Words: 1180
Not long ago, human rights were only granted to a lucky few in most of the societies around the world. In fact, throughout most of our history, the belief that each and every individual has equal inalienable rights was a belief held only by the minority view. The first human rights theory was developed by British philosopher John Locke (1632-1704), who came up with a comprehensive theory (of human rights) which stated that citizens had “natural” rights that should be protected by the government, in order for the government to be owed its’ citizen’s allegiance.
Initially, Locker’s theory was put in lace primarily (and solely) for one target audience; the European property-owning male. Even though this attempt towards equality was in no way void of all prejudices, it was still an important breakthrough for the work that was soon to follow. Finally, after adopting the U. S. Constitution in 1789, and adding the Bill of Rights two years later in 1791, the world experienced the first trial run of creating a government designed to be Judged by the extent to which it respected and protected the rights of its citizens.
Sadly, it took the murder of millions of people by Nazi Germany to realize that officials -?? highly ranked governmental officials-?? were explicitly held to blame for the actions that directly introduced the idea of crimes against humanity. (The emerging War Crime Trials of 1945. ) For the first time in our history, government officials were legally held accountable to the international community for offenses against individual (and most importantly, innocent) citizens. Shortly after came the UDDER.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was endorsed by Eleanor Roosevelt, chairwoman to the U. N. Commission on Human Rights at the time. The UDDER declared that e the way that states treat their own citizens is a matter of international concern and would therefore be subject to international standards. E The growth of totalitarian regimes, like the one lead by Doll Hitler and the loss of 50 million lives in World War II, and the lessons learned from that vast human tragedy focused the attention of nations on the need for human rights.
It was finally realized that adherence to human rights was fundamental to securing world peace! The UDDER was the Nations first attempt to develop a comprehensive statement of human sights, and was specifically intended to prevent the horrors of history from happening again. By the end of 1948, the General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights-?? a historic milestone in the evolution of our common understanding, and affirmation, of values we deem inviolable: THAT ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE BORN FREE & WITH EQUAL & INALIENABLE RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS!!!
By mid sass, human rights began its influential reign over reign policy decision- making. In 1975, thirty-five countries signed the Helsinki Accords, which was a treaty hat distinguished ten specific principles: respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms such as freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, were among the new ruling standards. Flash forward past YAK (Year 2000) and onward to President Beam’s election to Presidency, where he begun attempts at taking a more active role within the United Nations in promoting human rights worldwide.
Currently, the U. S. Agenda on human rights (for global promotion) includes support for democracy, economic development and in holding all nations accountable to universal standards of human rights. President Obama says that, for the United States, protecting human rights around the world is CENTRAL to its foreign policy. However, globally speaking, the Maps of human rights have most often been citizens, not government officials. Nongovernmental organizations (Nags) continue to play primary roles in focusing the international community on human rights issues.
Human rights are definitively the rights held by all human beings. The essential qualities that make human rights so unique are that they are universal, inherent, and inalienable. Universally, human rights apply to ALL human beings (regardless of race, ex, religion, etc. ), and inherently exist simply because a person is a person and people are people; all living separately and independently as individual beings, yet collectively as part of one species of humankind. These inalienable rights are the rights that can never be taken away from us.
Because the government does not GIVE you those rights, it is the responsibility of the state to RECOGNIZE them. In Jack Donnelley, “Universal Human Rights In Theory and Practice”, he states that the “primary sense of ‘universal’ is not merely compatible with but necessarily includes n essential element of relativity’. He goes on to say that the actual question, then, is not “whether human rights are universal or relative but how human rights are (and are not) universal and how they are (and are not) relative”.
Donnelly claims that from exploring these various senses, we may be lead to the conclusion that internationally recognized human rights are “relatively universal” in the contemporary-2014-world in which we live. (Donnelly, 2013) Over the past three decades, discourse over economic and social human rights have become deeply entwined with controversies over the ole of markets in Western democracies and economic liberalizing and structural adjustment, particularly with Third World countries and cultures. Donnelly, 2013) The state of crisis arisen every day more in the evolution of contemporary society determines the recurrence to the problem of human rights in the society. Placing the problem of human rights and liberties on a first level is a proof of the great spiritual, cultural and moral transformations but also of the political-legal ones of the international community. In other words, the problem of unman rights together with the problem of peace, whose promising ambit’s offer until now not only a remote image of a world with less weapons and more security, continues to be one of the dominant matters of political life and public debate.
Generally, people seem to not know much about human rights-?? STILL, in this day in modern age-?? and ultimately people Just accept them as given. This raises a red flag for society and the future societies to come. If people do not know what our human rights are (fully aware of exactly what rights we are entitled to), than those rights, or berries, are going to be much more easily taken away. We cannot continue to take for granted our basic human rights. We cannot allow ourselves to give them away without a fight… But why give them away, ever?
What does it mean to be a human being? The conception of the “universal Persephone” has contested across cultures and historical periods and into today’s world. Disagreements over definitions (of universal Persephone) have carried over ever since its’ very first mention. Lately, talk of abortion coincides regularly with murder… So what’s the right answer? Who says what’s right, anyway;ay? Does the fetus qualify as a human? Because if it does, abortion is murder.. But if not, abolition is not human. Confusion ensues. “…