Amnesty International is a well-known international human rights organization. They defend individuals whose rights have been violated by nations. According to their website, Amnesty International has a mission “of a world in which every person – regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity – enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and other internationally recognized human rights standards.” (Amnesty International, 2016a, Our Mission, para 1) According to the UDHR, every person is born free and equal, regardless of race, gender, political status, class, or economic status. (International, 2016b) Additionally, the UDHR states that all human beings have the inalienable right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, …show more content…
It is an organization that works to protect human rights on an international level, regardless of the race, gender, or social or economic status of the individual needing their protection. If humans as a species are to survive and prosper on a global level, we need to foster a world that protects and nourishes individual rights. Amnesty International is already working toward this goal.
One of the challenges that Amnesty International faces is the plethora of human rights violations that need addressing. They are one organization, albeit a powerful one, but they cannot solve all the world’s problems. They will need to prioritize which issues are essential and which cases they should take on. (“Many rights, some wrong,” 2007) Amnesty International cannot fight all of the battles of the world on its own. There are too many individuals needing assistance, and too many causes needing support. They will need to decide which battles to fight, and which can wait for another day or another
“.When you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters.” –Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Over the years, many groups of people have been denied basic human rights based on simple things such as gender or race. These acts go against the UDHR, or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UDHR is a document of the equal and inalienable rights/freedoms all people are born with.
How much more do we need to do before we start responding to these legacies? Works Cited United Human Rights Council. United Human Rights Council. N.p., n.d. Web. The Web.
There have been many humanitarians that strive to help countries suffering with human right abuses. People think that the help from IGOs and NGOs will be enough to stop human rights violations. However, it hasn’t been effective. Every day, more and more human rights violations happen. The problem is escalating. People, including children, are still being forced to work to death, innocent civilians are still suffering the consequences of war, and families are struggling to stay firm together. Despite the efforts from the people, IGOs, and NGOs, In the year 2100, human rights abuse will not end.
The issue of human rights has arisen only in the post-cold war whereby it was addressed by an international institution that is the United Nation. In the United Nation’s preamble stated that human rights are given to all humans and that there is equality for everyone. There will not be any sovereign states to diminish its people from taking these rights. The globalization of capitalism after the Cold War makes the issue of human rights seems admirable as there were sufferings in other parts of the world. This is because it is perceived that the western states are the champion of democracy which therefore provides a perfect body to carry out human rights activities. Such human sufferings occur in a sovereign state humanitarian intervention led by the international institution will be carried out to end the menace.
Treating peace verses justice as polar ends of a spectrum assumes positions in extremes of entirely forgiving and forgetting the past through blanket amnesty laws for the sake of reconciliation or pursuing retributive justice against every perpetrator of human rights violations at the risk of disestablishing delicate political transitions. This paper will argue that amnesties are proactive incentives toward peace, justice and truth, not simply exclusive toward one over another. Despite the potentially damaging consequences of amnesty laws for victims and the frequent condemnation of amnesties as a denial of victims’ rights, there are examples from countries such as Uganda of civil society groups lobbying i...
The Human Rights Watch is an independent organization that is working to defend and protect human right. Our mission statement is to “scrupulously investigate abuses, expose the facts widely, and pressure those with power to respect rights and secure justice. Human Rights Watch is an independent, international organization that works as part of a vibrant movement to uphold human dignity and advance the cause of human rights for all.” (“Human Rights Watch,” 2014).
What seems to most like the debate of the West versus the rest, the debate of whether to enforce universal human rights of individuals (set forth in documents such as the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)) or to promote difference and recognize group rights, is as alive as ever in recent years thanks to intellectuals like Seyla Benhabib, Martha Nussbaum, Chandra Mohanty, Susan Okin Moller and Charles Taylor. The primary question behind this debate of universal legal principles versus group rights is whether or not a concept of universal justice exists. Benhabib, Nussbaum, and Alcoff believe that it does, while Mohanty does not.The more convincing arguments are put forth by Benhabib, Nussbaum, and Alcoff, who believe in universal principles of justice and also problematize, yet favor universalism over
The current century has witnessed immense improvement and re-conceptualization of standards and sovereignty of human rights in Latin America. With the endemic repression and violations of human rights throughout Latin American in the mid to late 20th century, the International human rights regime, an amalgam of international and intergovernmental organizations and bodies, expanded exponentially. By conducting investigations within certain countries, or simply monitoring overt violations of human rights, the international human rights regime stimulated global awareness of violations of human rights in different countries; soon to follow was change in domestic policy in response to international policy. This also led to increased opposition by domestic NGOs against repressive governments or dictatorships largely responsible for human rights violations. Just as well, a number of organizations and groups aided domestic non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in their growing efforts to establish judicial practices that better protected human rights. Declarations, conventions, and charters, established a number of values that served as the credo for the organizations that constituted the international human rights regime. Over time, more and more countries were pressured and held accountable for these values, which developed into universal standards for human rights practices. Thus the International Human right regime and the pressure they imposed upon governments ultimately resulted in widespread positive changes in human rights.
government as demanded by the public, helping acknowledge and provide help in solving the cases. (Amnesty International, 2014).
“Human rights are not worthy of the name if they do not protect the people we don’t like as those we do”, said Trevor Phillips, a British writer, broadcaster and former politician. Since the day of human civilization and human rights are found. No one can argue against the idea that God created us equal, but this idea have been well understood and known after the appearance of many associations that fight for human rights as The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) that showed up in 1948. Human rights are those rights that every person, without exceptions, is born with. They are the most important human basic needs because no one can live a decent appropriate life without having those rights as a human. In fact, these rights
• Amnesty International: Australia- governments dismissal of UN criticism undermines hard earned credibility in human rights diplomacy.
Treaties are the highest source of international law besides jus cogens norms that have binding effect on the parties that ratify them.2 International human rights treaties rely on the “name and shame” mechanisms to pressure states to improve practices.3 However with “toothless” international human rights norms, moral coercion is not always effective. An empirical study conducted by Professor Oona Hathaway assessing the effect of human rights treaty ratification on human rights compliance, maintains in its findings that ratification of human rights treaties has little effect on state practices.4 States do not feel pressured to comply and change their practices, rather, signing treaties is “more likely to offset the pressure rather than augment it.”5 So, is it time to abandon human rights treaties and remit protection of human right to domestic institutions. Hathaway posits elsewhere that despite this treaties “remain an indispensable tool for the promotion of human rights.”6 Instead of getting rid of the treaty system, it is necessary to enhance the monitoring and enforcements mechanism to strengthen the human rights regime to ensure compliance.7 This article evaluates the extent to which international law serves as a useful tool for protection of human rights.
Proponents of human rights argue that the concept’s universality rests in its non-discriminatory character- human rights are meant for every human being- rich and poor, white and black, men and women, young and old, leaders and followers, elites and illiterate, etc- and are all treated equally.
…rights which are inherent to the human being ... human rights acknowledges that every single human being is entitled to enjoy his or her human rights without distinction as to race, [color], sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. [To add on, human] rights are legally guaranteed by human rights law, protecting individuals and groups against actions that interfere with fundamental freedoms and human dignity (Human rights for
The universal declaration of human rights declared that all people have equal rights, regardless of race, gender, religion, language, culture, birth status, national origin, or opinion. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary international law, general principles and other sources of international law. International human rights law lays down obligations of Governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups. (ohchr.org) The universality of human rights is a concept that allows everyone to have the same basic human rights no matter where the location. If that concept is true then why are people being tortured and ostracized. Why are people still afraid of going against their leaders, fearing that they will be found and killed. It is because some leaders