Question Three

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights is an international effort by countries to promote a dignified handling of human lives and marks the global human rights regime the declared premium quality essays . The document inspires action by individuals, governments, and non-governmental groups and every country in the world has ratified it and thus it is the international instrument with the greatest honor since its moral and political significance outweighs that of other documents. Created in the 1940s, the document acts as a guide to present actions as well as the ideas for future implementation at the respective national levels. The intentions of the creators of the globalized human rights were preventing war and violation of the right to life and this has equally succeeded and failed as despite the strengths in the global protection of human rights, there are weaknesses as well.

The aims of the creation of the globalized human rights regime were to prevent war and promote human rights. The inspiration behind the establishment of the UDHR in the 1940s was the tragic loss of lives in the World War II whereby about 70 million people died and thus there was the need to prevent an occurrence of the same in the future. As such, the declaration aimed at ensuring that future conflicts such as the one witnessed during the Cold War did not escalate into war. Also, the declaration sought to unite states across the world against the violation of human rights and thus encouraging a united action against parties that would violate the call for human rights. In consideration of the provided information, it is clear that the intentions of the establishment of the UDHR were to prevent the recurrence of world wars and to promote human rights especially relating to life matters.

The UDHR has largely succeeded in the promotion of human rights at the global scale. On a positive note the UDHR has successfully laid foundation for the modern culture of human rights as since the 1940s, people and states have taken human rights more seriously than they did. Also, the declaration has played a great role in the prevention of the recurrence of World Wars, as since the World War II, no other global war has ever occurred. However, the UDHR has also largely failed to promote absolute protection of human rights on the global scale. Despite the reduction of armed conflict between state actors, the modern day conflict is mainly between non-state actors for instance terrorist groups and these have greatly undermined the human rights on an international scale (Brown, 2016). Also the UDHR has also not entirely prevented armed conflicts between states and this has also been a cause for alarm. For instance the United States war against Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan among others greatly consumed human lives as well as violating other human rights. As noted, as much as the UDHR has promoted human rights across the world, it still has failed to protect people from such violations.

The global system for protection of global human rights has both strengths and weaknesses. On a positive note, the system has been able to mobilize countries to support the call for global human rights. For instance the even if the UDHR is a soft law that is not legally binding, the international community has formulated a number of covenants between countries and these are legally binding. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1976 has a total of 168 nations that ratified it. In addition, many provisions of the UDHR are now international customary law. On a sad note, the system lacks effective measures to promote human rights. For instance the system has failed to overcome the wave created by the notion of sovereignty of individual states. The protection for human rights across the world relies on treaties and declarations signed by the member states. However, countries have for many instances invoked the idea of national sovereignty in the bid to insulate themselves from external criticism for violation of human rights . Also the enforcement of global human rights has heavily relied on measures such as sanctions and denunciations and these may not be effective at all times. For instance the use of sanctions was not effective in stopping the human rights violations caused by the Rwandan genocide at the same time, the use of force was not considered appropriate due to the negative impacts associated with the same. As noted, the global system for protection of global human rights has both strengths and weaknesses.

In conclusion, the creators of the international human right regime in the 1940s intended to prevent the occurrence of a third world war and violation of the people’s right to life and this has equally succeeded and failed thus manifesting the strengths and weaknesses of the global system for the protection of human rights. The motivation for the establishment of UDHR was the tragic death of millions of people in the World War II. The efforts have registered both success and failure in equal measures since despite the absence of a Third World War, there has been wars involving non-state actors such as terrorist groups while large nations like the U.S. have also waged war against others like Iraq. The strength of the international system for protecting human rights lies in the presence of legally binding treaties that have mobilized many states. However the weaknesses lies in the ineffective measures to tame the vice and these include the use if sanctions. As noted, the intention of the efforts was to tame the violation of the people’s right to life but this has not been entirely successful hence marking the need for improvement.

