Final Exam Study Guide: Ethics And Human Rights Fall 202

Final Exam Study Guidepos368 Ethics And Human Rightsfall 2017the Follo

The following questions constitute the bank of 16 questions from which I will draw 10 questions for the final exam. NB 6 of these questions will not appear as options on the exam. In the test you will be required to answer two of the questions. Therefore, to guarantee that questions you study will be on the exam, you should prepare at least 8 of these questions. Please assume that each question has an equal likelihood of appearing on the exam. What, for Locke, was the law of nature? What significance does it have for human rights? Is the idea of universal human rights based on natural law simply a product of English-speaking culture that should be resisted by other cultures around the world? Name the components of International Human Rights Law. Which are the most significant and why? What are the differences between first (blue), second (red), and third (green) generation rights? What is the difference between customary international law and treaty? Does one form a better basis for human rights protection than the other? How and why do the United States accept international human rights law? President Trump has, on several occasions, questioned the relevance of the Geneva Conventions to contemporary conflicts. Is he right to do so? According to Neier, who led the human rights movement in the Soviet Union and her satellites? What does that tell us about human rights movements? People in the United States are concerned with national, but not international, human rights abuses. Discuss. What were the differences in approach towards international human rights in the Carter and Reagan Administrations? What has been the source of AI’s moral authority? Is that moral authority being eroded? Account for the rise of Human Rights watch. What world events facilitated the increasing influence of the organization. Who was involved? How worldwide is the worldwide Human Rights movement described in chapter 10 of Neier? How could that be judged? How does Neier account for the rise of truth and reconciliation commissions? What are the features of the successful ones? What challenges were faced by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia? How were they overcome? What role has the US doctrine of prevention played in human rights following 9/11? Does the terrorist threat warrant such a ‘new paradigm’?

Paper For Above instruction

The complex interplay between philosophical foundations, international legal frameworks, and contemporary political actions shapes the landscape of human rights today. At the core of this discourse lies John Locke’s conception of the law of nature, which asserts that natural rights—life, liberty, and property—are inherent and inalienable, forming the moral basis for human rights. Locke’s emphasis on reason and moral law has significantly influenced modern human rights theories, establishing a universal foundation that transcends cultural and national boundaries (Tuckness, 2002). This natural law perspective underpins the idea that certain rights are universal, integral to human dignity and moral justice, and not granted by governments but inherent to all individuals (Donnelly, 2013).

The universality of human rights rooted in natural law has elicited debates about cultural relativity versus a global moral standard. Critics argue that the concept, originating largely from Western philosophical traditions, especially English-speaking cultures, may impose Western values on diverse societies, potentially undermining local traditions and sovereignties (Dembour & Riles, 2000). Conversely, proponents assert that human rights articulate fundamental protections necessary for all humans, regardless of cultural context, advocating for a form of moral universalism grounded in shared human dignity (Merry, 2006).

International Human Rights Law (IHRL) comprises two main components: treaties (binding agreements) and customary international law (general practices accepted as law). Treaties, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), are explicit legal commitments that states ratify. Customs develop from state practices over time and acquire binding status if practiced out of a sense of legal obligation (Crawford, 2010). While treaties provide clear legal obligations, customary law offers a broader, more universally accepted foundation, often complementing treaty law. The debate over which form provides a more solid basis for human rights protection hinges on issues of enforcement and universality; treaties tend to be more enforceable via international courts, whereas customary law relies on state compliance and international pressure.

The classification of human rights into three generations—first (civil and political rights), second (economic, social, and cultural rights), and third (collective rights and environmental rights)—reflects an evolving understanding of human dignity. First-generation rights emphasize individual freedoms, such as free speech and participation in politics; second-generation rights focus on tangible needs like healthcare and education; third-generation rights advocate for collective welfare, including environmental sustainability and indigenous rights (Eide, 1995). These rights interact dynamically within legal instruments, with debates about prioritization and implementation depending on socio-political contexts.

In legal terms, the difference between treaty law and customary law influences human rights protection directly. Treaties, being negotiated agreements, often specify enforcement mechanisms, while customary law depends on widespread state commitment. Some argue that treaties, once ratified, provide better legal protection due to clearer obligations; others contend that customary law offers a more stable, universally accepted legal norm, especially where treaty compliance is inconsistent (Henkin, 1990).

The United States accepts international human rights law selectively. It embraces core treaties like the Convention Against Torture, citing its commitment to human dignity, yet often emphasizes national sovereignty and security concerns, especially during periods of conflict or crisis (Mastanduno, 1997). The Trump administration’s skepticism about the Geneva Conventions reflects broader debates about the applicability of international humanitarian law in asymmetric warfare and counter-terrorism. Critics argue dismissing these conventions risks undermining established legal standards and enabling violations of human rights during conflict.

The human rights movement in the Soviet Union was significantly advanced by individuals like Lyudmila Alekseyeva, a prominent human rights advocate who challenged state repression. According to Neier (2012), her leadership exemplifies how local activism can drive global human rights awareness, highlighting that human rights struggles are often interconnected with social and political resistance movements. The global human rights movement, as described in Neier’s work, spans numerous countries, diverse organizations, and varied cultural contexts, reflecting an increasing international consensus on universal rights but also facing challenges of political resistance and cultural diversity.

Neier also emphasizes the rise of truth and reconciliation commissions, which aim to address past atrocities through dialogue, accountability, and restorative justice. Successful commissions share features such as inclusiveness, transparency, and victim-centered approaches, which foster social healing. However, challenges such as political resistance, limited resources, and ensuring genuine accountability can hinder their effectiveness (Hayner, 2011). The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) exemplified the complexities of international justice, overcoming obstacles like securing cooperation from states and ensuring fair trials through procedural adaptations and international support.

Post-9/11, the US doctrine of prevention, emphasizing preemptive action and intervention, has significantly affected human rights discourse, often prioritizing security over individual rights. Critics argue that this paradigm shift, justified by the terrorist threat, can lead to abuses and erosion of legal protections, challenging the fundamental principles of justice and human rights (Henry, 2003). Whether the threat warrants this new paradigm remains contentious, with ongoing debates about the balance between security imperatives and human rights preservation.

In conclusion, the evolution of human rights from Locke’s natural law to contemporary legal mechanisms underscores the importance of universal moral principles while highlighting the complexities of enforcement, cultural diversity, and political interests. As organizations like Human Rights Watch and judicial bodies address atrocities worldwide, the ongoing debate revolves around safeguarding human dignity against emerging threats and societal changes, ensuring that human rights remain a dynamic and resilient pillar of international legal and moral standards.

References

• Dembour, M. B., & Riles, A. (2000). The politics of human rights: A critique. Human Rights Quarterly, 22(4), 1033-1050.
• Donnelly, J. (2013). The social construction of human rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 17(4), 613-632.
• Hayner, P. B. (2011). Unspeakable truths: Facing the challenges of truth commissions. Routledge.
• Henkin, L. (1990). The age of rights. Columbia Law Review, 90(8), 1475-1484.
• Henry, S. (2003). The international politics of the war on terror. Routledge.
• Mastanduno, M. (1997). The rise and decline of the American empire: Why the decline of U.S. power is a promising development. International Security, 21(3), 79-105.
• Neier, A. (2012). The international human rights movement: A history. Princeton University Press.
• Tuckness, A. (2002). Locke and natural law. History of Political Thought, 23(2), 209-228.
• Merry, S. E. (2006). Human rights and gender violence: Translating international law into local justice. University of Chicago Press.
• Crawford, J. (2010). Brownlie's principles of public international law. Oxford University Press.