Use of International Law to Protect Human Rights

Two of thirty recognised human rights by the United Nations are “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Doc. 1)” or “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms”(Doc. 1). However, both are still problems that continue to happen more than fifty years after the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Human rights are continuously violated because when the United Nations created the document it did not legally bind any country to uphold the rights of their people, making the document little more than words on paper. Eleanor Roosevelt remarked during a meeting of the United Nations that “without concerned citizen action to uphold them, we shall look in vain for progress (Doc. 2). Eleanor Roosevelt was emphasizing that the government cannot force the people to utilize their human rights. It is a responsibility that the people must take upon themselves. For example, in the United States we have the right to freedom of speech, but we cannot be forced to speak out, but must do it of our own accord. If we do not use our right to freedom speech it becomes more easily forgotten or taken away. The human rights of people are often times violated simply because the people allow them to be or don’t recognise that they are entitled to them which is why it is important to know

“Ideas about human rights have evolved over many centuries. But they achieved strong international support following the Holocaust and World War II. To protect future generations from a repeat of these horrors, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 and invited states to sign and ratify it”

Have we forgotten about the International Covenant of Civil Rights and Political rights (ICCPR), the Convention under Torture and other

Implementation of international human rights law can happen on either a local, a territorial or a global level. States that endorse human rights arrangements confer themselves to regarding those rights and guaranteeing

Upholding human rights is essential for ensuring a fair and equitable society. In 1966, Australia and a majority of the world’s nations signed on to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). After the atrocities committed in World War II this seemed like a positive step for ensuring acknowledgement and respect for the rights and freedoms of all people. However, the means of enforcing human rights is not a straightforward process. In response to ratifying the ICCPR, Australia set up the Australian Human Rights Commission. However, after a number of failed attempts, it has not followed through with implementing a

In both history and present day, many human rights violations have occurred in countries residing within the UN. Despite the attempts that international influence created through the UN, many countries such as the Soviet Union conducted serious human rights violations through attempts to quell uprisings or anti-government movements. Even in the present day, countries such as North Korea and China have been committing drastic human rights violations, despite existing within the United Nations. Because of these facts, it can be concluded that international influence does not necessarily create better human

When comparing apples to pears, one is not making a fair comparison, but a disproportionate comparison. Often times when international law is discussed or attempts are made to understand international law; many often attempt to compare international law with existing laws such as national law or domestic law. Making such disproportionate comparisons leads to many misconceived notions and attitudes toward international law. For an adequate comparison of international law to other laws, one should look closely at the available facts. This essay will demonstrate the vitality of international law, in a world of nations which continue to increase in interdependence.

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

rights as seen in the examples mentioned previously. However it can be argued that all

There is a close relationship between human rights and criminal law. The scope of my paper will surround human rights and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in addition to human rights and international crimes. International criminal justice in this context speaks to those interested in prosecuting against the background of international human rights and humanitarian norms. The use of criminal law has many positive effects and pursues many goals that are worth considering. For example, deterrence, accountability and punishment are important principles that will be discussed in the context of human rights. Is the International Criminal Court an effective method to promote and protect human rights internationally? If so, why and how?

IGOs are voluntary associations of sovereign states established to pursue many objectives for which states want to cooperate through sort of formal structure and to which states are unable to realize by themselves (Miller, 1994). There are hundreds of IGOs in today's world which are significant in their respective fields. They are created by treaties and negotiations which mainly reflect preferences of stronger states. Especially stronger states create IGOs because they need them to protect their interests. By and large, decisions made by IGOs are the product of negotiations among the governmental representatives assigned to them. In general, it is not idealism, but the need of states which tend them to cooperate with other states in the context of IGOs. Therefore, they are part of the Westphalia state system in which IGOs are instruments of nation-states (Miller, 1994: 67). Regarding to the function and the purpose of IGOs, the influence of state as an actor in international relation still remains strong but in a different way, IGOs replace the original ideas of individual states but to identify states which have the same normative behavior and same ambitions to form a cooperate with each other so as to achieve the same goal. Even said so, powerful states are less constrained by the principle of IGOs than those who are relatively weak (Ataman, 2000: 152-167). This suggests that state is the key element in

The question that states that the international human rights regime does not have a hard enforcement mechanism and until there are serious consequences to violations, states won’t comply with human rights is a topic I happen to disagree with. I realize the international human rights regime has its weaknesses and flaws. However, these weaknesses are due to inescapable aspects of our disordered global society, especially the principle of state sovereignty. At the end of World War II there was a change in the internationals view towards human rights. In spite of the large human cost of their failings, these enforcement mechanisms are fit for a purpose and that the strongest enforcement mechanism is simply the fact that human rights are codified in international law. When discussing the topic of compliance and legal strength of human rights instruments and tools, we are talking about nation states. To support my claims we can look at the UN Charter- based enforcement mechanisms. There are two types of these instruments: declarations and conventions. Declarations are not legally binding but do have political impact. Conventions are legally binding under international law. Both declarations and conventions can become expected international law over time, which makes them universally legally binding. A further characteristic is made between mechanisms for human rights protection. They are known as global and regional. The legal instruments

Moreover, rational institutionalists believe states comply with institutional obligations because of the expected benefits from cooperation. Rational institutionalists differentiate between voluntary non-compliance and involuntary non-compliance as factors which affect a state’s decisions to comply. Voluntary non-compliance is where higher policy adjustment costs results in less compliance - and the role of domestic veto players - which makes it difficult for states to live up to their international commitments as it means more entities have to agree with the states decisions. Involuntary non-compliance refers to states with weaker administrative and financial capabilities being less likely to comply with international institutions. For instance, involuntary non-compliance is illustrated by the non-compliance of Italy and Greece in the EU, due to their inability to comply with their own domestic rules let alone the rules of an international organization. This theoretical explanation highlights the need to examine domestic state characteristics to understand the variations of compliance within an institution.

2). In so doing, I strive to address a larger issue in the IR literature, namely whether membership in IOs has a causal impact on state behavior, possibly inducing over-compliance, and what, if any, ramifications this might have on policy within member states (Cowles, Caporaso, & Risse, 2001; Featherstone & Radaelli, 2003).

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.