Historically, the human race has not done a great job enforcing and protecting human rights. From serfdom to slavery and using rape as a weapon of war, humans are capable of terrible acts against their fellow humans. That is not the extent of the violations, which can include things like suppressing minorities and denying them access to rights that we in modern times feel are basic. And these violations still occur on a daily basis. Clearly then, someone or something must take charge and pursue international human rights. Individuals, nongovernmental organizations, intergovernmental organizations, and states all play a role in pushing human rights forward. Each one has strengths and weaknesses that can help or hinder their pursuit of international human rights.
…show more content…
That flaw being that they are dependent on states for action. Gandhi and Dr. King both sought to get their respective states to change laws to stop human rights violations. NGOs require assistance from states to carry out their mission, both by providing access and providing funds. And IGOs like the United Nations are at the whim of the member states should they want to get anything done. Clearly then, states still hold a majority of the power in the current geopolitical scene. So it is from states that the change must come. Because they are sovereign over their territory, states wield enormous power over what will and will not be enforced. So while the UN and NGOs and individuals poke and prod, it is the state that makes the final determination to commit to international human rights. Other states can also influence a state in ways that NGOs or the UN cannot. This is done through a sort of “check book diplomacy” as it were, using lucrative trade agreements as leverage for enforcing human rights. While it is a gross oversimplification, the character Albie Duncan notes “Trade with China is essential for human rights. By engaging China and
That flaw being that they are dependent on states for action. Gandhi and Dr. King both sought to get their respective states to change laws to stop human rights violations. NGOs require assistance from states to carry out their mission, both by providing access and providing funds. And IGOs like the United Nations are at the whim of the member states should they want to get anything done. Clearly then, states still hold a majority of the power in the current geopolitical scene. So it is from states that the change must come. Because they are sovereign over their territory, states wield enormous power over what will and will not be enforced. So while the UN and NGOs and individuals poke and prod, it is the state that makes the final determination to commit to international human rights. Other states can also influence a state in ways that NGOs or the UN cannot. This is done through a sort of “check book diplomacy” as it were, using lucrative trade agreements as leverage for enforcing human rights. While it is a gross oversimplification, the character Albie Duncan notes “Trade with China is essential for human rights. By engaging China and