech, guarantee of liberty, and other fundamental human rights across the world.This ties into the second question – what is the largest challenge facing international human rights protection today. As the world order shifts away from one organized around the west towards a multipolar one organized around different power centers, some of which do not espouse western liberalism and democracy but instead authoritarianism, the continued expansion of human rights is threatened, especially in regards to protecting minorities. This trend goes hand-in-hand with mounting global populism, which tends to leverage xenophobia and nationalism to cement itself.other sarah Although difficult to single out one, it is my personal opinion that Article 10: Freedom of Expression is the most important. If applied, this Article protects our individual right to hold our own opinions and express them aloud, whether it be through social media, public protest, or published articles. Further, it allows those around us to do the same – presenting different perspectives of the same topic(s). To be able to learn from others and their belief systems, as well as express your own, is vital in order to create an open dialogue and incite change. Through this Article, we have the ability to stand up for what we believe in, and push those in power to make a change.

My Answer

WEEK 1 DISCUSSION

Which of the Human Rights Acts do you find the most important? Please explain. 

Human rights are always an important matter to consider. Suppose the rights are snatched, and humans are not given the facilities and opportunities to live according to their will. In that case, it won’t be easy to expect a peaceful and healthy society. First of all, it should be mentioned that there are various human rights acts presented so far, and all of them are important in one aspect or another. These acts have a common goal that is to provide the necessary and fundamental rights to people. The most important Human Rights Act is of 1998, presented in the UK. No doubt, the other acts are essential, but I have found it to be most effective and productive because it has laid the foundation of human rights. It has set the foundation of freedom for the human. There are different essential rights of a human being, but the essential one is to give the opportunity of liberty (Hamlin, 2016).

This act ensured that all human beings are equal, and there is no need to interfere with human beings’ freedom. Everyone is free and can do anything within the limits of law and rules. I have found this law most vital because it has discussed all the aspects of life. It has discussed the rights of government, police, industries, the public, and every other sector. The most important rights that the act has discussed include equity and non discriminated behavior. Everyone is entitled to enjoy freedom, and everyone should be treated with care and fair conduct. The act has ensured that human dignity is above, and there should be no interference to personal life (Brady, 2012).

——————-

Week 2 Discussion

1.Through the lens of Hannah Arendt, why did she take issue with the way in which Eichmann was tried?

Should Israel have pursued Nazi SS-Obersturmbannführer in the manner that they did?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmBSIQ1lkOAhttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/hannah-arendt-adolf-eichmann-banality-of-evil150 words response.

student responses examples.

Hannah Arendt, as a jewish German, had issues in the way that Eichmann was tried for his actions in the genocide of the jews due to the mentality of the people at that time, resulting in actions unprecedented from a precedented mindset. In the video “Arednt Final Speech”, Hannah stated that “understanding someone is different that forgiving,” and she ultimately agreed on the final verdict on Eichmann’s trial that had him condemned to death. Arednt did not believe that the history of anti-semitism in Germany could be tried. Her issue was from all of the history that had people (minorities) robbed from their own rights with no “positive law”, while at the same time being someone under the rule of a dictatorship would have easily brought a horrible event on mankind due to the lack of mankind. Just look at how many wars, genocides, robbing that was happening during that century and the one before. Humanity had led itself to that point. Also, there are studies that show that naturally when someone is in a position of power (being a police officer, president, etc), someone that is under that control will do anything you tell them whether it is against their morals or not. Eichmann, under the control of Hitler at the time, was not going to say no but even worse was that he saw nothing wrong with proceeding in the horrible actions committed. Now, about what happened to Eichmann being pursed by Israel, I believe, for the most part, Hannah Arednt is saying that it was okay how the situation was handled. The only thing that she wishes had happened, was for Israel to understand the actions of the person and what led to them, rather than the atrocity that was placed upon on the people.

1 response about Hanna Arendt that you did one time ago

My Answer

Through the lens of Hannah Arendt, why did she take issue with the way in which Eichmann was tried? Should Israel have pursued Nazi SS-Obersturmbannführer in the manner that they did?

