(Please critically reflect upon the question and bring in the litera

(Please critically reflect upon the question and bring in the
literature. Answers should be between at least 1000-1500 words
(excluding bibliography).
1. Was Hannah Arendt just in her claims against the treatment
of A. Eichmann? Given state boundaries, what are the utilities
and difficulties of the ICC and ICJ today. Explain using specific
examples.
2. To start, is cosmopolitanism achievable? If so, what are some
empirical examples of its existence today? Whether it is
possible or not, is cosmopolitanism a favorable outcome or does
individual state sovereignty provide some benefits?
3. Is cultural relativism a sufficient argument against the
creation of the international body of human rights protection
(IHRP) as it exists today? In other words, what is natural
(universal) about natural rights?
4. How does Civil Society participate in the practice of IHRP?
Give specific examples. )
It should be all the information in here: (All the week
discussions)
---------
Week 1 Discussion
Please, answer ONE of the following.

1.) Which of the Human Rights Acts do you find the most
important? Please explain.
2.) What is the largest challenge facing international human
rights protection today? Has globalization and technology
increased awareness and protection? Or, has the development of
international trade led to greater levels of exploitation? 250
words
students examples:Steven
In my humble opinion, when talking about the Human Rights
Acts, I believe the most important is Article 15. Which states
that "1. Everyone has the right to a nationality. 2. No one shall
be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to
change his nationality. The reason for this is because
Nationality, as well as our spiritual beliefs for example, is a
part of our identity and our way of being. Our nationality can
explain who we are, why we do things, and what we fight for.
We our not limited to just a "legal" nationality because of birth,
nor can we not be limited to our choices of nationality due to
race and religion. This Act gives us a right to be the people that
we truly are and express ourselves better.
another exampleslucasI find The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights the most important. It laid the modern framework
for the liberal west's interpretation of human rights and
successfully enabled a century-plus long expansion of human
rights that translated into historic levels of freedom of speech,
guarantee of liberty, and other fundamental human rights across
the world.This ties into the second question - what is the largest
challenge facing international human rights protection today. As
the world order shifts away from one organized around the west
towards a multipolar one organized around different power
centers, some of which do not espouse western liberalism and

democracy but instead authoritarianism, the continued
expansion of human rights is threatened, especially in regards to
protecting minorities. This trend goes hand-in-hand with
mounting global populism, which tends to leverage xenophobia
and nationalism to cement itself.other sarah Although difficult
to single out one, it is my personal opinion that Article 10:
Freedom of Expression is the most important. If applied, this
Article protects our individual right to hold our own opinions
and express them aloud, whether it be through social media,
public protest, or published articles. Further, it allows those
around us to do the same - presenting different perspectives of
the same topic(s). To be able to learn from others and their
belief systems, as well as express your own, is vital in order to
create an open dialogue and incite change. Through this Article,
we have the ability to stand up for what we believe in, and push
those in power to make a change.
My Answer
WEEK 1 DISCUSSION
Which of the Human Rights Acts do you find the most
important? Please explain.
Human rights are always an important matter to consider.
Suppose the rights are snatched, and humans are not given the
facilities and opportunities to live according to their will. In
that case, it won't be easy to expect a peaceful and healthy
society. First of all, it should be mentioned that there are
various human rights acts presented so far, and all of them are
important in one aspect or another. These acts have a common
goal that is to provide the necessary and fundamental rights to
people. The most important Human Rights Act is of 1998,
presented in the UK. No doubt, the other acts are essential, but I

have found it to be most effective and productive because it has
laid the foundation of human rights. It has set the foundation of
freedom for the human. There are different essential rights of a
human being, but the essential one is to give the opportunity of
liberty (Hamlin, 2016).
This act ensured that all human beings are equal, and there is no
need to interfere with human beings' freedom. Everyone is free
and can do anything within the limits of law and rules. I have
found this law most vital because it has discussed all the
aspects of life. It has discussed the rights of government,
police, industries, the public, and every other sector. The most
important rights that the act has discussed include equity and
non discriminated behavior. Everyone is entitled to enjoy
freedom, and everyone should be treated with care and fair
conduct. The act has ensured that human dignity is above, and
there should be no interference to personal life (Brady, 2012).
-------------------
Week 2 Discussion
1.Through the lens of Hannah Arendt, why did she take issue
with the way in which Eichmann was tried?
Should Israel have pursued Nazi SS-Obersturmbannführer in the
manner that they did?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmBSIQ1lkOAhttps://www.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/hannah-arendt-
adolf-eichmann-banality-of-evil150 words response.
student responses examples.