Question One

The violation of human rights and the increased wars especially between non-state actors necessitates action to redress the damages that arise from the same. The measures may apply locally in the affected jurisdiction or at the international level through the international courts of criminal trials, tribunals or international committees. The various methods that may apply in addressing the issues include the trials, truth commissions and reparations. As such the panels that handle such issues have a variety of options to take and can either adopt one or more than one of them. The options however have their respective strengths and weaknesses and their interactions affect each other and thus using a combination of them can affect the effectiveness of each.

Trial as one of the options has both advantages and weaknesses thus necessitating a careful consideration. It involves the use of domestic courts, international or hybrid tribunals to prosecute and try the suspects of war crimes. One of the benefits of trial includes the promotion of the rule of law by re-enforcing the acceptable norms. Also trials help in deterring future incidents by making the would-be perpetrators learn that they will be answerable to their actions. In addition, trials facilitate holding culprits responsible for their actions thus making them feel the consequence of the pain that they caused on others. Also by holding the culprits accountable for their actions, the trials facilitate healing as the victims are aware that justice is taking its course. However, trials may perpetuate war or harm the post-war reconciliation as the antagonist sides might create more enmity between themselves by taking sides on the trial or sympathizing with the accused or the complainants. Also there is a great political influence in many trials and this erodes their ability to serve justice to the affected people. As descried, it is clear that trials have benefits and demerits and thus there is the need for proper consideration.

Also truth commissions as an alternative approach to massive violation of human rights has merits and demerits that affects their effectiveness. Among the advantages is the revelation of the narrative truth based on what happened, how and why and this promotes the identification of historical injustices and this delineates a broad perspective of the causes and the patterns of violence. The commissions also help establish deeper truth compared to the court trials. The commissions also have the ability to highlight suitable institutional reforms to prevent the re-occurrence of the crimes in the future. In addition, the commissions have the ability to further political and legal goals such as democracy and the rule of law. However, on a sad note, the commissions can be very remote from realities and this means that there may be an undesirable or unnecessary truth seeking in those committees as there may be more focus on the past that is no longer relevant to the society or even the reconciliation process. Also due to the short lifespan of committees, they might provide unworkable solutions. Considering the provided information, there are merits and demerits of the use of truth commissions and hence there is the need for consideration.

The use of reparations after conflicts is another option that has merits and demerits. The method involves the use of material and non-material rewards to an individual or a community. These include compensation, formal apologies, restitution, guarantees of non-repetition, and rehabilitation among others. Individuals, states or local governments may have the responsibility for reparation. The advantage of the option includes promoting reconciliation and reconstruction. However, there is also the possibility of creating tension between groups due to the cost and liability to reparation. As noted from the discussion, it is clear that reparation also has merits and demerits thus there is need for proper evaluation.

From the three options there is a dynamic interaction basing on the pair of choices. The use of trials can have a great influence on the reparation as it helps in the establishment of the parties that are liable to the offenses in question and thus identifying the party that should bear the cost of reparation. Also the truth committees also interacts as well as improving the efficiency of trails as they help in unearthing the greater truth and thus from there suspects can be picked for trial. In addition, the truth committees also promote the effectiveness of reparation by unearthing the truth about the victims and perpetrators of evils and thus defining those that qualify for reparation as well as those who are liable. In respect to the provided information, it is clear that the three alternatives have a dynamic interaction that helps them improve each other’s effectiveness.

In conclusion, criminal trials, truth commissions and reparation have their merits and demerits and their interaction helps to improve their respective effectiveness. Trial helps to promote reconciliation and justice but it can also promote animosity as well as suffer from political influence. Committees help unearth greater truth but can also focus on the unwanted past. Reparations help in compensation of victims but can also breed animosity due to the cost of compensation. Trials help in facilitating reparations while truth commissions also help to facilitate trials and reparations. As noted from the essay, it is clear that each option has its respective merits and demerits but the suitable way of promoting their effectiveness is combining the compatible options so as to create a better outcome.

Tags: Declaration Human Implementation Right

Bookmark: