Human rights and international concern: The debate continues

Sceptics are of the opinion that most states that involve or participate in humanitarian interventions do so not just to stop human right abuses or protect human rights laws instead they do so as there is some national motive or interest they are trying to promote, and humanitarian intervention is just an avenue to promote their interests

Human rights can be defined as the universal rights of human beings against abuse from their own government. According to Wikipedia’s definition human rights are fundamental rights and liberty to which all individual is unconstrained to.
Human rights can be well defined as a situation in which human beings are entitled to universal rights or status, irrespective of their legal jurisdiction, ethnicity and nationality
Human rights can be said to have been first addressed by religious programs that uses religious books as guide, religious books such as the Bible, Qur’an and Vedas have been competent in tackling issue relating to the general public rights and obligation. For example the doctrines of the “Golden Rule” which stats “do unto others what you want to be done to you”
Human right also dates back to the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, apart from the war crimes the Germans were tried for, they were also held accountable for crimes against humanity; genocide that killed about six million Jews, gypsies, and even homosexuals. This was one of the most terrible historical crimes committed in record, and was seen as a violation of both international law and German law.
In order for justice to be done, other government powers decided to mutually establish the United Nations, with their main aim of promoting peace and making sure that such event never occurs again, thus promoting human right principles. This also led to the meeting in San Francisco that resulted to United Nations charter in the year 1945.
Consequently universal declaration of human rights, and United Nations human rights covenants were written and implemented in the result of the holocaust, 56 delegates of the United Nations adopted the universal declaration of human right (UDHR). This declaration avows that the way a government behaves or treats her citizens is a matter of global alarm and concern and not just a domestic affair. Also this declaration alleges that all rights are inter-reliant and indissoluble.
Human rights as defined above basically means a state of affairs in which human beings are unrestricted to common rights or status, regardless of their jurisdiction, traditions and nationality. Below are examples of fundamental rights human beings are entitled to; Right to own a property
Right of freedom of expression Right of freedom of expression and religion Right to seek and enjoy in other countries shelter from prosecution
Right to nationality.
Nevertheless these rights can be violated; this means denying an individual his or her human rights, by not respecting their fundamental rights. According to Wikipedia human rights violations transpire once any state or non-state actor violates any part of the universal declaration of human right treaty law or humanitarian regulations. Examples of human rights violations are violation of slavery, torture, genocide, enforced circumcision, rape and harassment.
This is where the role of nongovernmental organizations comes to play in human rights, organizations like amnesty international and human right watch, encourage and supervise human rights around the world. They are most time independent of any political, economic or religious interest that is they do not support or oppose any government; they are concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights.
Consequently these organizations when they hear of human right violation they search out facts, by either talking with victims or interviewing officials. After research they inform the press, they publicize their concerns on leaflets, adverts and even websites.
They also put pressure on governments and influential bodies to stop the abuses; they pressurize government to abide by international human right treaties. They frequently employ in lobbying and advocacy so as to influence the United Nations to respect human right.
It is important to note that no state has a perfect record of human right activities, for example when the United States of America accused china of prohibiting free speech by interfering forcefully against the protest by the youth at the Tiananmen square, which is a violation to human rights. China in return pointed out the fact that America too has the largest number of prison inmates in the world and a bad history of slavery.
Internationalisation of human fundamental rights is regarded as a conflictive progress to politics internationally. International apprehension over human civil rights aims at influencing positively the government that involves in violations of human rights to amend its approach regarding its own citizens.
Nevertheless, this has brought a lot of debate for and against the views that human right issues should be a matter of international concern; argument is on the point that state’s behaviour towards its citizens is a matter of its own concern and not the business of other states.
Military exercise to prevent or stop human right violations in other countries can be described as humanitarian interventions. The major concern in favour of and against humanitarian interventions is the human rights of individuals against state sovereignty
Below are the various reasons why some international scholars and states consider human rights should not be a matter of international concern.  Sceptics are of the opinion that most states that involve or participate in humanitarian interventions do so not just to stop human right abuses or protect human rights laws instead they do so as there is some national motive or interest they are trying to promote, and humanitarian intervention is just an avenue to promote their interests. Thus sceptics believe that most states that involve in promoting human rights internationally do so for their selfish interest and not see it as a collective goods problem.
Another reason why some states and scholars do not support the movement of human right being a matter of international concern is the fact that they believe that leaders endanger the lives of their soldiers in the process of humanitarian intervention. They are of the view that state leaders shedding the lives of their soldiers on behalf of other states in order to protect human rights laws is pointless and unnecessary because to them states are exclusively accountable for their activities and affaires thus external governments are under no obligation or compulsion to intervene.
Sceptics also believe that other states could use the opportunity to attack their rivals in the pretence of protecting human right laws.
Another reason why some international scholars and states consider human rights should not be a matter of international concern is because they believe that states should have mutual respect for each others sovereignty, and states take territorial sovereignty very important thus any external intervention will be a violation of the morale independence of the state. Hence they believe that states have sovereign rights therefore should be at liberty do what they consider right.
Lastly, states believe that due to the genuine fact that the international system is anarchical; there is no ethical supreme power (a sovereign) in existence above states to enforce a higher morality.
On the other hand there are various reasons why some states consider human right an international concern; these reasons are stated below;
One of the reasons why, is because they believe that if human right is not a matter of international concern, then it would be impossible to carry out humanitarian interventions, thus it could be interpreted as cruelty on the path of the global community and ethical and moral unfairness to watch mass genocide.
The UN charter recognise the right of the people of self determination this right cannot be exercised in vacuum, it can only be exercised if the people themselves are free to have right to choices.
Lack of respect for the observant of human right by some states have been a major cause for conflict and wars, for example during the reign of president Idi Amin who was a military dictator, about an estimate of 100,000 to 500,000 died during his regime; one of the functions of the United Nations is to foster and maintain peace, member nations have a legitimate interest to be concerned and encourage other state to observe human rights.
Gross abuse of human right by states has been identified as one of the reasons leading to political asylum and migration. Therefore states that are likely to be exposed to receiving political asylum seekers and migrate have every justification to be concerned. For example the international cases of Zimbabwe and South Africa, because of the various problems occurring in Zimbabwe over two million Zimbabweans are in South Africa.
Lastly some conflict could spill over from one state to another; that it the conflict could cross the geographical boundaries from one state to another, therefore even for reasons for self interest there ought to be international concern an example of such spill over was when liberal was under ex-president Samuel Doe, crises from liberal spilled over to Sierra Leone .
In conclusion, though international interventions are essential in specific situations in bid to defend basic human rights. However the long-established view of state independence and the theory of non-intervention have been confronted by economic interdependencies, global organizations and actions, and legal obligations thus the sovereign realm of the state has come to be shared both by global actors and regional-local centers of power at national level. Thus it is very essential that there should be laid down rules guiding any intervention by any international body or external party so as to avoid external powers from mishandling the importance for these humanitarian interventions.