Hannah Arendt is the political philosopher of the twentieth century. She had witnessed the end of the trial of Eichmann. Arendt coined the phrase “the banality of evil” while covering the trial. This phrase became the scholarly cliché. Arendt did not mean that the evil had become normal and that the Eichmann and Nazi had committed the indifferent crime. Arendt thought that the crime they did was exceptional and created a demand for a new legal judgment method. She said that Eichmann was under the control of Hitler, and he couldn’t say no. But the worse thing is that Eichmann not felt bad for proceedings the horrible actions he committed. The situation seemed to be normal to Arendt. She wanted Israel to understand what led the person to take that action instead of mentioning the atrocity only. She said that the evil was banal means that “thought defying.” Arendt did see the true dreadfulness of Eichmann’s evil (Butler, 2011).

——–

Week 3 Discussion

No unread replies.No replies.1. Do we live in a cosmopolitan era? In other words, can we achieve global citizenship? If so, what are some examples?

2. What is natural law? Does it have universal weight, or is it a concept solely applicable to Western elites?

3. Looking ahead, what is “cultural relativism?” Do you agree or disagree with its main tenets? * Please respond to one of the questions. Thank you. ONLY ONE QUESTION (150 words response)

I THINK NATURAL LAW IS THE BEST TO ANSWER.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/21/What_is_natural_about_Natural_Rights

EXTRA INFORMATION

-The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics

First published Mon Sep 23, 2002; substantive revision Tue Sep 27, 2011 ‘Natural law theory’ is a label that has been applied to theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality. We will be concerned only with natural law theories of ethics: while such views arguably have some interesting implications for law, politics, and religious morality, these implications will not be our focus here. This article has two central objectives. First, it aims to identify the defining features of natural law moral theory. Second, it aims to identify some of the main theoretical options that natural law theorists face in formulating a precise view within the constraints set by these defining features and some of the difficulties for each of these options. It will not, however, attempt to recount the history of the development of natural law thought. (For a very helpful detailed history of natural law thought up to the beginning of the modern period, see Crowe 1977. For a very helpful detailed history of natural law thought in the modern period, see Haakonssen 1996. For an article-length recap of the entire history of natural law thought, see Haakonssen 1992.)

-1. Key Features of Natural Law Theories

Even though we have already confined ‘natural law theory’ to its use as a term that marks off a certain class of ethical theories, we still have a confusing variety of meanings to contend with. Some writers use the term with such a broad meaning that any moral theory that is a version of moral realism — that is, any moral theory that holds that some positive moral claims are literally true (for this conception of moral realism, see Sayre-McCord 1988)— counts as a natural law view. Some use it so narrowly that no moral theory that is not grounded in a very specific form of Aristotelian teleology could count as a natural law view. It might be thought that there is nothing that can be done to begin a discussion of natural law theory in ethics other than to stipulate a meaning for ‘natural law theory’ and to proceed from there. But there is a better way of proceeding, one that takes as its starting point the central role that the moral theorizing of Thomas Aquinas plays in the natural law tradition. If any moral theory is a theory of natural law, it is Aquinas’s. (Every introductory ethics anthology that includes material on natural law theory includes material by or about Aquinas; every encyclopedia article on natural law thought refers to Aquinas.)  It would seem sensible, then, to take Aquinas’s natural law theory as the central case of a natural law position: of theories that exhibit all of the key features of Aquinas’s natural law view we can say that they are clearly natural law theories; of theories that exhibit few of them we can say that they are clearly not 1/21/2019 The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/ 2/12 natural law theories; and of theories that exhibit many but not all of them we can say that they are in the neighborhood of the natural law view but nonetheless must be viewed as at most deviant cases of that position. There remain, no doubt, questions about how we determine what are to count as the key features of Aquinas’s position. But we may take as the key features those theses about natural law that structure his overall moral view and which provide the basis for other theses about the natural law that he affirms. For Aquinas, there are two key features of the natural law, features the acknowledgment of which structures his discussion of the natural law at Question 94 of the Prima Secundae of the Summa Theologiae. The first is that, when we focus on God’s role as the giver of the natural law, the natural law is just one aspect of divine providence; and so the theory of natural law is from that perspective just one part among others of the theory of divine providence. The second is that, when we focus on the human’s role as recipient of the natural law, the natural law constitutes the principles of practical rationality, those principles by which human action is to be judged as reasonable or unreasonable; and so the theory of natural law is from that perspective the preeminent part of the theory of practical rationality.

