Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Combating Female Genital Mutilation: An agenda for the Decade research paper
female genital mutilation research
female genital mutilation research
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The human rights system has been created by both top-down and bottom-up dynamics, by the relationship between the global and the local. Discuss. The global human rights system has undoubtably been produced and sustained by both top-down and bottom-up dynamics which operate on global and local scales. It is because of these polar hierarchic systems that human rights violations against individuals and groups at a local level can be recognised and understood globally and acted on consequently using the appropriate channels. Despite being beneficial in this way, both top-down and bottom-up approaches are also fundamentally flawed in some of the ways they spread information and enforce strategies for the protection of victims from human rights violations and seek retribution of perpetrators. This is an inauspicious but inevitable consequence of any scheme that attempts to universalise human experience and suffering as it occurs within infinite and dissimilar contexts and has a limitless range of meanings and outcomes(Messer, 1993, pp.228). The global human rights system has the quandary of deciding upon the human rights that ought to be universal, equal and not subject to cultural relativism across the exceptionally diverse cultural spectrum that exists in the world today(Gutman, 2001, pp.7). It is no wonder that it is regarded worldwide as a highly debated and controversial topic. The United Nations ban on female genital mutilation is a superb and extremely well known example of a practise that has been banned globally despite being an ancient religious and cultural tradition in thousands of societies around the world on account of it being a gross violation of human rights(UN Women, 2012). This ban being passed as international law ... ... middle of paper ... ...hey are respected. Indeed, it seems explicitly clear that both processes must be embraced as the answer to the international predicament of human rights. Bibliography Gutman. Amy (2001). 'Introduction' to Michael Ignatieff Human Rights: As Politics and Idolatory, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, pp. Vii-xxviii. Hastrup, Kirsten (2003) 'Violence, suffering and human rights: anthropological reflections,' Anthropological Theory 3(3): 309-323 Ife, J (2009) Human Rights from Below: Achieving rights through community development, Frances Wade, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne. Messer, Ellen (1993) 'Anthropology and Human Rights.' Annual Review of Anthropology 22: 221-49. United Nations Ban Female Genital Mutilation, 20/12/12, Viewed 19th April, 2013, UN Women
In “Four Human Rights Myths” Susan Marks discusses several conceptions (or misconceptions according to her) about human rights. She begins her paper with a case study of the 2011 London riots and how distinctively different is their coverage by the British prime minister and two scholars.
Jacobs, William Jay. Great Lives, Human Rights. New York New York: Simon and Schuster. 1990. Print.
In recent years, human rights scholarship has received much attention by various scholars, including by historians. More than other specialists, they have been particularly concerned with trying to comprehend the origins of modern human rights discourses. Some like Laurent Dubois in his Avengers of the New World: The Story of the Haitian Revolution have even suggested that:
Since the Renaissance of the 15th century, societal views have evolved drastically. One of the largest changes has been the realization of individualism, along with the recognition of inalienable human rights.(UDHR, A.1) This means that all humans are equal, free, and capable of thought; as such, the rights of one individual cannot infringe on another’s at risk of de-humanizing the infringed upon. The fact that humans have a set of natural rights is not contested in society today; the idea of human rights is a societal construction based on normative ethical codes. Human rights are defined from the hegemonic standpoint, using normative ethical values and their application to the interactions of individuals with each other and state bodies. Human rights laws are legislature put in place by the governing body to regulate these interactions.
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) has often been viewed as a rite of passage for women in various countries within Africa, South America, the Middle East and Asia. However, due to societal norms and pressures, whether it based in culture or religion, forces women to partake in a practice that has serious health risks and takes away the rights of women who believe they have no other choice. The Universal Declaration of Human rights are applicable to all member states including most of the countries that still practice FGM. However, despite claiming that the human rights set forth would be observed as obligated in terms of their memberships, FGM violates numerous rights and freedoms that claim to be recognized but, are not known to the people. These rights are neglected, and frequently go unacknowledged within communities because of denied access to media or information. Nonetheless whether it is intentional or a direct result of the poverty levels within these countries these are rights that the people deserve to know they have. If women were exposed to various forms of media and knew of their rights, FGM would not be so highly practiced. Female Genital Mutilation is a flagrant violation of one’s human rights.
One of the main reasons why human rights have been put in place is to protect the public life and public space of every individual being. One fundamental characteristic of human rights is that they are equal rights; they are aimed at providing protection to every person in an equal way. These rights have been entrenched through laws that are passed by states and international conventions. Human rights laws have evolved over time, and have been shaped by several factors, including philosophical theories in the past. This paper looks at the theories of two philosophers, Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills, and how their teachings can be used to explain the sources of human rights. Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills.
In the last hundreds years, human beings have been suffered of many kind of arbitrary persecution and punishment. For example, slavery and servitude, in the past it was legal to buy man or women and after period of time you can sell them, so they were treat human beings as same as the goods. There was not law to protect human beings in many regional around the world. So that made some countries to think about the human rights and create a law to control these rights and to live all human beings in peace without any type of arbitrary persecution. For instance, Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the European Convention on human rights in Roma 1950 and other kinds of conventions on human rights. These declaration and conventions were based on the faith of some states for the importance of human rights. There were different between conventions in the definition of human rights, but all of them cover the fundamentals of human rights. A good illustration of the definition of human rights is that it is rights which are held by all human beings. Whatever their ethnicity, national, language, age, sex, religion, beliefs and any other status. Human beings are all equally to have these rights without discrimination . This essay will be consider the definition of three regional for protection human rights which are the Inter-American convention of Human Rights, the European convention on Human rights and the African Charter of Human Rights, and then explain some difference between them in law and how it organize the right of life.
There is such a thing as universality of human rights that is different from cultural relativism, humanity comes before culture and traditions. People are humans first and belong to cultures second (Collaway, Harrelson-Stephens, 2007 p.109), this universality needs to take priority over any cultural views, and any state sovereignty over its residing citizens.
States ratify human right treaties to enter into agreements and commit each other to respect, protect and fulfill human rights obligations. However, the adherence to human rights treaties is not ensured by the same principle of reciprocity instead to ensure compliance, collective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms were introduced.8 International organizations and treaty ...
Barria, L., & Roper, S. (2010). The Development of institutions of human rights: A comparative stud. Palgrave Macmillan: New York.
On December 10th in 1948, the general assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, although not legally binding, created “a common standard of achievement of all people and all nations…to promote respect for those rights and freedoms” (Goodhart, 379). However, many cultures assert that the human rights policies outlined in the declaration undermine cultural beliefs and practices. This assertion makes the search for universal human rights very difficult to achieve. I would like to focus on articles 3, 14 and 25 to address how these articles could be modified to incorporate cultural differences, without completely undermining the search for human rights practices.
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 information while supporting my hypothesis that human rights should be based on particular cultural values and finally drawing a conclusion.
While on one hand there is a growing consensus that human rights are universal on the other exist critics who fiercely oppose the idea. Of the many questions posed by critics revolve around the world’s pluri-cultural and multipolarity nature and whether anything in such a situation can be really universal.
The role that globalization plays in spreading and promoting human rights and democracy is a subject that is capable spurring great debate. Human rights are to be seen as the standards that gives any human walking the earth regardless of any differences equal privileges. The United Nations goes a step further and defines human rights as,
Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the discourse of international human rights and its importance has increasingly become indoctrinated in the international community. In the context of political and economic development, there have been debates on how and which rights should be ordered and protected throughout different cultures and communities. Though there is a general acceptance of international human rights around the globe, there is an approach that divides them into civil and political rights and social and economic rights, which puts emphasis where it need not be.