![]() |
Image
Source: https://consumer2savlives.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/the-federal-governments-humanitarian-crisis-trickling-down-to-all-states/
|
These violations can be seen through some examples such as the
American Civil War, World War II, Syrian Civil War, and Libyan Civil War, yet
perhaps the most terrifying thing is, that even though these rules of war are
in place, they are continually being broken up into this modern day and age.
Although we have, as a world community, established a set of definitions and
rules for protecting human rights with the Geneva Conventions and the United
Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we have largely failed in
enforcing these rules and human rights as evidenced with the inability of local
government to mirror international standards and our flawed UN security voting
system.
In wars, however, human rights are often
ignored as certain persons or groups of people strive for their own purposes
and goals violating human rights without so much as an afterthought of the
consequences to others. These violations may occur for reasons such as a form
of threatening enemies, getting attention from the world, or even just simply
attempting to get into power. According to the U.N. Universal Declaration of
Human Rights Article 3, it is mentioned that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security
of person”, yet numerous civilians
frequently are the targets to fulfill some people’s self-interests in ongoing
wars especially if the victims are from the opposing group. Within the multiple
versions of the Geneva Conventions, as well as the U.N. Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, there have been many signatories and participants, however,
not all countries have contributed to, or joined the international treaties.
Furthermore, it says in the Geneva Conventions Article 13, Part II that “The
provisions of Part II cover the whole of the populations of the countries in
conflict, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race,
nationality, religion or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the
sufferings caused by war.” Thus, it is expected that these
international standards of human rights go beyond mere signatories, or extend
to all of those feeling the violation of their own human rights. The creation
of laws protecting human rights throughout history has shown that we are a
species that is able to show compassion and understanding; furthermore, we are
a species that is able to differentiate, to a certain extent, what is morally
acceptable and what is not. The creation of these laws, principals and ideas is
a noble start for our species, however, the insurance of each and every
person’s human rights has proved difficult for our society for a number of
reasons, and while we have started addressing these problems in an appropriate
manner, we are still far from preserving the rights of each and every human on
the planet.
Although a majority of the world has gathered
together and discussed preventing the violations of human rights and created
necessary agreements, there are still a few lapses in enforcing the protection
of these human rights, namely when it comes to local enforcement of human
rights protection. Local governments, as the center of local state power, must
also help their citizens in pursuing their rights. By applying and creating
local laws that align with international treaties local governments would be
taking steps towards protecting human rights on a national level, but sadly,
because many local governments have failed to realize this, sometime in war
crimes often governments are also the actors behind the occurring of violations
of human rights.
![]() |
Image Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26917419 |
To combat these violations, citizens of each
country have asked for support from other countries through the U.N. community,
but the intervention from the U.N. cannot be recognized if there is one or more
countries that do not agree to vote on pursuing peace by protecting human
rights of civilians.
Although the U.N, as the world community,
has created a global structure for protecting human rights, it has not been
effective as even when the U.N. Security Council proposes the mandate to
protect human rights, it is not always implemented because of an
overly-burdened and flawed voting system. The U.N. state members that act on
the Security Council are five: the United States, China, France, Russia, and
the United Kingdom, and these five are the permanent members which hold veto
power. However, this system has been very controversial, as only five
countries, and perhaps only one in a veto situation, determine the decision
that would be made by the U.N. Security Council to accomplish the amendment of
perpetuating the human rights of civilians in war. For instance, Russia, as one
of the permanent members of the U.N., has been blocking the resolutions by the
U.N. Security Council to fulfill the basic human rights in the Syrian Civil
War. According to the U.N Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights, the
reason of rejection of Russia towards the mandate is stated as “the resolution was more balanced than previous
resolutions on Syria but still contained unacceptable provisions.
In the
list of human rights violations on the side of the Government, there were no
provisions relating to the violence committed by the fighters described in
detail by the Commission of Inquiry on Syria, which included groups which made
up the Free Syrian Army.” The use of chemical weapons and
inhumane methods of warfare in Syria have not convinced state members that
rejected the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry to prevent continuation of
violation of human rights. Russia aligned with China, Cuba and Venezuela which
all voted to go against the mandate and it has resulted in extended periods of
human rights violations. Not surprisingly, Russia has also been a longtime ally
and weapons supplier to Syria. Unfortunately, situations such as these show
that simply one country on the Security Council, whether its decision is based
on economic or resource-based motives, has the ability to veto the intervention
into situations which are causing grave human rights violations merely for
independent furthering of state. It is clear that this flawed voting system
leaves too much room for political pettiness in regarding human rights; when
people are being subjected to human rights abuses and violations, it shouldn't
take the whole world to agree, especially a world entangled in backroom deals,
alliances and agreements. It is clear that the system of vetoes and permanent
powers on the Security Council need to either be reshaped or a watchdog system
needs to be implemented, without it, human rights violations may continue
around the world for the sake of simple national, political or economical
interest, and it seems ignorant to ignore the basic rights bestowed upon all
people for the increased global power of one or more countries.
![]() |
Image Source: http://acelebrationofwomen.org/2014/
08/culture-of-peace-consistent-with-womens-movement/
|
0 comments