Hannah Arendt, as a jewish German, had issues in the way that
Eichmann was tried for his actions in the genocide of the jews
due to the mentality of the people at that time, resulting in
actions unprecedented from a precedented mindset. In the video
"Arednt Final Speech", Hannah stated that "understanding
someone is different that forgiving," and she ultimately agreed
on the final verdict on Eichmann's trial that had him condemned
to death. Arednt did not believe that the history of anti-
semitism in Germany could be tried. Her issue was from all of
the history that had people (minorities) robbed from their own
rights with no "positive law", while at the same time being
someone under the rule of a dictatorship would have easily
brought a horrible event on mankind due to the lack of mankind.
Just look at how many wars, genocides, robbing that was
happening during that century and the one before. Humanity had
led itself to that point. Also, there are studies that show that
naturally when someone is in a position of power (being a
police officer, president, etc), someone that is under that control
will do anything you tell them whether it is against their morals
or not. Eichmann, under the control of Hitler at the time, was
not going to say no but even worse was that he saw nothing
wrong with proceeding in the horrible actions committed. Now,
about what happened to Eichmann being pursed by Israel, I
believe, for the most part, Hannah Arednt is saying that it was
okay how the situation was handled. The only thing that she
wishes had happened, was for Israel to understand the actions of
the person and what led to them, rather than the atrocity that
was placed upon on the people.
1 response about Hanna Arendt that you did one time ago
My Answer
Through the lens of Hannah Arendt, why did she take issue with

the way in which Eichmann was tried? Should Israel have
pursued Nazi SS-Obersturmbannführer in the manner that they
did?
Hannah Arendt is the political philosopher of the twentieth
century. She had witnessed the end of the trial of Eichmann.
Arendt coined the phrase “the banality of evil” while covering
the trial. This phrase became the scholarly cliché. Arendt did
not mean that the evil had become normal and that the
Eichmann and Nazi had committed the indifferent crime. Arendt
thought that the crime they did was exceptional and created a
demand for a new legal judgment method. She said that
Eichmann was under the control of Hitler, and he couldn’t say
no. But the worse thing is that Eichmann not felt bad for
proceedings the horrible actions he committed. The situation
seemed to be normal to Arendt. She wanted Israel to understand
what led the person to take that action instead of mentioning the
atrocity only. She said that the evil was banal means that
“thought defying.” Arendt did see the true dreadfulness of
Eichmann’s evil (Butler, 2011).
--------
Week 3 Discussion
No unread replies.No replies.1. Do we live in a
cosmopolitan era? In other words, can we achieve global
citizenship? If so, what are some examples?
2. What is natural law? Does it have universal weight, or is it a
concept solely applicable to Western elites?
3. Looking ahead, what is "cultural relativism?" Do you agree
or disagree with its main tenets? * Please respond to one of the

questions. Thank you. ONLY ONE QUESTION (150 words
response)
I THINK NATURAL LAW IS THE BEST TO ANSWER.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/21/What_is_natural_about_Na
tural_Rights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ysis1GfV0Qc
EXTRA INFORMATION
-The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics
First published Mon Sep 23, 2002; substantive revision Tue
Sep 27, 2011 ‘Natural law theory’ is a label that has been
applied to theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of
civil law, and theories of religious morality. We will be
concerned only with natural law theories of ethics: while such
views arguably have some interesting implications for law,
politics, and religious morality, these implications will not be
our focus here. This article has two central objectives. First, it
aims to identify the defining features of natural law moral
theory. Second, it aims to identify some of the main theoretical
options that natural law theorists face in formulating a precise
view within the constraints set by these defining features and
some of the difficulties for each of these options. It will not,
however, attempt to recount the history of the development of
natural law thought. (For a very helpful detailed history of
natural law thought up to the beginning of the modern period,
see Crowe 1977. For a very helpful detailed history of natural
law thought in the modern period, see Haakonssen 1996. For an
article-length recap of the entire history of natural law thought,
see Haakonssen 1992.)

