Essay Example on No Nationality Required: Claim Human Rights Against State

"Has someone has to be a national of a State in order to be able to claim human rights against that State?"

Individuals do not necessarily have to be a national of a state to claim human rights against a state because the constitution of that particular country protects them. Individuals include non-citizens who are legally in the country, refugees, asylum seekers, and expatriates. Whenever any form of injustice is done against these groups of individuals, they can contest their mistreatment from the state. Larking (2014) notes that international human rights support and proclaim proper treatment of foreigners because of the existence of international obligations that accord rights to all individuals regardless of nationality. In liberal democracies, the state of a foreigner can contest for the rights of their citizens, especially when they can ratify the various international conventions on human rights. Still, failure to do so weakens the claim by individuals for the vindication of their rights.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Can fight against terrorism, or any other special circumstances, justify the use of torture?

Public opinion is divided on whether the use of force is justified in the fight against terrorism. This is because the debate on the permissibility of torture is conducted in a narrow framework that leads to the obscurity of the purpose of torture and gives a misleading and false alternative between averting terrorism and the respect for human rights. I believe the fight against terrorism should not justify the use of force as an individual is twisted, the body and mind are distorted, and leads to the harming of psychological and physical responses that may lead to the person betraying himself in a struggle to avert pain (Greer, 2015). Also, customary rules of international law and numerous conventions in the world have forbidden torture in all circumstances (Rumney, 2015). This is based on the argument that this prohibition emphasizes the dignity and humanity of the victim and the impact of the torture on the mind and body. Despite this, I propose a balance between torture prohibition and security interest, which allows the minimal use of torture in cases that may prevent further acts of terrorism. If not, captured terrorists and extremists will take advantage of the no use of torture to hide their operatives and hence may continue their terrorist agenda and cause grievous human harm to people in the world.

Shall the freedom of expression be unlimited?

Every individual has a right to express oneself without fear of retaliation. There has been a debate on whether there should be any limitations placed on the freedom of speech. I favor an unlimited expression because an open dialogue provides a chance to respond to debates and bad ideas in public, instead of letting oneself be irritated by unbearable thoughts and feelings without a response. Each person has the freedom to express and hold opinions without any meddling, thus promotes truth, a free society, and does not suppress those with a dissenting opinion. Governments should allow its citizens the freedom of expression as this is important in helping self-development and building human interactions, but should be balanced against other rights. I believe that freedom of expression should be used in a manner that may not cause harm to another person or the masses.

When would a different treatment be discriminatory (e.g. prohibited) and when it would be justifiable (e.g. permissible or even required)?

Discriminatory treatment is sometimes justifiable. A state may intentionally discriminate a section of its people based on gender or race if the actions are meant to address a discrimination in the past. In many countries in the world today, minorities, underprivileged groups, and women are given extra credits to allow them to catch up with the individuals or groups who have an account of benefits that have unjustly made them succeed. Such action is justified discrimination as it is a means of remedying injustices or favors that occurred in the past. On the other hand, a difference in treatment is discriminatory or prohibited if there is no justifiable reason, objective, and no pursuant of a legitimate aim. Such treatment is forbidden because it has no sensible correlation of proportionality between the goal to be realized and the means of executing the procedure.

Is there a human right to an adequate standard of living for everybody?

Human beings all over the world enjoy fundamental human rights and do not discriminate personalities or where one lives. Humans have the right to an adequate standard of living, which is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of human rights and was acknowledged in 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declared the right to an adequate standard of living. According to Lankford, Bakker, Zeitoun & Conway (2013), this declaration encompasses several rights such as medical care, housing, clothing, food, the well-being of the family, water, sanitation, and necessary social services. When a person is denied the right to housing, for instance, it leads to exposure to violence instead of providing privacy, shelter, and safety. I believe that the right to an adequate standard of living also embeds health, which addresses infant mortality, hygiene, prevention and treatment of diseases, provision of health services, and treatment of injuries resulting from violence.

Why is the right to education considered "empowerment" right? What are, in your view, the key components of this right?

