English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

if they are in a position to prevent human rights violations? and why

2007-05-06 10:44:41 · 5 answers · asked by when words fail, music speaks 2 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

5 answers

They should be, the problem is most don't want to. Imagine the domestic backlash if every time someone was opressing someone else in another country, your country would send its military over there, incur casualties and most likely leave with an ungrateful government still in power (most violations are conducted by the state itself, after all...)! The public would eventually get tired of policing the world, especially at its own expense. Otherwise, there is absolutely no good reason that prevents the US from intervening in the Darfur crisis, for instance.

Still, there are some ways in which moral responsibility does play a part in the dynamic, regardless of power politics: The International Criminal Court reserves the right to intervene in the human rights records of all its signatories, and sanctions other members' interference in a violating country's internal affairs to ensure the sanctity of human rights. As expected, however, it is always those countries with the most eggregious record on human rights that refuse to sign on. Until there is a better form of deterrence (say, a UN body with real teeth to take action?), human rights violations will continue unhindered across the globe.

2007-05-06 10:47:35 · answer #1 · answered by gallo 3 · 0 0

Absolutely. However, other countries don't take sanctions against those who violate human rights (i.e., China). China is one of the worse violators of human rights and yet countries continue to do business with them. There's something wrong with this picture.

2007-05-06 17:56:35 · answer #2 · answered by WestTex Kid 5 · 0 0

Absolutely. I agree and support the right to humanitarian interference: One country's involvement into another's when human rights violations are being reported. Because it is not human to stand still and watch as others are being tortured and murdered. However, The war in Iraq and Bush's mission in Iraq is not what I call humanitarian interference. it is something else.

2007-05-06 18:03:05 · answer #3 · answered by ? 5 · 0 0

I hope you don't think we should as we are one of the biggest violators!

I think this is better left to peer pressure. International organizations like the UN. That is why we started the UN!

2007-05-06 17:49:49 · answer #4 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0 0

Yes I believe they do and so do we as individuals.

If you know something is wrong and you stand back and do nothing, you are just as bad as the people doing it in the first place.

2007-05-06 17:51:08 · answer #5 · answered by Fluffy Wisdom 5 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers