The Responsibility Of Protecting ´

A duty of care is the requirement that all health and social care professionals, and organisations providing health and care services, must put the interests of the people who use their services first. They also have to do everything in their power to keep people safe from harm. People have a right to expect that when a professional is providing support, they will be kept safe and not be neglected or exposed to any unnecessary risks. The expression is that we ‘owe’ a duty of care to the people we work with. ‘Owe’ is a useful word to describe the nature of the duty of care because it is just like a debt. It is something that you must pay as a part of choosing to become a

You should discuss your concerns with your manager, a named or designated professional or a designated member of staff. Such as; school staff (both teaching and non-teaching), concerns should be reported via the schools’ or colleges’ designated safeguarding lead. The safeguarding lead will usually decide whether to make a referral to children’s social care; for early years practitioners, the Early Years Foundation Stage sets out that providers should ensure that they have a practitioner who is designated to take a lead responsibility for safeguarding children who should liaise with local statutory children’s services agencies. Child minder’s should take that responsibility themselves and should notify children’s social care (and, in emergencies, the police) if they have concerns about the safety or welfare of a child; for health practitioners, all providers of NHS funded health services should identify a named doctor and a named nurse (and a named midwife if the organisation provides maternity services) for safeguarding. GP practices should

Describe the roles of different agencies involved in the safeguarding the welfare of children and young people.

Aviii Explain the roles of different agencies and professionals that are involved in safeguarding individuals

“Single or repeated act or lack of appropriate action occurring within any relationship where there is an expectation of trust which causes harm or distress including physical, emotional, verbal, financial, sexual, racial abuse, neglect and abuse through misapplication of drugs.”

NATO has impacted human rights around the world by enforcing existing laws, forging alliances between countries, and being a trailblazer in protecting human rights. During the Libyan Civil War of 2011, protestors that wanted democracy were brutally subdued and slaughtered by the special forces of the Libyan government (Haglund). Since they are the ones perpetrating the atrocities, it is natural that they would not want the international community to interfere. However, NATO successfully invoked the Responsibility to Protect, which is an idea adopted by the UN in 2005 that when a country is either unable or unwilling to protect its citizens from war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or in this case, crimes against humanity, then others can step

This paper considers two issues: firstly, human rights in the developing world and secondly Canada’s responsibility of humanitarian assistance. Both issues are of grave importance and are mutually exclusive - as nations lacking strong human rights standards are more likely to require the greatest humanitarian assistance. Additionally, the need for humanitarian assistance will increase as global crises become more frequent, due to climate change insecurity (Adger, Huq, Brown, Conway & Hulme, 2003). The example of climate change will be utilised throughout this paper to explore the disparaging links between climate justice and human rights. In defining humanitarian assistance this paper will take Jamieson’s (2004) definition that humanitarian assistance is a response to crises via support in the short term to overcome disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis. Whereas, development assistance considers the longer term issues in developing countries. By defining the two main types of assistance this paper will propose that greater investment into development aid may reduce the need for humanitarian aid as nations become more capable to support themselves. The body of this paper will consider key arguments concerning humanitarian assistance and human rights, including: Canadas humanitarian response in the developing world, the increasing need for global crisis response, human rights as a global responsibility and lastly the move from humanitarian to development assistance. In

Humanitarian interference positions a hard trial for an international society constructed on the doctrines of sovereignty, intervention, and the use of force. Directly after the holocaust, the society of states recognized the laws prohibiting genocide, forbidding the exploitation of civilians, and identifying plain human rights. These humanitarian values often clash with doctrines of sovereignty. Sovereign states are required to perform as protectors of their citizens’ security, but what happens if states act as villains towards their own people, treating power as a pass to kill? Should dictatorial states be recognized as valid members of international society and permitted the protection afforded by the intervention norm? Or else, most states loss their sovereign rights and be exposed to reasonable intervention if they aggressively abuse or fail to protect their citizens? Connected to this, what responsibilities do other states or organizations have to enforce human rights standards against governments that vastly violate them?

The world appears to be moving towards entropy. The random tragedies of war increase daily, and millions of people are murdered or displaced every year. Every day, news headlines scream out the latest casualties of war in countries halfway across the globe. These victims are nameless and faceless, and their deaths do not directly affect most Canadians, other than to incite a brief moment of sadness. However, as members of a global human community, the ubiquity of suffering and death across the globe should spark outrage, and something must be done. The responsibility to protect (R2P) is an international norm that was accepted by the United Nations in 2005 which defines the responsibility of a sovereign state to protect vulnerable populations,

The debate of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect have been discussed in international relations discourse more seriously within the last 60 years. The major historical developments which have led to an increase in the intensity of these debates have had beneficial and detrimental effects on Earth within the last 20 years. Several factors have contributed to this including; globalization, the rise in international accountability, an increase humanitarian consciousness to prevent major atrocities from occurring, the expansion of territorial to global responsibility of the western world, and the realization of the western world that regional sovereignty no longer accounts for national security. To develop an opinion

Safeguarding - is to protect all the children against abuse, maltreatment, neglect, unfair treatment and violence.

In the pursuit of positive peace for the global community, certain mechanisms are necessary in order to better protect human rights and resolve interstate conflicts. Prior to the events of World War II, a cogent set of laws defining those human rights, much less violations therein were never heard at an international scale. The International Criminal Court has the role as both appellate for justice and voice for peace in the international community but has not yet resolve the contradictory ends of both roles. That contradictory end is that many countries proclaim the necessity of the International Criminal Court as an advocate for conflict resolution and peace advocacy while being resist or outright antagonistic towards the court when their own state has committed those same crimes. To the ends of defending basic universal rights, the International Criminal Court (hereafter ICC) serves that capacity when state level systems cannot or will not act accordingly.

The key objections to humanitarian intervention include the conflict of interests with the self-interested state and sovereignty, the difficulty of internal legitimacy, the problematical Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, and the debate over legality of intervention. The issue of morality stands as an overarching issue which touches on all of these. Overall, one finds that despite a moral imperative to intervene, humanitarian intervention should not occur but is perhaps the lesser of a series of evils.

Much recent discourse surrounding humanitarian intervention has focused on the responsibility to protect (R2P). Prevention is a key component for good international relations and few would say it is not important, but as evidence to date would show prevention is very ineffective, the legality of military intervention still needs to be debated, as to date there is no consensus. For any intervention to be legitimate, whether unilateral or multilateral, it must comply with international law. So as not to cause any confusion, any situation in which an “intervention” is done with the permission or by request of the state being intervened, should be considered humanitarian assistance as state sovereignty is not breached. This paper will

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.