The views expressed in the article are the writer’s own

lawteacher.net

Human rights and international concern: The debate continues

Sceptics are of the opinion that most states that involve or participate in humanitarian interventions do so not just to stop human right abuses or protect human rights laws instead they do so as there is some national motive or interest they are trying to promote, and humanitarian intervention is just an avenue to promote their interests

Human rights can be defined as the universal rights of human beings against abuse from their own government. According to Wikipedias definition human rights are fundamental rights and liberty to which all individual is unconstrained to. Human rights can be well defined as a situation in which human beings are entitled to universal rights or status, irrespective of their legal jurisdiction, ethnicity and nationality Human rights can be said to have been first addressed by religious programs that uses religious books as guide, religious books such as the Bible, Quran and Vedas have been competent in tackling issue relating to the general public rights and obligation. For example the doctrines of the Golden Rule which stats do unto others what you want to be done to you Human right also dates back to the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, apart from the war crimes the Germans were tried for, they were also held accountable for crimes against humanity; genocide that killed about six million Jews, gypsies, and even homosexuals. This was one of the most terrible historical crimes committed in record, and was seen as a violation of both international law and German law. In order for justice to be done, other government powers decided to mutually establish the United Nations, with their main aim of promoting peace and making sure that such event never occurs again, thus promoting human right principles. This also led to the meeting in San Francisco that resulted to United Nations charter in the year 1945. Consequently universal declaration of human rights, and United Nations human rights covenants were written and implemented in the result of the holocaust, 56 delegates of the United Nations adopted the universal declaration of human right (UDHR). This declaration avows that the way a government behaves or treats her citizens is a matter of global alarm and concern and not just a domestic affair. Also this declaration alleges that all rights are inter-reliant and indissoluble. Human rights as defined above basically means a state of affairs in which human beings are unrestricted to common rights or status, regardless of their jurisdiction, traditions and nationality. Below are examples of fundamental rights human beings are entitled to; Right to own a property Right of freedom of expression Right of freedom of expression and religion Right to seek and enjoy in other countries shelter from prosecution Right to nationality. Nevertheless these rights can be violated; this means denying an individual his or her human rights, by not respecting their fundamental rights. According to Wikipedia human rights violations transpire once any state or non-state actor violates any part of the universal declaration of human right treaty law or humanitarian regulations. Examples of human rights violations are violation of slavery, torture, genocide, enforced circumcision, rape and harassment. This is where the role of nongovernmental organizations comes to play in human rights, organizations like amnesty international and human right watch, encourage and supervise human rights around the world. They are most time independent of any political, economic or religious interest that is they do not support or oppose any government; they are concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights. Consequently these organizations when they hear of human right violation they search out facts, by either talking with victims or interviewing officials. After research they inform the press, they publicize their concerns on leaflets, adverts and even websites. They also put pressure on governments and influential bodies to stop the abuses; they pressurize government to abide by international human right treaties. They frequently employ in lobbying and advocacy so as to influence the United Nations to respect human right. It is important to note that no state has a perfect record of human right activities, for example when the United States of America accused china of prohibiting free speech by interfering forcefully against the protest by the youth at the Tiananmen square, which is a violation to human rights. China in return pointed out the fact that America too has the largest number of prison inmates in the world and a bad history of slavery. Internationalisation of human fundamental rights is regarded as a conflictive progress to politics internationally. International apprehension over human civil rights aims at influencing positively the government that involves in violations of human rights to amend its approach regarding its own citizens. Nevertheless, this has brought a lot of debate for and against the views that