Human Rights are a Source of Conflict in the World Essay

The first assumption argues that “western” feminist discourses emphasize that all women are bound together by a shared oppression and are powerless (53-54). Mohanty systemically explores this theory through an in depth analysis of five categories in which women of the third world are traditionally presented as homogenous victims by “western” feminist. The first two categories, women as victims of male violence and women as universal dependents, arguably offer the most straightforward deconstruction of the gendered body of knowledge that is power. Women, especially women of the third world, are all seen as victims of male violence and control (54). All women are defined as powerless, and all men are defined as powerful (55). Similarly, all women are defined as powerless dependents in the second category. Mohanty argues, “this is because descriptive gender differences are transformed into the divisions between men and women” (55). This division possesses a privileged position as the explanation for the oppression of women (56). Therefore, women are seen as a powerless group no matter what the historical or cultural situation because they are deemed so prior to any analysis (56).

Nevertheless, the government is the sole authority that can guarantee the protection of human rights and freedoms. It is responsible for putting in place the necessary laws and policies to protect and safeguard the rightful enjoyment of human rights among its citizens. In this case, the government, therefore, act as the custodians of human rights, and they are responsible for any acts that are committed against the enjoyment of a person’s freedom. Thus, the state is the guarantor and protector of human rights. However, at times the government itself may carry itself in an irresponsible manner by being the violators of human rights in occurrences such as genocides.

Gender discrimination and violence against women were not part of the Human Rights Agenda until the 1990s when feminists began to push for this change (p84/book). One of the slogans of their campaign was that “Women’s Rights

“Without doubt, the last century has witnessed an unprecedented expansion of women’s rights, in one of the most profound social revolutions the world has ever seen. One hundred years ago, only two countries allowed women to vote. Today, that right is virtually universal. Millions of men and women around the world today advocate to end violence against women, and a record two-thirds of countries have passed laws against it.” – Michelle Bachelet, UN Women Executive Director

Gender is an often a contentious term, feminist scholars have introduced this vital term to the language of international relations. Since its inception, gender is most prominent in distinguishing the differences between male and female, however it has articulated different interpretations by both parties in different realms of thought. The duration of this paper will help to explore the different definitions of gender and its associations with the practices of war. This paper will look into how power is used as a gendering tool to exert ones dominance over the other, with a close look at how rape is used as a tactical tool for warfare. As society portrays women as vulnerable, helpless victims, this paper seeks to look into how power can influence women as the perpetrator but also an option for resolution in conflict.

Human rights are protected under Australian law in three key ways; statute law, the constitution and common law. It could be argued that if Australia adopted a bill of rights, human rights would be more clearly defined, consistent in all states and territories and more easily understood.

This article is relevant in the context of increasing global concern over human rights. More recent debates in international relations discuss the importance of the individual over that of states and sovereignty, especially in a society in which national and global boundaries are being transcended and constantly undermined. Multiple levels

A feminist political economy approach helps to explain sexual violence as a weapon of war by providing us with the concept of human security. Human security is generally welcomed by feminist because it focuses on a range of activist concerns similar to their own

In the first reading, “Women’s Studies and Transnational Feminism,” the author discusses how beneficial it would be to have a global perspective from women all around the world and their personal stories. It would bring greater change if women’s stories weren’t only heard mainly from the U.S, but rather told by international women about their experience with oppression and way of living. According to the author the viewpoint of all the women globally is described as “transnational”, a way of challenging current basic understandings of supposed everyday women (specifically western women) and fighting to reconstruct this system to become an advantage to other women around the world. Rather than focusing on “global feminism” which doesn’t

The fact remains that this is a product of misogyny in their cultures we still see in contemporary society. Due to this, women are viewed as the paragons and upholders of their societies’ virtues, as biological reproducers of national and ethnic groups, agents for transmitting national culture and ideology, cultural symbols of purity and national housekeepers. This is in stark contrast to men who are illustrated as protectors of their nation’s honour and as warriors; in retrospect, war is waged to humiliate and, in some cases, destroy the foundation of the opposing nation’s society. Men, the primary defenders of their nation in hindsight are expendable, while they may die, their culture and society will live on through their women who will go on to transmit their genes and culture through the children they bear. Because women represent the three pillars of the home and not one; it is more efficient to target women, not only to demoralise the opposing enemy troops, but to consequently change the genetic make-up and otherwise culture of the society the women live in. This act of humiliation not only scars the women and emasculates the men, but their society as a whole. Hence, targeting women through rape, although grotesquely immoral highlights the effectiveness of rape as a method in which to carry out wars closely affiliated with

A great speech has the power to define the times, to inspire, and to motivate. Certain speeches from great people have made huge impacts, but “The Struggle for Human Rights” from Eleanor Roosevelt persuades the entire globe on humans’ rights, freedom, respect and peace. I read her text and saw a video on YouTube giving her speech even though it was long it gathered a lot my attention. It took me time to understand her speech after reading it three times. It’s good that someone like Eleanor Roosevelt existed and wanted to provide some peace to the world. I’m glad she touched many hearts in that time. War may still exist and can be caused but we should all take a glance to this speech and acknowledge what Eleanor was trying to do. She fought for social and civil rights, helped found the United Nations, and effectively ran the United Stated when her husband was ill. As shown above, all those awful situations led Eleanor Roosevelt to do such a speech as “The Struggle for Human Rights”.

As argued by McKay and Mazurana, (2007), in Bunch, (1987), the concept of feminism is seeking to challenge the very dynamics of such domination at all levels of society, and perhaps demand a world order that is premised more on cooperation than on conquest. For example, feminist peace theorist, Birgit Brock-Utne, (1989) argues that, authenticity of society requires positive peace, a society in which there is no indirect or structural violence such as gender inequality. While this is the most desired society, women have remained victims of negative peace, which is latent and occurs in the absence

The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background

The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights stands as the current gold standard for every individual’s rights. Focusing on culture, one may see that cultural rights are not clearly defined and are oftentimes in conflict with other types of rights. In this paper, I will first discuss the United Nations’ use of ‘cultural’ in its universal human rights in relation to the concept of cultural relativism. Then, using South African and American practices, such as virginity testing and discriminatory criminal justice system respectively, I will describe and analyze practices violate the UN’s universal human rights in addition to the practices’ use for the community or society as a whole. Lastly, I will compare the American Anthropological Association’s rights to culture to the UN’s universal human rights by analyzing the limitations of each.

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.