Summary Of Michelle Tusan's Crimes Against Humanity

Inventing Human Rights by Lynn Hunt explores the notion that empathy is fundamental to cultivating the humanitarian feeling, as we discussed in class, it is necessary for human rights. By comparing the history of human rights with the literature of the Western Enlightenment period and the Industrial Revolution, Hunt aims to draw a connection with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Western Enlightenment period of late eighteenth century Europe changed conventional norms and experiences for many people, this brought about new understandings of individualism and compassion, which supported the progression of rights. Hunt theorizes that human rights are dependent on our ability to commiserate with strangers.

A crime against humanity is widespread or systematic attacks against a civilian population. Crimes against humanity is a problem that has repeated itself through history and is still occurring in the present world today. How countries, that are in a place of power, should or should not respond to these crimes is a controversial issue that numerous people differ on opinion. Some argue that nations should act according to their own national interest and do what is best for their country, including not doing anything at all. Other’s have a belief in which countries that are in a place to intervene should do so. This could be with a forceful militaristic approach. Any crime against humanity should not be tolerated in this view. Another opinion is that in crisis situations, a collective effort by an international community, such as the United Nations, should be the people who respond and resolve the conflict. This takes out individualizing countries, and creates an international effort. Over the course of history many diverse actions have been taken in response to a crime against humanity. Some examples as to why an international community or a country should intervene with full force and right away are through the Ukraine Famine, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Armenian Genocide.

Often, there is conflict amongst states that escalates, eventually, into war. With these wars, comes death and immense devastation; devastation that takes form in many ways. The worst of them are the human rights violations that occur, leaving behind a pain that is often rarely treated or addressed. Through the approach, transitional justice, victims of these horrible crimes against humanity have a system that allows them to seek some form of justice. Focus on the Bosnian genocide will allow for one to see how a specific case of transitional justice was played out and the cons, along with pros, of the actions every actor took that either prolonged or stiffened the progression of peace and justice in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and

In the spring and summer of 1994, Rwanda experienced a genocide that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. After seeing the tragedies that took place in Nazi Germany, one would expect the international community to respond quickly and effectively in the case of the Rwandan genocide. However, the killings were largely pushed aside or ignored by the rest of the world, begging the question of when states have the right or duty to betray another state’s sovereignty. There are different methods of intervening to protect human rights, but they are much debated and there have been many times that intervention has made a situation worse. However, there is a moral obligation that we all have to protect others when we can, whether they are part of our nation or not. If human rights are being abused in a state, other states have the duty to take multilateral actions to stop killings and provide aid.

British foreign policy had always stemmed from selfish and exploitive desires. In fact the ‘balance of power’ she had so fervently preached was “a corner-stone of English policy… because for England it represented the only plan of preserving her own independence, political and economic," according to Sir Esme Howard. And for Britain, the only way to preserve its interests in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth century, had been through Splendid Isolation. However, when this proved ineffective at the turn of the century, it quickly switched to an interventionist approach, again due to its desire to preserve its own interests. This switch in policy had only accounted for Britain’s national interests, and not the greater good of the European

History is told in many different ways, and the truth that lies in the stories told, can sometimes be blurred by different perspectives. Comparing four cases of genocide which formed in the United States, Australia, British India and German Southwest Africa, allows for a better comprehension of genocide as defined by the UN Convention. The four cases raise question as to why we can consider the cases to be genocide, and what similarities and differences each case has. Considering the UN definition , I acknowledge all but the British Indian case to be genocide. There are multiple similarities between the mass killings and destruction of cultures in the US, Australia, and German Southwest Africa, which align with the classification of genocide, but in the case of British India, it doesn’t align. Using The Historiography of Genocide by Dan Stone, Victoria’s Ghost by Mike Davis, To Kill A People by John Cox and Genocide by Adam Jones, I will articulate arguments about the genocides found in each case.

