International human rights have a historical trajectory that emerges from a revolutionary process; which developed individual rights within legislative, ideological, economic, political and societal arenas. This essay will elaborate on impact of these phenomenons on institutionalized human rights through a liberal lense. It will then examine the role of human rights in practice and explore the realist nature in which they occur in the political arena. Liberalist believe that institutionalized human rights empower and protect all humans and facilitate cooperation between states within the international realm. However, realist assert that human rights exist to serve the purpose of the state. Ultimately, exposing the limitations of liberal theory’s
…show more content…
Reform to improve how men and women in society are organized in a way to bring about justice, equality, and progress is the essence of the modern evolution (Dorsey 2011). Immanuel Kant wrote that the human mind evolves through three stages, which are abstract (philosophical), fictitious (religious), and scientific (categorical imperative), as a result of analysis that is critical, rationalistic, and analytic (Galleguillos 2014). Kantianism philosophy began the combination of metaphysics and positivism in the eighteenth century. Although, they contradict at the core, Kant asserts that people require inalienable rights so that they have the basics tools to make decisions that are moral, rational, and socially relevant. This ideological shift is one of the historical events that led to and influenced modern international human rights. However, the limitations of Kant’s theory, that are also prevalent in modern human rights issues today, is that human rights are relative to what is socially acceptable (Goodhart, …show more content…
However, majority of humanity does not have experience with democracy. Low intensity democracy tends to lead to regression in upholding human rights, conversely, widespread systematic abuse also tends to decrease democracy. This connection between politics and human rights shows that the declaration has no power of enforcement. The Magna Carta was not inline with the interests of the realm and was revoked by the Catholic Pope. Also, American revolutionaries showed a significant degree of passion but none enforced those revolutionary ideas and the American Declaration of rights were reserved for those with political human status. Thus, these articles have an intentional limited scope and without political interest, human rights cannot exist. Neo-liberals see international institutions like these doctrines as facilitators of cooperation however, evidence shows that cooperation “will not happen unless states make it happen” and will only do so if the institutions “work to.. serve their interests” (Baylis and Smith). Secular governments provide the political recognition for these rights to be respected however, their application is questionable. For instance, states that ratify the declaration and covenant of human rights can abandon the document at any point and have done so during chaotic political atmosphere. Throughout the Cold War human rights
Reform to improve how men and women in society are organized in a way to bring about justice, equality, and progress is the essence of the modern evolution (Dorsey 2011). Immanuel Kant wrote that the human mind evolves through three stages, which are abstract (philosophical), fictitious (religious), and scientific (categorical imperative), as a result of analysis that is critical, rationalistic, and analytic (Galleguillos 2014). Kantianism philosophy began the combination of metaphysics and positivism in the eighteenth century. Although, they contradict at the core, Kant asserts that people require inalienable rights so that they have the basics tools to make decisions that are moral, rational, and socially relevant. This ideological shift is one of the historical events that led to and influenced modern international human rights. However, the limitations of Kant’s theory, that are also prevalent in modern human rights issues today, is that human rights are relative to what is socially acceptable (Goodhart, …show more content…
However, majority of humanity does not have experience with democracy. Low intensity democracy tends to lead to regression in upholding human rights, conversely, widespread systematic abuse also tends to decrease democracy. This connection between politics and human rights shows that the declaration has no power of enforcement. The Magna Carta was not inline with the interests of the realm and was revoked by the Catholic Pope. Also, American revolutionaries showed a significant degree of passion but none enforced those revolutionary ideas and the American Declaration of rights were reserved for those with political human status. Thus, these articles have an intentional limited scope and without political interest, human rights cannot exist. Neo-liberals see international institutions like these doctrines as facilitators of cooperation however, evidence shows that cooperation “will not happen unless states make it happen” and will only do so if the institutions “work to.. serve their interests” (Baylis and Smith). Secular governments provide the political recognition for these rights to be respected however, their application is questionable. For instance, states that ratify the declaration and covenant of human rights can abandon the document at any point and have done so during chaotic political atmosphere. Throughout the Cold War human rights