Introduction
Human rights are vital to our society as they define the basic values everyone should live by regardless of their countries, ethnic groups, religions, or gender. Human rights are a broad concept consisting of numerous principles, the most common being the right to life, the freedom of speech, and the freedom from discrimination. Nevertheless, the world is still dealing with many human rights abuses, thus increasing questions about global dedication to protecting such important rights. This paper seeks to discuss the pros and cons of the issue of human rights violations to help understand the intricacy of this global problem.
Pro Argument: Raising Awareness and Accountability
A key benefit of raising issues of human rights abuses is the knowledge it creates on such matters. The role of advocacy and activism in making the violations known within a country or around the world is very important. So when society concentrates on such violations, international pressure on the offending governments or entities is higher. This force can yield good results, as evidenced in the liberty of political prisoners, eliminating discriminatory practices, or adopting fair, reasonable, and just policies.
Moreover, human rights violation talk makes people liable. If people who commit offences are responsible for their actions, maybe justice will prevail, and such unacceptable matters will not be allowed again (Vian, 2020) Mechanisms of accountability, such as international tribunals and the use of sanctions, have helped solve cases of human rights abuses in any part of the world.
Con Argument: Cultural Relativism and Sovereignty
On the other hand, some critics have pointed out that the discourse usually ends in cultural relativism. In addition, they claim that insisting on the imposition of Western values and standards on non-Western countries manifests ethnocentrism with little cultural consciousness. According to these critics, this right could be interpreted differently in some societies, and therefore, these societies must be respected for their sovereignty when considering their local issues.
Also, the requirement for sovereignty is observed as a counterargument used to reject the issue of international intervention in violation of human rights. It is stated that interference from outside bodies is not desired as the governments claim that they can settle their issues because human rights violations are an inner issue. Such an argument, therefore, raises a moral impasse as it is a need for a nation to have the sovereign right to govern itself independently (Rodrigues, 2020). At the same time, there is also a need to halt gross human rights violations.
Pro Argument: Global Responsibility and Solidarity
Supporters of eliminating human rights abuses internationally highlight the interdependence of the world. They say that the borders of the nation-state do not confine human rights but are global and should be protected by the international community. Through solidarity with victims of human rights violations and collective action, the international community could show its determination to end the issue.
In addition, focusing on human rights violations can contribute to stability and peace. Nations with superior human rights are usually considerably stable and, as a result, significantly less likely to suffer unrest. Consequently, dealing with violations contributes to international peace and security. Therefore, it is a global duty to intervene where necessary.
Con Argument: Selective Intervention and Political Motives
The criticism of global interventions in human rights violations focuses on selective intervention. They contend that behind human rights interventions, there is mostly an agenda of powerful nations that use people’s rights as an excuse for pursuing their political and economic interests. This selectivity will likely affect the credibility of international efforts to curb human rights violations.
Additionally, some doubters doubt the power of international mechanisms and institutions to address these human rights violations. They contend that these mechanisms can be clumsy, procedural, and manipulable by major states (Terman and Byun, 2022). Therefore, not all international interventions will necessarily work in the same way, making them sometimes not favour the outcomes they were supposedly intended for and even worsening a dispute setting the status quo.
Conclusion
The question of human rights violations is difficult and controversial, with both sides having good points to make. Although advocating for the rights of humans plays a vital role in establishing a fairer and more equated world, the complications involved in crossing international boundaries to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign states must always be kept in mind. Maintaining a just balance through cultural diversity and applying human rights values that transcend cultural diversity Standards has long been challenging for the world community. However, the discourse and argumentation regarding this issue are needed to resolve and deter human rights abuses, allowing a more just and civilized world society.
References
Rodrigues, R. (2020). Legal and human rights issues of AI: Gaps, challenges and vulnerabilities. Journal of Responsible Technology, 4, 100005. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666659620300056
Terman, R., & Byun, J. (2022). Punishment and politicization in the international human rights regime. American Political Science Review, 116(2), 385-402. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/punishment-and-politicization-in-the-international-human-rights-regime/BB3950F5CE11B6F01463370457EBF2FC
Vian, T. (2020). Anti-corruption, transparency and accountability in health: concepts, frameworks, and approaches. Global health action, 13(sup1), 1694744. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/16549716.2019.1694744
write