In this paper I will focus on the subject of human rights. The recognition of human rights is widely seen as abstract, yet human rights affect daily lives worldwide. We can understand human rights and its initial role on politics through the example of higher rule denying citizens everyday rights, worldwide. In particular, I will compare and contrast the theoretical perspectives of liberalism and realism, and assess that human rights can best be examined through liberalism due to its ability to bring light to international cooperation and optimism to everyday human nature. Liberalism essentially points to international law and international institutions as an important feature of the international landscape while realism exclusively is state-centric, therefore, does not pay attention to the individual needs of humans nor groups of humans. Also, I will identify why realism privileges the ethics of self interest over other forms of morality, thus, leaving little room for discussion on human rights and why it diminishes our understanding of human rights in the political world.
This essay will proceed as follows: I will briefly discuss the core tenets to the approaches of liberalism and realism. Second, I will define the topic of human rights and what those rights are. Third, I will outline my argument for why liberalism is superior to realism at best explaining human rights in the following way.
To begin with, liberalism involves the keywords: optimism, self-determination and
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Both the Declaration of the Rights of Man and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights explore the idea of how government enables and preserves its citizen’s rights to pursue the good life. No longer can individuals live outside the borders of a country, in which they would be considered truly free, therefore, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that they are granted full rights and can live as if they were free. Put aptly in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, “The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man”. Without the rights warranted in these two documents the good life would be unattainable.
Based on Western philosophical traditions, human rights are understood to be universal and objective (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948), an understanding that poses unique challenges when imagining human rights in the 21st Century. Over the last fifty years, critique of human rights discourse has evolved into discrete areas, which include feminism and cultural relativism. Feminists and cultural relativists often take opposing positions, with cultural relativist views seen as dominant over feminist discourse (Byrnes 1992). Not surprisingly, this creates tension between the two and limited their ability to collaborate and create more inclusive human rights discourses.
In a world in which people have fundamental disagreements regarding the substance and purpose of human existence and what constitute ‘the good life’, it is a question how should human rights be installed within a nation’s legal system. This essay argues that because we cannot ascertain without doubt what human’s nature is, and in order to prevent atrocities as those in the Second World War: all humans should enjoy, as members of the human species, fundamental rights to secure their existence. Hence, within a nation’s legal system, those are known to be civil rights. Further, political rights should be ensured firstly to the citizens of that nation, but, due to the rapid globalization and the growing fluidity of boarders (for example in Europe)
It was argued that these tensions originate from the conflicting values upon which human rights and democracy were distinctly founded, the ways in which they are applied and the kinds of politics that they make room for. The careful juggling between the preservation of democratic institutions and the protection of human rights will thus remain shaky, even in the best of times. These tensions have risen out of the rift between liberal democracy’s conceptualization of the universal Man and the national citizen, or rather, “the real beneficiary of rights” (Douzinas 2013, 56). Since rights form the basis upon which people are allocated into rulers, ruled, and excluded, it is hard to imagine a utopia in which human rights exist for those who do not belong to a demos (Douzinas 2013,
Human rights are universal, inherent, inalienable and equal. These are entitlements held simply by virtue of being born as a human being, they are natural in the sense that their source is natural law and human nature (Donnelly 1982). It has developed throughout history due to oppressed people across the world pushing for change. In global politics the role of individual states or governments are crucial in upholding human rights through laws and legislations. However, due to economic and political factors, such as a lack of money or tension between governing bodies, some states do not have the power or resources to uphold human rights. This is where the media, the people, NGOs, and individuals, such as celebrities who have a powerful standing & audience, help in upholding and protecting the rights of people.
That human rights should be available and potentially useful to everyone is an aspiration, not a moral truth. It is the promise of human rights that makes them so appealing, especially to those who have no other recourse.31 One reason I dislike accounts of human rights that are not inclusive—such as the argument from autonomy—is that the mere admissibility of some justified exclusions opens the door to the possibility of others. The exemptions also become ripe for abuse, as with arguments about the limited "rationality" of all of those historically excluded from natural rights arguments. Such accounts undermine the promise, and thus the appeal and the legitimacy, of human
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”.
The concept of human rights has become ambiguous, with very little agreement regarding its meaning and application internationally. The concept of human rights could be deemed as what Gallie termed as “an essentially contested concept.” This argues that when it comes to certain concepts there is just simply no one clearly definable general use that is widely agreed on. There are a variety of elements and words that can be used to describe the concepts of human
With Liberalism, humanitarian aide is a must—they believe in the importance of helping others, of the world being good and just, and a closeness found just by being a living thing on this earth. With Realism, aide is to be given only if something is received in return—they wish to dominate and be known, to survive in this world. This paper itself was written from a realist point of view, for it is the basis of the natural world…at least when it applies to genocide and the hate that surrounds this place. Much like Realism, Constructivism and Marxism can explain why (or if) they should provide humanitarian aid. In the case of Marxism, aide is to be given if it enhances their economic standing (this can be seen as parallel to realism as it too can increase their dominance), if it allows them to flourish and gain. Constructivism, however, can be split and torn between a side of Liberalism and Realism. Constructivism dictates that if there is a strong relationship between the two actors (i.e. Kantian culture) then aide must be given as everyone has a right to life and a general well-being. If the strong relationship is lacking (i.e. Lockean or Hobbesian culture) then aide will probably be withheld as well-being is generally ignored and, in the most extreme circumstances, no one is trusted (sovereignty isn’t respected). All of these theories can explain the decision to give or forgo aide, allowing many different opinions and views on the
a) Natural right- this refers to the right that an individual has from nature. Such a right is not given by anybody to the person. It is a right that comes naturally for the person. An example is a right to life. This is a right that everybody has naturally. Since this right comes naturally, for those who believe in God say that it is God given right, it should not be taken away from the owner. It should be left to go by itself. Taking away this right is violating the right of the person. For example in Pakistan, the natural right to life of a seven-month pregnant woman was violated by her parents when they cut off her throat thus killing her. The report says that a pregnant
Liberal democracy is prevalent in the West. This political arrangement guarantees the rights of a people in relation to their government. Many Westerners, unfortunately, cannot give a philosophical explanation and/or justification for it. Ultimately, an examination of liberal democracy will demonstrate that it rests on notions of human dignity, equality and happiness, which are not recent developments in philosophy, but have their origins in classical and scholastic thought. It is in said examination that one can reasonably conclude that liberal democracy while not the best system of government is certainly better than the alternatives.
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
Human rights are universal rights that we are entitled to. It is a freedom that is guaranteed based on the principle of respect for an individual. As mentioned in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights are a “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all member of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world” (Kent, page 80). When asked what our rights are, we tend to get different answers and meanings. Some people recite the rights that they know; but let’s face it, not everyone knows all of the rights that they truly have. The rights we have consist of many things such as the right of having an adequate food supply. The right to
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” These opening words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights express a concept of man which underpins the framework of human rights embodied in the Universal Declaration and the two international covenants of Human Rights. Western political traditions is a concept that it derives from, is in harmony with moral and social teachings to be found in many other traditions and patterns of belief.