The United Nations Declaration Of Human Rights

Human rights seem to be one of the most undervalued rights that people are given. Although not tangible, or even visible, in the end they are one of the most significant aspects of life (Universal 1). They keep us civil. As the

Globalization, when considered in relation to human rights, can restore one’s belief that it really is worth it. Much has been agreed. Much has been achieved. Much, however, is still in the process of turning from words and ideas to real outcomes for real people.

laws in compliance with the cosmopolitan norms of human rights. In the example of counter-terrorism measures in the United States and United Kingdom, courts have repeatedly judged legislation intended to allow arbitrary detention unlawful. In any case, governments remain unwilling to respect well-established international human rights norms (Nash 2009, 99). As elected representatives, politicians are often unwilling to risk appearing soft on those who are perceived to threaten the state’s safety. This broad trend in contemporary politics shows that even in democratic societies there are contexts in which human rights are simply not popular (Nash 2009, 99). As one can note, it is thus impossible to separate the world into “good democratic states” that protect human rights and “bad authoritarian states” that are the biggest violators (Posner 2014, 121).

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” as Mark Twain is often reputed to have said explains with much rhetoric that in fact history is not repeated in a sense that the same events happen over and over again, instead events embrace similar themes. The same concept of Mr. Twain’s history comparison can be brought in support of why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) drafted in 1948 by the UN --an international agreement that dictates basic rights and undeniable freedoms in which all human beings are entitled to-- should be updated. After analyzing the Human Rights Treaty it was concluded that amending the UDHR should be considered because of advancements in the world, in main part due to globalization and

Everyone was born with human rights, such as property, freedom and liberty. Unfortunately, many people in different countries government denial people on human rights and people struggle to make a better life. Governments in Ukraine and Cambodia were significant examples of how governments abuse that power to control the people in order to get benefits from their citizen. The leader Stalin and Pol Pot both made a significant change in the history by creating horrible policies. The policies were against a specific of people by their identity. This lead into a mass killing genocide. No one should carry away the human rights from the specific group because of that identifies and everyone is equal.

Relativism and Universalism is the debate regarding the human rights source and applicability. Human rights are the rights that the human claims as being human, in accordance to the societal and cultural norms. While the former believes the rights are defined by the culture; the latter opines they are universal to humans. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Relativist argues that, is based on the western history and thus does not adhere to diverse culture globally prevalent and rather is pretentious towards culture. Therefore they doubt the relevance of the post conflict ad-hoc tribunal for Rawanda and the International Criminal Court which are based of notion of Universalism.

Recent years and the continued spread of globalization have illuminated a frequent connection between the process of economic development and the deterioration of human rights. With trade liberalization occupying a significant role in the strategy for creating a world economy and community, concern over the erosion of such fundamental rights as those relating to labor and environmental protections have dominated the globalization debate. However, as the discussion hereafter will demonstrate, these concerns while justified and well-founded often obscure the many strands of progress facilitated by the gradual spread of economic development to the developing spheres of the world. As the research here will demonstrate, there is a positive relationship between human rights and economic development.

Human rights are rights innate to every single individual, whatever our nationality, where you live, sex, national or ethnic birthplace, color of skin, religion, dialect/language, and many more. We are all similarly qualified for our human rights without segregation. These rights are altogether interrelated, associated and resolute. Widespread human rights are regularly communicated and ensured by law, in the types of treaties, standard global law, general standards and different wellsprings of international. International human rights law sets down commitments of Governments to act in certain routes or to cease from specific acts, keeping in mind the end goal to advance and secure human rights and central flexibilities of people or

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “everyone has a right to life, liberty and security of person.” The truth and accuracy of this statement illustrates how vital it is to the achievement and sustainability of individual health, regional peace, and economic prosperity. Gains in individual health help lower poverty and open thousands of new possibilities to entire families and whole communities. Regional peace helps bring stability within countries and longevity to families and communities toward the greater benefit of all who live in the area. Economic prosperity must begin locally. New businesses and other entrepreneurial endeavors lift a country along with all of its citizens; median household income is increased, as well as, over time, average literacy rates and overall education per citizen.

Human rights are moral principles that set out specific standards of human behavior, and are normally ensured as lawful rights in both national and global law. They are acknowledged to be inalienable, since anybody is characteristically qualified for it essentially on the grounds that they are individuals. Whatever our nationality, sex, shade, religion, dialect, or ethnic source is, we are all just as qualified for our rights without separation or discrimination. All human rights are resolute and interdependent, whether they are civil and political rights, or economic, social and cultural rights. The change of one right encourages headway of the others. Also, the hardship of one right unfavorably influences the others. While choosing which rights are human rights, it is conceivable to make either excessively little or excessively of worldwide records. At the point when a right is on the authority records of human rights, that settles its status as a human right.

There are group of “human rights” in the form of economic rights, labor rights, cultural rights, civil and political rights etc. The globalization is considered to have an impact on the following rights (Sykes, 2003) as:

All around the world, basic human rights, as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are being violated. As Thomas Pogge argues, these violations contribute to the rise of poverty in multiple nations. The global rate of death caused by poverty is astounding, “…360 million human beings have died prematurely from poverty related causes, with some 18 million more added each year”, and unfortunately these figures are substantially larger than the death count of many wars (Pogge, p.50). The concept of globalization should, in theory, propose solutions to this depressing yet preventable issue. However, due to the power of corporations and the lack of incentive for affluent citizens to change their own spending habits, it only leads to a vicious cycle masked by "solutions" that end up propagating human rights violations.

Human rights and universality, two terms often considered synonymous with each other within the international system. Such broad conceptualisations however fail to consider the imbued assumptions that these terms carry with them. Redefining the limits of the term universal human rights Donnelly considers the several senses through which the universal, in human rights is better understood as consensus universality, rather than implied universality (2007, 281). Fundamentally such political constructs are difficult to define and even more difficult to apply in the international context. Critically Donnelly underscores that when properly understood, the term human rights leaves considerable space for cross-cultural relativity and national diversity (2007, 281).

The author has made it clear that this is a debatable issue. The cultural relativist argued on the universality of human rights, which contradicts with the statement that human rights are those held simply by virtue of being human and whose substance, form and interpretation are not subject to variations in culture (Donnelly 1989: 109-110). Cultural relativist uphold that culture is the principle source of any rights or rules, they argued that the existence of

What are the differences between global human rights’ regimes and regional human rights’ regimes? Include one example of a regional human rights’ regime (write at least 1 page double spaced)(5 points)