CPA 11 Ch. 31
The three documents that compose the legal apparatus of international human rights are International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (ICESCR), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). These documents define all human rights as equally important, and every government is supposed to treat human rights in a fair and equal manner, on the same grounds and with similar emphasis. Every government is tasked to promote and uphold all human rights for every person regardless of their political, economic, and cultural structures (Goyri, 2018).
According to Goyri (2018), the interrelationship between human rights and other related fields like developments and good governance has been addressed through commitments to protect the vulnerable, alleviation of poverty, and change of corrupt structures and processes. World leaders have worked hard to ensure the progression of democracy and strengthen the rule of law. Every state is supposed to respect all internationally recognized human rights and other fundamental freedoms, such as the right to development.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was developed by members drawn from the human rights commission. Committees included civil, political, economic, cultural, spiritual, and social experts. The first assumption was that human rights were indivisible. The experts also assumed that human rights were interdependent thus intricately linked. Lastly, the assumption that all human rights are universal, meaning they apply to every person.
Member states are held accountable for human rights violations based on mechanisms developed by the United Nations. The first mechanism is that there is no distinction of any kind either based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, religion, or language. The second mechanism no human right is bigger than the other and therefore all member countries are supposed to treat them equally important. Deprivation of one right hurts all other rights. Thirdly, every human being is to be accorded the same rights. Human rights are similar for every man, woman, and child around the world, regardless of their situation (Goyri, 2018).
Goyri (2018), asserts that the current international legal regime has not been overly effective in protecting human rights since they are still based on power. The birth of internal human rights law was under the United Nations, enacted by the winners of World War Two, therefore from its inception, the UN has, and still favors the interests of the powerful states. An example is the current powers bestowed on the P-5 in the Security Council. Secondly, the increase in global participation has resulted in liberal and communitarian reasons for the obedience of international law. A good instance is a European council and the peer pressure mounted by long-standing members on newer members, such as the Ukraine and Turkey.
I can define human rights as the fundamental rights and freedoms that are bestowed on all human beings across the world, from birth till death. These fundamental rights are founded on shared values such as equality, fairness, interdependence, dignity, and respect. They allow people to live together in freedom, peace, and justice. Every person is entitled to these rights just by being a human being.
The feminist approach would critique the dominant narrative about human rights that developed in the post-Second World War era based on equality. The feminists see the political and cultural inequalities imposed on women as inextricably related. The feminist approach would encourage people to understand aspects of their personal lives as highly politicized and as a reflection of the highest power structures. A good example is when feminists campaigned for their legal rights, integrity, and other forms of gender-based discrimination against women in Western society.
The court maintained that the ban did not contravene the right to religious freedom as protected by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court made this ruling because banning the face veil in public would contravene the standards of human rights and would be a new thing to European values, based on the majority of norms spelled by international law and practice (Goyri, 2018). I agree with the court’s ruling on this rationale because it was necessary to protect the women’s interests. The ban was also necessary for general human dignity.
I do not believe that homophobia is a western import to Uganda, transmitted into the African countries by western through colonialism. I do not agree because I believe the high rate of homophobia expressions in Uganda is a reaction to the personified and clear homosexual identity. Manifestations of homophobic behavior in Uganda is also a tool of sexism, as men try to reclaim and solidify their position in society.
I am optimistic that human rights can be advocated without experiencing the negative side of human rights. This can be achieved the creation of advocacy systems regulated by states based on human rights norm, can lead to the more effective protection of human rights. Domestic legal systems can comply with human rights provisions to ensure advocacy for human rights and access to justice and equality before the law.
References
Goyri, F. H. (2018). The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to International Relations, John Baylis, Steve Smith y Patricia Owens (eds.), Nueva York, Oxford University Press, 2017, 648 pp. Foreign affairs: Latinoamérica, 18(3), 155-156.