human right issues should be a matter of international concern; argument is on the point that states behaviour towards its citizens is a matter of its own concern and not the business of other states. Military exercise to prevent or stop human right violations in other countries can be described as humanitarian interventions. The major concern in favour of and against humanitarian interventions is the human rights of individuals against state sovereignty Below are the various reasons why some international scholars and states consider human rights should not be a matter of international concern. Sceptics are of the opinion that most states that involve or participate in humanitarian interventions do so not just to stop human right abuses or protect human rights laws instead they do so as there is some national motive or interest they are trying to promote, and humanitarian intervention is just an avenue to promote their interests. Thus sceptics believe that most states that involve in promoting human rights internationally do so for their selfish interest and not see it as a collective goods problem. Another reason why some states and scholars do not support the movement of human right being a matter of international concern is the fact that they believe that leaders endanger the lives of their soldiers in the process of humanitarian intervention. They are of the view that state leaders shedding the lives of their soldiers on behalf of other states in order to protect human rights laws is pointless and unnecessary because to them states are exclusively accountable for their activities and affaires thus external governments are under no obligation or compulsion to intervene. Sceptics also believe that other states could use the opportunity to attack their rivals in the pretence of protecting human right laws. Another reason why some international scholars and states consider human rights should not be a matter of international concern is because they believe that states should have mutual respect for each others sovereignty, and states take territorial sovereignty very important thus any external intervention will be a violation of the morale independence of the state. Hence they believe that states have sovereign rights therefore should be at liberty do what they consider right. Lastly, states believe that due to the genuine fact that the international system is anarchical; there is no ethical supreme power (a sovereign) in existence above states to enforce a higher morality. On the other hand there are various reasons why some states consider human right an international concern; these reasons are stated below; One of the reasons why, is because they believe that if human right is not a matter of international concern, then it would be impossible to carry out humanitarian interventions, thus it could be interpreted as cruelty on the path of the global community and ethical and moral unfairness to watch mass genocide. The UN charter recognise the right of the people of self determination this right cannot be exercised in vacuum, it can only be exercised if the people themselves are free to have right to choices. Lack of respect for the observant of human right by some states have been a major cause for conflict and wars, for example during the reign of president Idi Amin who was a military dictator, about an estimate of 100,000 to 500,000 died during his regime; one of the functions of the United Nations is to foster and maintain peace, member nations have a legitimate interest to be concerned and encourage other state to observe human rights. Gross abuse of human right by states has been identified as one of the reasons leading to political asylum and migration. Therefore states that are likely to be exposed to receiving political asylum seekers and migrate have every justification to be concerned. For example the international cases of Zimbabwe and South Africa, because of the various problems occurring in Zimbabwe over two million Zimbabweans are in South Africa. Lastly some conflict could spill over from one state to another; that it the conflict could cross the geographical boundaries from one state to another, therefore even for reasons for self interest there ought to be international concern an example of such spill over was when liberal was under ex-president Samuel Doe, crises from liberal spilled over to Sierra Leone . In conclusion, though international interventions are essential in specific situations in bid to defend basic human rights. However the long-established view of state independence and the theory of non-intervention have been confronted by economic interdependencies, global organizations and actions, and legal obligations thus the sovereign realm of the state has come to be shared both by global actors and regional-local centers of power at national level. Thus it is very essential that there should be laid down rules guiding any intervention by any international body or external party so as to avoid external powers from mishandling the importance for these humanitarian interventions. The views expressed in the article are the writers own lawteacher.net