-1.1 Natural law and divine providence

While our main focus will be on the status of the natural law as constituting the principles of practical rationality, we should consider for a moment at least the importance within Aquinas’s view of the claim that the natural law is an aspect of divine providence. The fundamental thesis affirmed here by Aquinas is that the natural law is a participation in the eternal law (ST IaIIae 91, 2). The eternal law, for Aquinas, is that rational plan by which all creation is ordered (ST IaIIae 91, 1); the natural law is the way that the human being “participates” in the eternal law  (ST IaIIae 91, 2). While nonrational beings have a share in the eternal law only by being determined by it — their action nonfreely results from their determinate natures, natures the existence of which results from God’s will in accordance with God’s eternal plan — rational beings like us are able to grasp our share in the eternal law and freely act on it  (ST IaIIae 91, 2). It is this feature of the natural law that justifies, on Aquinas’s view, our calling the natural law ‘law.’  For law, as Aquinas defines it (ST IaIIae 90, 4), is a rule of action put into place by one who has care of the community; and as God has care of the entire universe, God’s choosing to bring into existence beings who can act freely and in accordance with principles of reason is enough to justify our thinking of those principles of reason as law.

-1.2 Natural law and practical rationality

When we focus on the recipient of the natural law, that is, us human beings, the thesis of Aquinas’s natural law theory that comes to the fore is that the natural law constitutes the basic principles of practical rationality for human beings, and has this status by nature (ST IaIIae 94, 2). The notion that the natural law  constitutes the basic principles of practical rationality implies, for Aquinas, both that the precepts of the natural law are universally binding by nature (ST IaIIae 94, 4) and that the precepts of the natural law are universally knowable by nature (ST IaIIae 94, 4; 94, 6). The precepts of the natural law are binding by nature: no beings could share our human nature yet fail to be bound by the precepts of the natural law. This is so because these precepts direct us toward the good as such and various particular goods (ST IaIIae 94, 2). The good and goods provide reasons for us rational beings to act, to pursue the good and these particular goods. As good is what is perfective of us given the natures that we have (ST Ia 5, 1), the good and these various goods have their status as such naturally. It is sufficient for certain things to be good that we have the natures that we have; it is in virtue of our common human nature that the good for us is what it is. The precepts of the natural law are also knowable by nature.  All human beings possess a basic knowledge of the principles of the natural law (ST IaIIae 94, 4). This knowledge is exhibited in our intrinsic directedness toward the various goods that the natural law enjoins us to pursue, and we can make this implicit awareness explicit and propositional through reflection on practice. Aquinas takes it that there is a core of practical knowledge that all human beings have, even if the implications of that knowledge can be hard to work out or the efficacy of that knowledge can be thwarted by strong emotion or evil dispositions (ST IaIIae 94, 6). 1/21/2019 The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/ 3/12 If Aquinas’s view is paradigmatic of the natural law position, and these two theses — that from the God’s-eye point of view, it is law through its place in the scheme of divine providence, and from the human’s-eye point of view, it constitutes a set of naturally binding and knowable precepts of practical reason — are the basic features of the natural law as Aquinas understands it, then it follows that paradigmatic natural law theory is incompatible with several views in metaphysics and moral philosophy. On the side of metaphysics, it is clear that the natural law view is incompatible with atheism: one cannot have a theory of divine providence without a divine being. It is also clear that the paradigmatic natural law view rules out a deism on which there is a divine being but that divine being has no interest in human matters. Nor can one be an agnostic while affirming the paradigmatic natural law view: for agnosticism is the refusal to commit either to God’s existence or nonexistence, whereas the paradigmatic natural law view involves a commitment to God’s existence. On the side of moral philosophy, it is clear that the natural law view is incompatible with a nihilism about value, that is, the rejection of the existence of values. It is also incompatible with relativist and conventionalist views, on which the status of value is entirely relative to one’s community or determined entirely by convention. It is also incompatible with a wholesale skepticism about value, for the natural law view commits one to holding that certain claims about the good are in fact knowable, indeed, knowable by all

MY ANSWER THIS WEEK WAS

 

Discussion

The theory of Natural law is applied to different theories such as the theory of ethics, politics, civil law, and religious morality. The natural law is an idea that states that there are different forms of law that exist by themselves in nature, whether the people recognize these laws or not. The natural law also holds that there are universal standards and these universal standards are inherent in humankind from forever. Moreover, the natural law is mainly applicable to ethics and philosophy (d’Entreves,  2017). Therefore, the natural law is not a concept that is solely applicable to Western elites. People from all over the world have to have certain natural rights in order to live and survive. The natural law also defines the limits for us; it defined that what we should do and what should be avoided. Natural rights provide an opportunity to all human beings, the right to free speech and free thoughts (Finnis, 2011).