The age old question of humanitarian intervention in the world of international politics and foreign affairs is a question with no clear answer. In some cases, intervention is seen as a sign of weakness or is taken offensively by the country in which other parties are intervening in. On the other hand, intervention by foreign parties in some cases is greatly appreciated. These two cases, on opposite ends of the spectrum, are more often than not pretty clear answers. The case of the Rwandan Genocide lies in the midpoint of this spectrum is what we will be investigating further to examine whether or not outsiders have the right to intervene, and if so, who has the right to intervene. We will examine several cases throughout recent history in the contents of this paper of intervention in hopes of finding determining factors which in turn lead to humanitarian intervention, support, or no intervention at all.

This week’s reading analyzed three view points in regards to the British’s decision making towards Nazi Germany. I found the opinions of Andrew Barros and Talbot C. Imalay to be the most interesting. They believed the British’s use of appeasement was due to their actual perception of Nazi Germany. This perception would gradually change over time. British decision making evolves from the British assumptions and beliefs about Nazi Germany. Throughout Barros and Talbot’s argument, the reason for appeasement and the British’s development of a new opinion of Nazi Germany are very logical.

Bloxham, Donald. n.d. The great game of genocide : imperialism, nationalism, and the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians. n.p.: n.d. Alexander Street Press, EBSCOhost (accessed March 25, 2017).

A considerably more substantial debate revolves around the fact that the TRC falls foul of international law, precisely on the basis that, far from meeting the needs of victims, it in fact sacrifices their interests in the name of political expediency by providing for a free pardon for perpetrators of criminal offense against humanity. Indeed, although motivated in the name of victims, this approach implicitly rests more firmly on an interpretation of international law which suggests that certain crimes crimes - such as crimes against humanity and acts of genocide - rise to the level of principles that cannot be set aside, and are therefore unrepealable. In other words, it is not right to suggest that amnesty could be granted in respect of

As Adam Smith says in his book After Genocide, “justice, even based on ‘universal’ human rights, is a concept that may

As human rights have become more relevant in more recent developed civilizations, there has been examinations on where it originated from and how it is categorized. In Michael Barnett’s Empire of Humanity, he takes the time to discuss the origins of human rights from the early 19th century. From this he creates three categories for humanitarian action noted as Imperial, Neo-Humanitarian, and Liberal. He then defines Humanitarian action more specifically between emergency camps or alchemist camps. This paper will discuss the Save the Children Fund (SCF), which was founded by Eglantyne Jebb, on how they were created and what actions they took to become a successful charity that started a new

War, war never changes. Once upon a time, there used to be a time, nearly half of the world were drawn in a huge warfare, and this is WWII. Treaty of Versailles not only let Germany paid for the whole WWI, but also taken away parts of Germany content. The winners drop all of the responsibility on Germany, however, although the winner could write the history, the truth will never be forgotten, Four years later, the Europeans and Americans were surprised on the huge change on German, they never going to know, who brought Germany from the pieces and trashes, and how they will suffer under this genes evil: Adolf Hitler. In this paper, I will explain why Britain will forced to involved in WWII.

This paper will explore the validity of the notion that proper engagement with the history of international law makes necessary the undertaking of interdisciplinary investigations. First, it will outline what a proper engagement with history entails. In doing so, it will explore the arguments of leading scholars in the field such Martti Koskenniemi, Hillary Charlesworth, Antony Anghie, and Phillip Allott. In particular, it will explore themes relating to the importance of uncensored histories, overcoming colonial biases, a holistic understanding of the issues, infusing creativity in the self-definition of international law as profession and engendering human empathy into discourse about the history of international law. Second, it will define

Using Lawler’s definition of the ‘good state’, one which is ‘committed to moral purposes beyond itself’ (Lawler 2005, 441), this article sets out an alternative view of British diplomacy. I start here with the case of New Labour, a Government frequently associated with displaying solidarism on the world stage (Wickham-Jones 2000), and once a shining beacon for internationalists across the