Education is of fundamental importance. The right to education is considered an empowerment right since it is a primary vehicle through which children and adults who are socially and economically marginalized can fully participate in their communities and lift themselves out of poverty. Education has a crucial role in women empowerment, safeguarding children from hazardous and exploitative labor, controlling population growth, protection of the environment, and promoting democracy and human rights. Additionally, education empowers individuals to exercise their cultural, social, economic, and political rights, which can open doors for women to feminist networks, provide knowledge and access to healthcare, and participation in political activities. Furthermore, empowerment right encompasses the fulfillment of the right to an adequate standard of living, gives an individual to access the knowledge and skills required for one to become a full member of society. In my view, the key components of this right include access to non-discriminatory education, the right to enjoy free, compulsory, and quality education, as well as access to special facilities for persons with a deficit in learning.

Do you think that slavery still exist in the 21st century? What forms it may take?

In the 21st century, I have confidence in the existence of slavery and is referred to as modern slavery. This is because Mentan (2019) indicates that over 40 million people in the world are trapped in 21st-century forms of slavery. More than two-thirds of these people are enslaved in the Pacific and Asia. According to Pande (2020), India is particularly the worst-hit country, with over 7 million slaves, followed by China and Russia. Since its abolishment, slavery revolves around illegal control of people due to poverty in countries devoid of dysfunctional societal structure, anarchy, lack of economic freedom, and education. The forms of slavery in the world today are forced labor, private sector jobs such as agriculture, construction, and domestic work, forced sexual exploitation, child marriages, and forced marriages. Modern-day slavery exists and is largely because of the income it generates to the perpetrators. Cusack (2015) notes that in 2014 alone, slavery generated approximately $150 billion in illegal profits, with over $99 billion attributed to sexual exploitation and $51 billion generated from illegal economic activities, agriculture, and domestic workers.

Do women today enjoy the same human rights as men? Could you find any gaps or good examples of recent changes in your country context?

Women currently enjoy similar rights as men since in my country, there are no problems with gender. The government has modernized its people, and all are subjected to the equal rights. Ziemer (2019) agrees that women in Azerbaijan were among the first women in Muslim countries to be granted all political rights, social, and economic life and were allowed to vote in the Near East as early as 1918. Unlike other states, women here have the same rights as men because they are educated and can freely work outside the house. Moreover, they enjoy equal rights in family law such as in reproductive rights, ban on domestic violence, living an independent life, child custody, and divorce. There were changes during the Soviet Union era, but the women enjoy the same freedom as their counterparts in Europe where there are no restrictions on women driving and possessing driving licenses. These women have been given extensive opportunities for work, education, and earn the same salaries as men.

Should there be system of international protection of human rights or should human rights protection be left to the protection by States only? Is the current system of international protection sufficient?

There should be a system of international protection of human rights since this would go a long way in fostering a tradition of greater respect for human rights. This will allow the affected states to enter another territory to conduct on-site visits and carry out an investigation when human rights are violated. Furthermore, when rights are protected internationally, governments can engage in dialogue with civil society organizations and other governments to issue reports of periodic monitoring and provide an avenue for individual evaluation of complaints regarding human rights. If human rights are left to be protected by the state, the perpetrator may not be held responsible when a gross violation of human rights occurs. According to Baylis, Smith & Owens (2020), the treatment of citizens by states in their territory is subjected to international concern and norms. The current system of international protection is sufficient because whenever a state abuses the human rights of its citizens, external pressure is piled on such regimes, and support is offered for local advocates against abuse.

Is it useful/necessary to have regional mechanisms for human rights protection if there is already a universal system?

It is important to have regional mechanisms for the protection of human rights even if there is an already functional universal system. These mechanisms include courts, special rapporteurs, and commissions that are crucial in the protection and promotion of human rights by localizing international standards, norms, and human rights and reflection of specific concerns of human rights in a region. Shelton & Carozza (2013) argue that regional mechanisms are beneficial despite the existing universal system because it offers greater capacity for the implementation of covered rights, granting concrete remedies, and hearing of complaints. These mechanisms have been traditionally entrusted with greater protection of human rights than the international system because of its close cultural and geographical proximity to the people of the region and hence making the regional mechanisms practical and less foreign. I also believe that regional mechanisms are important in solving human rights problems that the nation-states may be unable to solve which are attributed to resource constraints or lack of willingness...