————

Week 4 Discussion

1.) Following Pogge, how do some of the world’s largest Multinational Corporations (MNCs) violate international human rights standards?

2.) Explain negative duties-–i.e., to avoid certain actions, and their role in human rights protection.

3.) Define the elitist perspective of Cultural Relativism . Do you agree?

4.) Explain Kanarek’s attack of cultural relativism e.g., what are its deficiencies.

answer only 1 question of the 4 250-300 words.

students examples

4.

As cultural relativism being the way of sense, instincts, and opinions that come from our experiences and culture, Kanarek argues that it lacks 1. reason, 2. identity, and 3. reality”. This is due to having cultures that, even though it is normal to have preferred opinions, choose to decide which views and actions are the best and which ones are invalid, when all perspectives should be treated with merit. It brings the idea that one’s identity is wrong for having certain practices, for seeing something differently than somebody else. The problem with that is that not only are practices neither “good” nor “bad”, it is completely against many of the human rights that we, as people, are entitled to. Cultural relativism also lacks standards and places horrible actions onto others, such as every act committed by the Nazis in World War II, from Germany taking over Poland, they believed that there was a moral claim to conquer and to not respect Poland’s sovereignty. This could also explain why Hannah Arendt had called the holocaust “banal”, for having a lack of humanity with nothing to defend everyone else that was not of the same belief, practice, and culture.

1.) Following Pogge, how do some of the world’s largest Multinational Corporations (MNCs) violate international human rights standards?

A  challenging problem which arises in Multinational Corporations is the debate of profit vs exploitation of humans. Today a lot of developing countries are rich in resources and population. Hence, multinational corporations take advantage of this due to their advantage of capital. The governments of these developing countries usually lower the barriers for these multinational companies to bring in income therefore the people may work lower wages, long hours and in unstable conditions. Pogge states “ Being illiterate or uneducated, they may not know what their legal rights are, or they may lack either the knowledge or the minimal economic independence necessary to claim these rights through the proper legal channels.” This illustrates that the people being taken advantage of due to the economic pressure because having low wages is better than having no wages. Additionally, the people who live in poverty are often too uneducated to work on the enforcements of their rights. Instead they rely on government officials or state representatives which are usually corrupt and take bribes from the multinational corporations. Pogge writes “In the existing global order, which allocates property rights in natural resources territorially to the various states or their governments, hundreds of millions suffer severe poverty and malnutrition and all the associated, easily and cheaply curable but still often deadly diseases.” Governments have a lot of control when it comes to the rights of their citizens, they are the ones who determine how the people live. Pogge suggested a “Global Resources Dividend” which is an initiative to secure the poorest people their fair share of the benefits from natural resources. With this program, governments are required to pay a proportional dividend on any resources they decide to use or sell. The word “dividend” indicates that the proposal regards all human beings, including those whose access to resources. I believe this a good plan because then the people who work will earn higher wages not only profiting the country as a whole but also the quality of life for the people.

2.

The fundamental trouble in talking about everyday freedoms starts with the purpose of takeoff. What do individuals mean when they speak about fundamental liberties? Is it the option to cast a ballot in a political race? The opportunity to say practically what we pick? The choice to love however we see fit? Is it the privilege not to be victimized due to race, sex, sexual direction, ethnic source, or age? These rights? An essential inquiry concerning any conversation about fundamental liberties includes the meaning of everyday freedoms. Exactly what do we mean by legal privileges? In the United States and without a doubt in different nations, individuals throw out the expression of everyday freedoms frequently, as though it is obvious what they mean. The truth, however, is that this suspicion of information can be deceiving. Do we truly understand what we mean when we talk about fundamental liberties? Maybe we have some thought of what we are discussing, yet doubtlessly, we are summing up. When we have gotten some information about fundamental freedoms, we experience a mental blackout.

Again and again, the expression “basic liberties” gets thrown around like a verbal football, as though everybody naturally understands what everyday freedoms mean and can intuitively play the game with no training. In actuality, fundamentally understanding freedoms require much more exertion than essentially alluding to nations like China, Cuba, or Iran and their apparent common liberties infringement. Everyday releases incorporate a wide assortment of ideas and cover numerous zones of the human condition. While no single definition might cover the whole extent of what fundamental liberties are included, the possibility of basic freedoms can, for the most part, be characterized as those rights, which are inborn in our inclination and without which we can’t live as individuals. Common liberties and essential opportunities permit us to ultimately create and utilize our human characteristics, knowledge, gifts, full heartedness and fulfill our otherworldly and different requirements. The dependence on humankind’s expanding interest for a day to day existence in which the characteristic pride and worth of every person will seldom ever get regard and security.