-1. Key Features of Natural Law Theories
Even though we have already confined ‘natural law theory’ to
its use as a term that marks off a certain class of ethical
theories, we still have a confusing variety of meanings to
contend with. Some writers use the term with such a broad
meaning that any moral theory that is a version of moral realism
— that is, any moral theory that holds that some positive moral
claims are literally true (for this conception of moral realism,
see Sayre-McCord 1988)— counts as a natural law view. Some
use it so narrowly that no moral theory that is not grounded in a
very specific form of Aristotelian teleology could count as a
natural law view. It might be thought that there is nothing that
can be done to begin a discussion of natural law theory in ethics
other than to stipulate a meaning for ‘natural law theory’ and to
proceed from there. But there is a better way of proceeding, one
that takes as its starting point the central role that the moral
theorizing of Thomas Aquinas plays in the natural law tradition.
If any moral theory is a theory of natural law, it is Aquinas's.
(Every introductory ethics anthology that includes material on
natural law theory includes material by or about Aquinas; every
encyclopedia article on natural law thought refers to Aquinas.)
It would seem sensible, then, to take Aquinas's natural law
theory as the central case of a natural law position: of theories
that exhibit all of the key features of Aquinas's natural law view
we can say that they are clearly natural law theories; of theories
that exhibit few of them we can say that they are clearly not
1/21/2019 The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics (Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/ 2/12
natural law theories; and of theories that exhibit many but not
all of them we can say that they are in the neighborhood of the
natural law view but nonetheless must be viewed as at most
deviant cases of that position. There remain, no doubt,
questions about how we determine what are to count as the key
features of Aquinas's position. But we may take as the key

features those theses about natural law that structure his overall
moral view and which provide the basis for other theses about
the natural law that he affirms. For Aquinas, there are two key
features of the natural law, features the acknowledgment of
which structures his discussion of the natural law at Question
94 of the Prima Secundae of the Summa Theologiae. The first is
that, when we focus on God's role as the giver of the natural
law, the natural law is just one aspect of divine providence; and
so the theory of natural law is from that perspective just one
part among others of the theory of divine providence. The
second is that, when we focus on the human's role as recipient
of the natural law, the natural law constitutes the principles of
practical rationality, those principles by which human action is
to be judged as reasonable or unreasonable; and so the theory of
natural law is from that perspective the preeminent part of the
theory of practical rationality.
-1.1 Natural law and divine providence
While our main focus will be on the status of the natural law as
constituting the principles of practical rationality, we should
consider for a moment at least the importance within Aquinas's
view of the claim that the natural law is an aspect of divine
providence. The fundamental thesis affirmed here by Aquinas is
that the natural law is a participation in the eternal law (ST
IaIIae 91, 2). The eternal law, for Aquinas, is that rational plan
by which all creation is ordered (ST IaIIae 91, 1); the natural
law is the way that the human being “participates” in the eternal
law (ST IaIIae 91, 2). While nonrational beings have a share in
the eternal law only by being determined by it — their action
nonfreely results from their determinate natures, natures the
existence of which results from God's will in accordance with
God's eternal plan — rational beings like us are able to grasp
our share in the eternal law and freely act on it (ST IaIIae 91,
2). It is this feature of the natural law that justifies, on
Aquinas's view, our calling the natural law ‘law.’ For law, as

Aquinas defines it (ST IaIIae 90, 4), is a rule of action put into
place by one who has care of the community; and as God has
care of the entire universe, God's choosing to bring into
existence beings who can act freely and in accordance with
principles of reason is enough to justify our thinking of those
principles of reason as law.
-1.2 Natural law and practical rationality
When we focus on the recipient of the natural law, that is, us
human beings, the thesis of Aquinas's natural law theory that
comes to the fore is that the natural law constitutes the basic
principles of practical rationality for human beings, and has this
status by nature (ST IaIIae 94, 2). The notion that the natural
law constitutes the basic principles of practical rationality
implies, for Aquinas, both that the precepts of the natural law
are universally binding by nature (ST IaIIae 94, 4) and that the
precepts of the natural law are universally knowable by nature
(ST IaIIae 94, 4; 94, 6). The precepts of the natural law are
binding by nature: no beings could share our human nature yet
fail to be bound by the precepts of the natural law . This is so
because these precepts direct us toward the good as such and
various particular goods (ST IaIIae 94, 2). The good and goods
provide reasons for us rational beings to act, to pursue the good
and these particular goods. As good is what is perfective of us
given the natures that we have (ST Ia 5, 1), the good and these
various goods have their status as such naturally. It is sufficient
for certain things to be good that we have the natures that we
have; it is in virtue of our common human nature that the good
for us is what it is. The precepts of the natural law are also
knowable by nature. All human beings possess a basic
knowledge of the principles of the natural law (ST IaIIae 94, 4).
This knowledge is exhibited in our intrinsic directedness toward
the various goods that the natural law enjoins us to pursue, and
we can make this implicit awareness explicit and propositional
through reflection on practice. Aquinas takes it that there is a

