Australia Should Respond To Human Rights Violations In The Philippines

These include freedom of opinion, thought, association and freedom from arbitrary detention and are all about treating others fairly and being fairly treated yourself, and making genuine choices in daily life. Wilson says ‘Respect for human rights underpins the democratic processes of our society and is the cornerstone of a society that respects individuals and voluntary community collaboration’ (Tim Wilson, 2014). Despite this, the control the Australian Government exercised over its people in WWII encroached on all of these universally recognized human rights, and it was in 1948 after the atrocity of WWII that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was internationalised.

After looking at other example of Bills of Rights around the world, with America having theirs for 224 years, Canada having implemented theirs for 30 years and the UK for 17 years, Australia needs to consider each nation’s Bill of Rights’ respective strengths and weaknesses when considering our own Bill of Rights in order for it to best suit the current and future society. Canada adopts something of the middle ground between the strongly entrenched rights in the United State’s constitution and the United Kingdom where the British parliament remains supreme with a weak level of right entrenchment, making it perfect for the situation in Australia.

Every year, thousands of people seek refuge in Australia after being forced to flee their homes. Under the UN 1951 Refugee convention, countries are obliged to protect refugees and basic human rights must be upheld. However, Australia is violating these laws. As of August 2013, a report by the Australian Human Rights

Good afternoon, my name is Stephanie Jones and I am a currently a human rights lawyer. Human rights are the basic freedoms and protections that everyone is entitled to purely for simply just being a human being. Today I would like to use this opportunity to discuss with you the greatly debated issue of an Australian Bill of Rights. Australia currently does not have a Bill of Rights, but is the current legal system coping without one? The answer to that question in my opinion is no. Australia currently is not adequately protecting individual human rights without having a Bill of Rights. While many people would argue that yes, Australia protects individual rights well enough as it is, just as many people passionately argue that Australia does indeed need a Bill of Rights for a variety of reasons which will be talked about in greater depth later on. In my talk with you today, I would like to discuss with you all what exactly a Bill of Rights is and what it aims to achieve, how a Bill of Rights has worked in other countries and some of the more popular arguments for and against having one.

This has come from the Australian community and international human rights monitors who have stated that “There are still areas in which the domestic legal system does not provide an effective remedy to persons whose rights under the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] have been violated … [Australia] should take measures to give effect to all Covenant rights and freedoms.” There hasn’t only been a recent push for a Bill of Rights, Former Chief Justice Sir Anthony Mason wrote in 1997 that “Australia's adoption of a Bill of Rights would bring Australia in from the cold, so to speak, and make directly applicable the human rights jurisprudence which has developed internationally and elsewhere. That is an important consideration in that our isolation from that jurisprudence means that we do not have what is a vital component of other constitutional and legal systems, a component which has a significant impact on culture and thought, and is an important ingredient in the emerging world order that is reducing the effective choices open to the nation state”. Brian Galligan who is an academic expert on citizenship stated that “the old confidence in the effectiveness of parliamentary responsible government and the common law for protecting human rights has been undermined by more realistic accounts of the weakness of parliament and the increasingly residual domain of common law compared with the plethora of statutory laws.” The answer to whether Australia needs to adopt a Bill of Rights in order to protect Australian citizens is simple… yes and

The bilateral relationship between Australia and Indonesia has a long but fluctuating history as ‘strange neighbours’, based on a traditional stance from Australian parties of Indonesia as the weaker state (Robert and Hadir 2015: 195). The discourse on Australia’s role in East Timor, particularly the intervention as the head of the UN sanctioned INTERFET team, has been praised or criticized depending on the narrative constructed of the events (Maley 2000: 151). Australia’s role in the East Timor crisis began through complicity in its causes, followed by a change in foreign policy which caused a deterioration of the Indonesia-Australia relationship at a time when Indonesia’s new democratic governance should have deepened relations (Sulistiyanto 2010: 125). While Australia and Indonesia have been steadily rebuilding their relationship, especially in regard to security, the

