To begin with, human rights has failed in terms of international law. Human rights are defined as “the existence of rights that all human beings possess that even one’s own government cannot infringe on or deny and then can be protected by external elements, as through the United Nations.” There are 30 provisions in the Declaration of Human Rights that was passed on December 10th, 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly. However, not many of these are seen as universal. Most of these provisions depend on state interpretation, which relies on culture, norms, beliefs, history, etc. Realists would argue that human rights are not a symbol of international relations. Human rights are seen as an internal affair or a state matter. Liberalists
…show more content…
Ratifiers do not differ significantly in their behavior from nonratifiers. In addition, some of the countries that have joined human rights treaties have worse records than those that have not joined. In developing societies, data on human rights violations are difficult to obtain because of the secrecy of the government and distortion. Nonetheless, nongovernmental organizations have managed to improve the monitoring of human rights worldwide. The United Nations Human Rights Commission was authorized in 1970 to investigate against complaints regarding human rights violations. The United Nations Human Rights Council blacklists countries being scrutinized. It attempts to use shame as a tactic for promoting compliance with international conventions and norms. Although, the United Nations monitoring system is heavily dependent on the good faith of governments to submit annual reports on their treaty compliance. This not only keeps states from submitting such forms of their own violations, but also limits the states that lack resources in order to do so. Nongovernmental organizations have become agenda setters for human rights. Horizontal enforcement does not necessarily work either because compliance induced by fear of retaliation does not operate effectively under international
Ratifiers do not differ significantly in their behavior from nonratifiers. In addition, some of the countries that have joined human rights treaties have worse records than those that have not joined. In developing societies, data on human rights violations are difficult to obtain because of the secrecy of the government and distortion. Nonetheless, nongovernmental organizations have managed to improve the monitoring of human rights worldwide. The United Nations Human Rights Commission was authorized in 1970 to investigate against complaints regarding human rights violations. The United Nations Human Rights Council blacklists countries being scrutinized. It attempts to use shame as a tactic for promoting compliance with international conventions and norms. Although, the United Nations monitoring system is heavily dependent on the good faith of governments to submit annual reports on their treaty compliance. This not only keeps states from submitting such forms of their own violations, but also limits the states that lack resources in order to do so. Nongovernmental organizations have become agenda setters for human rights. Horizontal enforcement does not necessarily work either because compliance induced by fear of retaliation does not operate effectively under international