core of practical knowledge that all human beings have, even if
the implications of that knowledge can be hard to work out or
the efficacy of that knowledge can be thwarted by strong
emotion or evil dispositions (ST IaIIae 94, 6). 1/21/2019 The
Natural Law Tradition in Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-
ethics/ 3/12 If Aquinas's view is paradigmatic of the natural law
position, and these two theses — that from the God's-eye point
of view, it is law through its place in the scheme of divine
providence, and from the human's-eye point of view, it
constitutes a set of naturally binding and knowable precepts of
practical reason — are the basic features of the natural law as
Aquinas understands it, then it follows that paradigmatic natural
law theory is incompatibl e with several views in metaphysics
and moral philosophy. On the side of metaphysics, it is clear
that the natural law view is incompatible with atheism: one
cannot have a theory of divine providence without a divine
being. It is also clear that the paradigmatic natural law view
rules out a deism on which there is a divine being but that
divine being has no interest in human matters. Nor can one be
an agnostic while affirming the paradigmatic natural law view:
for agnosticism is the refusal to commit either to God's
existence or nonexistence, whereas the paradigmatic natural law
view involves a commitment to God's existence. On the side of
moral philosophy, it is clear that the natural law view is
incompatible with a nihilism about value, that is, the rejection
of the existence of values. It is also incompatible with relativist
and conventionalist views, on which the status of value is
entirely relative to one's community or determined entirely by
convention. It is also incompatible with a wholesale skepticis m
about value, for the natural law view commits one to holding
that certain claims about the good are in fact knowable, indeed,
knowable by all
MY ANSWER THIS WEEK WAS

Discussion
The theory of Natural law is applied to different theories such
as the theory of ethics, politics, civil law, and religious
morality. The natural law is an idea that states that there are
different forms of law that exist by themselves in nature,
whether the people recognize these laws or not. The natural law
also holds that there are universal standards and these universal
standards are inherent in humankind from forever. Moreover,
the natural law is mainly applicable to ethics and philosophy
(d'Entreves, 2017). Therefore, the natural law is not a concept
that is solely applicable to Western elites. People from all over
the world have to have certain natural rights in order to live and
survive. The natural law also defines the limits for us; it defined
that what we should do and what should be avoided. Natural
rights provide an opportunity to all human beings, the right to
free speech and free thoughts (Finnis, 2011).
------------
Week 4 Discussion
1.) Following Pogge, how do some of the world’s largest
Multinational Corporations (MNCs) violate international human
rights standards?
2.) Explain negative duties-–i.e., to avoid certain actions, and
their role in human rights protection.
3.) Define the elitist perspective of Cultural Relativism . Do
you agree?

4.) Explain Kanarek’s attack of cultural relativism e.g., what are
its deficiencies.
answer only 1 question of the 4 250-300 words.
students examples
4.
As cultural relativism being the way of sense, instincts, and
opinions that come from our experiences and culture, Kanarek
argues that it lacks 1. reason, 2. identity, and 3. reality". This is
due to having cultures that, even though it is normal to have
preferred opinions, choose to decide which views and actions
are the best and which ones are invalid, when all perspectives
should be treated with merit. It brings the idea that one's
identity is wrong for having certain practices, for seeing
something differently than somebody else. The problem with
that is that not only are practices neither "good" nor "bad", it is
completely against many of the human rights that we, as people,
are entitled to. Cultural relativism also lacks standards and
places horrible actions onto others, such as every act committed
by the Nazis in World War II, from Germany taking over
Poland, they believed that there was a moral claim to conquer
and to not respect Poland's sovereignty. This could also explain
why Hannah Arendt had called the holocaust "banal", for having
a lack of humanity with nothing to defend everyone else that
was not of the same belief, practice, and culture.
1.) Following Pogge, how do some of the world’s largest
rights standards?