My Answer this week

 

1.) Following Pogge, how do some of the world’s largest Multinational Corporations (MNCs) violate international human rights standards?

Multinational corporations that are pioneers in today’s corporate world. They are popular for commercial and trade aspects. No doubt, these multinational corporations help in opening up jobs and provide goods or services to the territories. Despite the benefit, these multinational corporations are violating rights, and these are illegal. The main purpose of these organizations is to make a profit without thinking about how these organizations create violence. Many workers working in urban areas are sent to the rural areas to perform the difficult task in a hazardous working environment where their life is at stake. They are kept on lower wages and made work day and night (Berkes,2018).

According to pogge, human beings are not unified based on race where people of certain caste or race are selected rather than on their skills or uniqueness. At times government doesn’t apply strict rules to protect human rights. Conformity with human rights is a legal order and moral requirement. Human beings have a special moral status that needs to be respected irrespective of their religion, culture, caste, and moral tradition (Berkes,2018).

Nestle is an example that is highly criticized for selfish acts that violate human rights inside and outside the organization. These misconduct include child labor, unethical promotion, manipulating uneducated mothers, creating massive pollution, and mislabeling. Nestle has always been criticized for using unhealthy and preserved food items. Nestle has built up a bad reputation, especially infant food, where mothers felt it is offensive to serve a child with baby infant food rather than mothers’ breastfeed. Employees also complain about the unethical practices that nestle follows by making them work under pressure and paying lower wages (Deva,2003).

—————————

Week 5 Discussion INR

1. In what way do INGOs and NGOs (Global Civil Society) participate within the International Human Rights Regime? Are they effective and what are some of the challenges they face

2. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, what mechanisms within the United Nations help enforce human rights? Are they effective? 3. According to the CFR, what is one of the greatest challenges of utilizing these mechanisms?

(300 Words)——-

INFORMATION https://www.cfr.org/report/global-human-rights-regimehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6QQTiAnOVM——-

sTUDENT EXAMPLES

2. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, what mechanisms within the United Nations help enforce human rights? Are they effective? The United Nations is known as the central global authority for developing standards on issues and laws all across the world. They are known for being able to develop international norms and find legitimate ways to be able to enforce those standards in countries. In order for all of these standards, norms, and laws to be enforced, there are many different mechanisms within the United States placed there to make sure that everything runs smoothly and that the standards are reached. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the mechanisms within the United Nation include the UNSC Action, UN Human Rights Council, committees of elected experts, various rapporteurs, special representatives and working groups. Together, all of these mechanisms work together to attempt to enforce human rights. What all of these have in common is that they all have the same goals of raising political will as well as public awareness, they also seek to evaluate the ways that states assess issues dealing with human rights, and offer technological advice to states on how to improve how they deal with human rights. In addition to these mechanisms, there are also war crime tribunals such as the International Criminal Court, tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and hybrid courts in Sierra Leone and Cambodia. The war crime tribunals also aid the United Nations in making sure that human rights are being enforced in all of these nations, and if there is a legal issue between two nations on whether the standards are being kept or not, one nation may bring legal action against another.References: “The Global Human Rights Regime.” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.org/report/global-human-rights-regime.

1. In what way do INGOs and NGOs (Global Civil Society) participate within the International Human Rights Regime? Are they effective and what are some of the challenges they face?