The United Nations do multiple things such as following the devastation of the Second World War, with one central mission: the maintenance of international peace and security. The UN does this by working to prevent conflict; helping parties in conflict make peace; peacekeeping; and creating the conditions to allow peace to hold and flourish. These activities often overlap and should reinforce one another, to be effective. The term “human rights” was mentioned seven times in the UN's founding Charter, making the promotion and protection of human rights a key purpose and guiding principle of the Organization. In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights brought human rights into the realm of international law. Since then, the Organization has diligently protected human rights through legal instruments and on-the-ground activities. The united nations are a great group of people who are looking out for us ever since Canada has joined this group they have been able to make an impact such as. Today, Canada continues to uphold the UN by actively participating in the organization's activities and providing financial support. Canada consistently brings pragmatic ideas and solutions to the table, from peacekeeping proposals in the 1950s, to creating the International Criminal Court and banning landmines in the 1990s. Today, some of their current goals are to assist war-affected children, or to improve the UN’s management and

Upholding human rights is essential for ensuring a fair and equitable society. In 1966, Australia and a majority of the world’s nations signed on to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). After the atrocities committed in World War II this seemed like a positive step for ensuring acknowledgement and respect for the rights and freedoms of all people. However, the means of enforcing human rights is not a straightforward process. In response to ratifying the ICCPR, Australia set up the Australian Human Rights Commission. However, after a number of failed attempts, it has not followed through with implementing a

The initial arguments posed highlight the stark contrast between Asian and Western values, and therefore human rights. Whilst in America there is a focus on the rights of the individual, many in the east perceive this as having contributed in making America a ‘crumbling society’ (Callaway 2007), due to ‘the excesses found..brought about by capitalism’ (Callaway 2007). Another key issue is the notion that it appears as if the West is imposing their views through the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights without respect for Asian culture or values. Values like prioritizing family over materialistic goals for the

Human rights have been a perpetual concern for the contemporary global society in terms of its meaning, and interpretation. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) define human rights as “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” . Governments have different forms to protect these human rights; United States of America, United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand following many other countries obtain a form of Bill of Rights or charter of rights. Australia does not have said document. However, there are other forms of laws which protect human rights in Australia.

A recent released Human Right Watch annual report targeted Australia’s human rights issue. The government owned media SBS repeated and cited this reported with the top-line of “Australia has ‘serious unresolved’

“ a secondary place among policy priorities” (Barratt, 2008, 121). It was only under Axworthy that the Canadian “gave an added boost to the status of human rights” (Barratt, 2008, 122). The use of aid to promote human rights is aligned with Canada’s mission to promote “human security goals” (Barratt, 2008, 130). In most cases, “certainly human rights have played a role in punitive aid measures against specific aid recipients” (Barratt, 2008, 132). As in all areas of foreign aid, Canada has made “attempts to steer a middle course between many competing policy imperatives” (Barratt, 2008, 160).

The United Nations’ (UN’s) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) has been moderately successful in promoting equality around the world. Its commitment to ensuring the rights of humans are upheld is admirable, and the easy-access document concisely summarised into thirty articles is immensely helpful. However, its implementation into particular situations is not always effective. In some situations, the declaration has been astonishingly unsuccessful in promoting equality, such as its failure to create equality and justice between the white and Indigenous populations of Australia in the late 1940s to the 1970s. However, in other situations—particularly in more recent years—the declaration has been quite effective in bringing about changes

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an international document that states basic rights and fundamental freedoms to which all human beings are entitled. Australia was a founding member of the UN and played a prominent role in the negotiation of the UN Charter in 1945 thanks mainly to one man called Dr HV Evatt because of him all countries including our own are able to enjoy freedom, justice and peace in this world’. It declares that human rights are universal – to be enjoyed by all people, no matter who they are or where they live.

The United Nations is widely regarded and respected as the most powerful institution that promotes international cooperation and human rights action. In theory, actions implemented by and within the United Nations are based on the mutual global goal of protecting international human rights and preventing human sufferings. These actions are constituted through three main mechanisms: the Treaty-based system, the Human Rights Council, and Security Council and Humanitarian Interventions, with the level of confrontation and seriousness in each mechanism increases respectively. While aimed to serve the mutual goal of protecting human rights over the world and have shown some successes, in a world of sovereignty, actions when implemented are in fact grounded by the national interests of each state, including embracing its national sovereignty, concreting its strategic relationships with other states, and enhancing its reputation in the international community. This paper will analyze the successes and failures of each of the three mechanisms of the United Nations regime, through which it aims to prove that when it comes to actions, states focus more on their national, and in some cases, regional interests than on the mutual goal of strengthening human rights throughout the world, thus diminishing the legitimacy of the whole United Nations system.