A challenging problem which arises in Multinational
Corporations is the debate of profit vs exploitation of humans.
Today a lot of developing countries are rich in resources and
population. Hence, multinational corporations take advantage of
this due to their advantage of capital. The governments of these
developing countries usually lower the barriers for these
multinational companies to bring in income therefore the people
may work lower wages, long hours and in unstable conditions.
Pogge states “ Being illiterate or uneducated, they may not
know what their legal rights are, or they may lack either the
knowledge or the minimal economic independence necessary to
claim these rights through the proper legal channels.” This
illustrates that the people being taken advantage of due to the
economic pressure because having low wages is better than
having no wages. Additionally, the people who live in poverty
are often too uneducated to work on the enforcements of their
rights. Instead they rely on government officials or state
representatives which are usually corrupt and take bribes from
the multinational corporations. Pogge writes “In the existing
global order, which allocates property rights in natural
resources territorially to the various states or their governments,
hundreds of millions suffer severe poverty and malnutrition and
all the associated, easily and cheaply curable but still often
deadly diseases.” Governments have a lot of control when it
comes to the rights of their citizens, they are the ones who
determine how the people live. Pogge suggested a “Global
Resources Dividend” which is an initiative to secure the poorest
people their fair share of the benefits from natural resources.
With this program, governments are required to pay a
proportional dividend on any resources they decide to use or
sell. The word "dividend" indicates that the proposal regards all
human beings, including those whose access to resources. I
believe this a good plan because then the people who work will
earn higher wages not only profiting the country as a whole but
also the quality of life for the people.

2.
The fundamental trouble in talking about everyday freedoms
starts with the purpose of takeoff. What do individuals mean
when they speak about fundamental liberties? Is it the option to
cast a ballot in a political race? The opportunity to say
practically what we pick? The choice to love however we see
fit? Is it the privilege not to be victimized due to race, sex,
sexual direction, ethnic source, or age? These rights? An
essential inquiry concerning any conversation about
fundamental liberties includes the meaning of everyday
freedoms. Exactly what do we mean by legal privileges? In the
United States and without a doubt in different nations,
individuals throw out the expression of everyday freedoms
frequently, as though it is obvious what they mean. The truth,
however, is that this suspicion of information can be deceiving.
Do we truly understand what we mean when we talk about
fundamental liberties? Maybe we have some thought of what we
are discussing, yet doubtlessly, we are summing up. When we
have gotten some information about fundamental freedoms, we
experience a mental blackout.
Again and again, the expression "basic liberties" gets thrown
around like a verbal football, as though everybody naturally
understands what everyday freedoms mean and can intuitively
play the game with no training. In actuality, fundamentally
understanding freedoms require much more exertion than
essentially alluding to nations like China, Cuba, or Iran and
their apparent common liberties infringement. Everyday
releases incorporate a wide assortment of ideas and cover
numerous zones of the human condition. While no single
definition might cover the whole extent of what fundamental
liberties are included, the possibility of basic freedoms can, for
the most part, be characterized as those rights, which are inborn
in our inclination and without which we can't live as

individuals. Common liberties and essential opportunities
permit us to ultimately create and utilize our human
characteristics, knowledge, gifts, full heartedness and fulfill our
otherworldly and different requirements. The dependence on
humankind's expanding interest for a day to day existence in
which the characteristic pride and worth of every person will
seldom ever get regard and security.
My Answer this week
1.) Following Pogge, how do some of the world's largest
rights standards?
Multinational corporations that are pioneers in today's corporate
world. They are popular for commercial and trade aspects. No
doubt, these multinational corporations help in opening up jobs
and provide goods or services to the territories. Despite the
benefit, these multinational corporations are violating rights,
and these are illegal. The main purpose of these organizations is
to make a profit without thinking about how these organizations
create violence. Many workers working in urban areas are sent
to the rural areas to perform the difficult task in a hazardous
working environment where their life is at stake. They are kept
on lower wages and made work day and night (Berkes,2018).
According to pogge, human beings are not unified based on race
where people of certain caste or race are selected rather than on
their skills or uniqueness. At times government doesn't apply
strict rules to protect human rights. Conformity with human
rights is a legal order and moral requirement. Human beings
have a special moral status that needs to be respected
irrespective of their religion, culture, caste, and moral tradition