INGOs and NGOs have become a prominent part of global society. Starting from the UN Charter and the UN Declaration of Human Rights, several countries have now joined various organizations to promote human rights. HRINGOs are motivated by their principles and are powered by their committed constituencies. Hence why they are not afraid to document and publicize human rights violations across the world. This is very important because human rights research documents a world-level process in which oppressed citizens use international channels to publicize human rights violations and pressure their governments and multinational corporations. According to Tsutsui and Min, “At the international level, political opportunities open up for local populations when their governments join intergovernmental human rights organizations via international human rights treaties. By ratifying these treaties, governments expressed their willingness to be judged by a series of benchmarks and to be held ac-countable for failing to live up to their promises. Commitment to these organizations renders the governments more vulnerable to criticism from abroad about their domestic human rights practices, thus providing local populations with in-ternational level opportunities to pressure their governments.” This demonstrates that in order for these countries to be a part of these organizations, they are expected to fit a certain human rights profile. Some of the challenges they face are state sovereignty, global human rights poses a threat to governmental actors because they tend to constrain state behavior in domestic political affairs. A lot of the time, stronger governments such as the United States who fund these organizations don’t want to comply with the rules. Also, there are some governments who choose not to join or sign treaties enabling them not to be punished.  Unlike non governmental organizations, governmental agencies tend to be more averse to commit to human rights causes because they are concerned about undermining state sovereignty, which global human rights almost inevitably do. However, because of their flexibility and lack of concern for state sovereignty, NGOs have been able to aggressively push the international human rights government forward. “Global civil society plays a key role in this evolutionary process, as it sustains political life outside governmental networks and enhances progressive movements that governments tend to abhor. With increasing participation of activists in developing countries as well as those in developed countries in global civil society, the potential for more global progressives social  movement is growing, as is the potential for real social change in important issue areas such as global inequality and environmentalism”( Tsutsui and Min).

———-3. According to the CFR, what is one of the greatest challenges of utilizing these mechanisms?The international human rights system has made many welcome strides, including stronger response in the Muslim world and a lesser degree of commitment to deterrence and responsibility of massacres and major powers. The key processes include UNSC action, the UN Human Rights Council, elected advisory groups, numerous rapporteurs and special delegates as well as working parties. War crimes trials also contribute to standards growth and compliance. All of them aim to increase political will and public opinion, evaluate state and warring parties’ human rights-related actions, and provide states professional guidance on human rights progress. However, these mechanisms are far from consistent. Generally, when they are effective, they change states’ conduct by publicizing abuses rather than by providing technical advice or applying punitive measures. Capacity building—especially for human rights—is often expensive and daunting, viewed with suspicion, and the success of assistance is notoriously hard to measure. In many cases, national governments have signed international commitments to promote and protect human rights, and earnestly wish to implement them, but are incapable of doing so. Myriad treaties, agreements, and statements have enshrined human rights on the international community’s agenda, and some regional organizations have followed suit. These agreements lack binding clauses to ensure that action matches rhetoric, however, and many important violators have not signed on. Meanwhile, organizations in the Middle East and Asia, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, focus primarily on economic cooperation and have historically made scant progress on human rights. Corruption continues to hamper implementation throughout Latin America and Africa, and a dearth of leadership in African nations has slowed institutionalization. =In addition, states often attach qualifiers to their signatures that dilute their commitments. On the other hand, states are under are no binding obligation to observe or implement rights resolutions unless passed—without a veto—through the UN Security Council or one of the few regional bodies with binding authority over member states. Capacity building—especially for human rights—is often expensive and daunting, viewed with suspicion, and the success of assistance is notoriously hard to measure. In many cases, national governments have signed international commitments to promote and protect human rights, and earnestly wish to implement them, but are incapable of doing so.

My answer this week

 

In what way do INGOs and NGOs (Global Civil Society) participate within the International Human Rights Regime? Are they effective and what are some of the challenges they face

NGO is a non-governmental organization founded by citizens to make society a better living place. It includes several activities to participate in within the international human rights regime. These organizations consist of experts that perform accurate and fact-based research for human rights and take necessary steps to prevent human rights violation. These actions to prevent involve protests, letters, petitions. Humans are seeking several rights. These organizations involve businesses, government, political parties to protect the right. They are highly committed to reaching justice and equality. They possess the mission to defend civil rights to improve humanitarian access to freedom. They perform anti-slavery programs to eliminate every kind of slavery. It raises awareness regarding forced labor, child labor, forced marriage, child marriage, exploiting migrants workers etc (Schmitz,2012)

People are not treated well in underserved communities like women harassment and disable neglect. In many parts of the world, children are becoming victims of slave and made worked day and night on farms and factories so these organizations target these injustices to call upon an action. To speak freely is the right of every human in the world so NGOs hear the needs and problems of the people to help them in a better way. Equality is the right of every human where no difference between people exists like ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, etc. The major challenge of NGOs is to gain the desired result. Many obstacles come in between and these obstacles need to handle positively without harming any one. Taking the hard choices is also a big challenge for these organizations. Taking action and protesting for human rights call upon many people to comment negatively and the government to take strict action against these organizations (Nelson and Dorsey,2008).