Does the International Community Has the Obligation to Intervene when the Human Rights are Violated Somewhere?

Question

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that "all human beings" <...> "should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood". Now, when certain countries have leaders who violate the human rights of its own citizens (as well as perhaps others residing on its teritory), are we not obliged - as human, as the international community as a whole - to act together and free the peoples of those countries from the tyrants who opress the people and commit the crimes *against humanity*? I would like to argue that it is not just our duty, but it is our *obligation* to do so. Isn't it sickening to look back and see that we - the humans of this world - allowed Saddam Hussein to perpetrate crimes against humanity for so many years without even saying "hold on"? He was torturing, murdering and even....mass-murdering the humans, thus reducing the human life to nothing, and yet we allowed him to perpetrate the crimes against humanity and brought him to justice only a while ago!

Answer 1

As you say under international law there is a duty to take action when human rights are violated. The system is to do something thru the united nations. The organization is legally required to take action when a consensus get be arrived at in the general assembly. Getting the consensus is the problem when member states don't support resolutions in majority or fail to actually do anything about the issue for whatever reason.

Answer 2

There is a disparity among when action is taken and when it is not.
In 1998 in Kosovo, Nato acted to prevent Milosovic, however in 1994 the world was slow to prevent genocide in Rwanda, in the Bosnian was of the early 90's Srebrenica was supposedly a UN safe area and yet it was possible for genocide to occur under the noses of the UN peacekeepers.
Morally we have a duty to act, to what extent is debatable, in Zimbabwe there is no doubt that Mugabe is suppressing peoples human rights however would it be reasonable to send in the Duke of Lancaster regiment possibly not as it would cause further difficulties and problems. You do not need to use a sledgehammer to crack a wallnut.
The countries of the world need to look seriously at themselves, the actions on the US in the 'war on terror' leave a lot to be desired especially the abomination that is Guantanamo bay, the European countries complicity in the rendition flights and the courting of China which has a chequered human rights history.
This is to say nothing of the complete inaction by countries on the human rights abuses that have been going on for a quarter of a century in Burma/Myanmar.
It must be remember in the instance of Hussain the US supported him against the Iranians as he was seen to be the lesser of two evils. Governments exist first and foremost to protect the countries citizens, in this case Iran was seen as a potential aggressor to international peace especially to Israel (Which it still remains) where as Iraq was seen only as a more localise despot.
Many western countries even today still support countries with poor human rights records. The US and UK are staunch allies of Saudi Arabia for strategic reasons and are wilful to ignore the terrible human rights record of the country to its own woman under Sharia law.
There is a quandary here as there is no doubt that the support of countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Russia is helping to prevent acts of terrorism however they are also suppressing their own citizens human rights.
There is no doubt that human rights must be protected and championed but all states must also ensure the safety of the majority.

Answer 3

Well at no point should any people be *forced* to stop a "crisis" or whatever but certainly if humanity is the way some might like it to be then they would be compelled to do so.

The problem, though, is that often people who do not fight for their own independence and rights do not fully appreciate what they have and thus fall back into a state of chaos or whatever.

So no, in my idea of a utopia no one is FORCED to do much of anything...

Answer 4

That company is declared as the United countries assembly and that's what it became formed to do yet as in each case the member worldwide places won't be able to agree and all look basically at their very own vested hobbies. whilst proposals are positioned forward a variety of of of the secure practices Council vetoes the thought so not something is carried out or to little is carried out too previous due.

Answer 5

You're so caring and compassionate for your fellow human beings. I wish there were more people like you working on behalf of the victims. You should address this question to United Nations.

The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress and human rights issues. It was founded in 1945 at the signing of the United Nations Charter by 51 countries, replacing the League of Nations, founded in 1919.

You're probably familiar with Cambodia; if not, read on.

Operation Menu, a series of secret B-52 bombing raids by the United States on suspected Viet Cong bases and supply routes inside Cambodia, was acknowledged after Lon Nol assumed power; U.S. forces briefly invaded Cambodia in a further effort to disrupt the Viet Cong. The bombing continued and, as the Cambodian communists began gaining ground, eventually included strikes on suspected Khmer Rouge sites until halted in 1973. Estimates of the number of Cambodians killed during the bombing campaigns vary widely. [5] The Khmer Rouge reached Phnom Penh and took power in 1975, changing the official name of the country to Democratic Kampuchea, led by Pol Pot.

Estimates vary as to how many people were killed by the Khmer Rouge regime. Depending on whether or not one includes deaths from starvation and subsequent deaths in refugee camps, estimates range anywhere from 1.7 million[6] to 3 million Cambodians.[7][8] Many were in some way deemed to be "enemies of the state", whether they were linked to the previous regime, civil servants, people of education or of religion, critics of the Khmer Rouge or Marxism, or simply offered resistance to the brutal treatment of the cadres. Hundreds of thousands more fled across the border into neighbouring Thailand.

Cambodia is still suffering; don't let the facade exterior fool you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodia#History