(Berkes,2018).
Nestle is an example that is highly criticized for selfish acts
that violate human rights inside and outside the organization.
These misconduct include child labor, unethical promotion,
manipulating uneducated mothers, creating massive pollution,
and mislabeling. Nestle has always been criticized for using
unhealthy and preserved food items. Nestle has built up a bad
reputation, especially infant food, where mothers felt it is
offensive to serve a child with baby infant food rather than
mothers' breastfeed. Employees also complain about the
unethical practices that nestle follows by making them work
under pressure and paying lower wages (Deva,2003).
---------------------------
Week 5 Discussion INR
1. In what way do INGOs and NGOs (Global Civil Society)
participate within the International Human Rights Regime? Are
they effective and what are some of the challenges they face
2. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, what
mechanisms within the United Nations help enforce human
rights? Are they effective? 3. According to the CFR, what is one
of the greatest challenges of utilizing these mechanisms?
(300 Words)-------
INFORMATION https://www.cfr.org/report/global-human-
rights-
regimehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6QQTiAnOVM------
-

sTUDENT EXAMPLES
2. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, what
mechanisms within the United Nations help enforce human
rights? Are they effective? The United Nations is known as the
central global authority for developing standards on issues and
laws all across the world. They are known for being able to
develop international norms and find legitimate ways to be able
to enforce those standards in countries. In order for all of these
standards, norms, and laws to be enforced, there are many
different mechanisms within the United States placed there to
make sure that everything runs smoothly and that the standards
are reached. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the
mechanisms within the United Nation include the UNSC Action,
UN Human Rights Council, committees of elected experts,
various rapporteurs, special representatives and working groups.
Together, all of these mechanisms work together to attempt to
enforce human rights. What all of these have in common is that
they all have the same goals of raising political will as well as
public awareness, they also seek to evaluate the ways that states
assess issues dealing with human rights, and offer technological
advice to states on how to improve how they deal with human
rights. In addition to these mechanisms, there are also war
crime tribunals such as the International Criminal Court,
tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and hybrid
courts in Sierra Leone and Cambodia. The war crime tribunals
also aid the United Nations in making sure that human rights are
being enforced in all of these nations, and if there is a legal
issue between two nations on whether the standards are being
kept or not, one nation may bring legal action against another.
References:
“The Global Human Rights Regime.”
Council on Foreign Relations
, Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.org/report/global-

human-rights-regime.
In what way do INGOs and NGOs (Global Civil Society)
they effective and what are some of the challenges they face?
INGOs and NGOs have become a prominent part of global
society. Starting from the UN Charter and the UN Declaration
of Human Rights, several countries have now joined various
organizations to promote human rights. HRINGOs are motivated
by their principles and are powered by their committed
constituencies. Hence why they are not afraid to document and
publicize human rights violations across the world. This is very
important because human rights research documents a world-
level process in which oppressed citizens use international
channels to publicize human rights violations and pressure their
governments and multinational corporations. According to
Tsutsui and Min, “At the international level, political
opportunities open up for local populations when their
governments join intergovernmental human rights organizations
via international human rights treaties. By ratifying these
treaties, governments expressed their willingness to be judged
by a series of benchmarks and to be held ac-countable for
failing to live up to their promises. Commitment to these
organizations renders the governments more vulnerable to
criticism from abroad about their domestic human rights
practices, thus providing local populations with in-ternational
level opportunities to pressure their governments.” This
demonstrates that in order for these countries to be a part of
these organizations, they are expected to fit a certain human
rights profile. Some of the challenges they face are state
sovereignty, global human rights poses a threat to governmental

actors because they tend to constrain state behavior in domestic
political affairs. A lot of the time, stronger governments such as
the United States who fund these organizations don't want to
comply with the rules. Also, there are some governments who
choose not to join or sign treaties enabling them not to be
punished. Unlike non governmental organizations,
governmental agencies tend to be more averse to commit to
human rights causes because they are concerned about
undermining state sovereignty, which global human rights
almost inevitably do. However, because of their flexibility and
lack of concern for state sovereignty, NGOs have been able to
aggressively push the international human rights government
forward. “Global civil society plays a key role in this
evolutionary process, as it sustains political life outside
governmental networks and enhances progressive movements
that governments tend to abhor. With increasing participation of
activists in developing countries as well as those in develope d
countries in global civil society, the potential for more global
progressives social movement is growing, as is the potential for
real social change in important issue areas such as global
inequality and environmentalism”( Tsutsui and Min).
----------3. According to the CFR, what is one of the greatest
challenges of utilizing these mechanisms?The international
human rights system has made many welcome strides, including
stronger response in the Muslim world and a lesser degree of
commitment to deterrence and responsibility of massacres and
major powers. The key processes include UNSC action, the UN
Human Rights Council, elected advisory groups, numerous
rapporteurs and special delegates as well as working parties.
War crimes trials also contribute to standards growth and
compliance. All of them aim to increase political will and
public opinion, evaluate state and warring parties' human rights-
related actions, and provide states professional guidance on
human rights progress. However, these mechanisms are far from

consistent. Generally, when they are effective, they change
states' conduct by publicizing abuses rather than by providing
technical advice or applying punitive measures. Capacity
building—especially for human rights—is often expensive and
daunting, viewed with suspicion, and the success of assistance
is notoriously hard to measure. In many cases, national
governments have signed international commitments to promote
and protect human rights, and earnestly wish to implement
them, but are incapable of doing so. Myriad treaties,
agreements, and statements have enshrined human rights on the
international community's agenda, and some regional
organizations have followed suit. These agreements lack
binding clauses to ensure that action matches rhetoric, however,
and many important violators have not signed on. Meanwhile,
organizations in the Middle East and Asia, such as the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the South
Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, focus primarily on
economic cooperation and have historically made scant progress
on human rights. Corruption continues to hamper
implementation throughout Latin America and Africa, and a
dearth of leadership in African nations has slowed
institutionalization. =In addition, states often attach qualifiers
to their signatures that dilute their commitments. On the other
hand, states are under are no binding obligation to observe or
implement rights resolutions unless passed—without a veto—
through the UN Security Council or one of the few regional
bodies with binding authority over member states. Capacity
building—especially for human rights—is often expensive and
daunting, viewed with suspicion, and the success of assistance
is notoriously hard to measure. In many cases, national
governments have signed international commitments to promote
and protect human rights, and earnestly wish to implement
them, but are incapable of doing so.
My answer this week

In what way do INGOs and NGOs (Global Civil Society)
they effective and what are some of the challenges they face?
NGO is a non-governmental organization founded by citizens to
make society a better living place. It includes several activities
to participate in within the international human rights regime.
These organizations consist of experts that perform accurate and
fact-based research for human rights and take necessary steps to
prevent human rights violation. These actions to prevent involve
protests, letters, petitions. Humans are seeking several rights.
These organizations involve businesses, government, political
parties to protect the right. They are highly committed to
reaching justice and equality. They possess the mission to
defend civil rights to improve humani tarian access to freedom.
They perform anti-slavery programs to eliminate every kind of
slavery. It raises awareness regarding forced labor, child labor,
forced marriage, child marriage, exploiting migrants workers
etc (Schmitz,2012)
People are not treated well in underserved communities like
women harassment and disable neglect. In many parts of the
world, children are becoming victims of slave and made worked
day and night on farms and factories so these organizations
target these injustices to call upon an action. To speak freely is
the right of every human in the world so NGOs hear the needs
and problems of the people to help them in a better way.
Equality is the right of every human where no difference
between people exists like ethnic, cultural, religious, gender,
etc. The major challenge of NGOs is to gain the desired result.
Many obstacles come in between and these obstacles need to
handle positively without harming any one. Taking the hard
choices is also a big challenge for these organizations. Taking

action and protesting for human rights call upon many people to
comment negatively and the government to take strict action
against these organizations (Nelson and Dorsey,2008).

(Please critically reflect upon the question and bring in the litera

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from kendalfarrier

More from kendalfarrier (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

(Please critically reflect upon the question and bring in the litera