Notion of International Human Rights Law - Assignment Example

Reflective Journal Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Date Reflective Journal Topic 1: International Human Rights Human rights are legal and universal guarantees inherent to the protection of individuals and groups by virtue of their humanity, and no government, whatsoever, is supposed to interfere with these fundamental freedoms aimed at enhancing and preserving human dignity. I believe that the concept of international human rights is a human rights issue, even recognized by the United Nations. The concept of universality makes these rights inherent to all human beings on earth and goes beyond the power of an individual government (Moeckli and Sivakumaran,2010). Human beings, irrespective of their race, ethnicity, religion and geographical boundaries are entitled to these rights by virtue of their humanity. The United Nations adopted the universal declaration of human rights after its formation in the aftermath of the Second World War in 1945 (Ying, 2005). In its preamble and thirty articles, the UN declares these rights inherent to human beings that include right to life among others and freedoms like freedom of religion. However, international human rights remains a controversial issue, right from a historical point of view to their acceptance, especially in defining the relationship between individuals and states, and what individuals must surrender in exchange for their rights. For instance, the controversy as whether human rights are a Western invention has never died. Furthermore, the notion that human rights have moral justification grounded in religious humanism and old culture and the view that they are considered to duties and not rights continue to make the issue controversial. I believe that the UN’s response is better and sits well on the issue. The move to declare these fundamental freedoms and rights are universal from the onset is meant to compel authorities in all jurisdictions to guarantee and protect them. Throughout history, different governments and early civilizations have demonstrated the need to protect human rights, for instance, the English established the Magna Carta in 1215 and the Bill of Rights in 1689, and the U.S. had their bill of rights in 1791 while the French made their human rights declaration in 1789 (Moeckli, Shah & Sivakumaran, 2010). Therefore, UN’s response in declaring these universal rights is the evidence of the continuous importance of the protection of individual rights and freedoms. I believe that international human rights are of extreme importance to everyone in the world and many countries have demonstrated their resolve to guarantee them. For instance, many countries have adopted the UN’s declaration of human rights preamble and articles in their national constitutions and legal instruments. However, this is not to say that some countries have not faltered in guaranteeing these freedoms. According to Human Rights Watch, oppressive regimes in Africa, Middle East and parts of Asia have failed to guarantee these rights, especially the freedom of expression. Again, it is suffices to note that philosophical positions like the social contract theory may interfere with efforts to guarantee and protect these rights. As advanced by social theorists like John Locke, human beings have to give up some of their rights for exchange of the protection of the rest. The implication is that one surrenders his or her rights to the authorities because of moral and political obligations since the state has more authority and does that for the benefit of others. I believe that human rights must be protected and guaranteed for the benefit of human beings. Topic 2: Bringing Rights Home: International Human Rights in Australia I think that the international human rights issue in Australia is concerned with human rights as framed by the United Nations. Human rights pertaining to immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers constitute the broader perspective of rights as stated by the UN. However, the controversy in the Australian case has to do with the three distinctions of human rights laws; the domestic laws that exist between states and territories, the Commonwealth law application, and international human rights conventions (Piotrowicz & Kaye, 2000). The nature of these laws remains controversial since states deal with human rights in a patchy manner while the Commonwealth exercises its own decisions in such matters. Therefore, such piecemeal implementation or approach does not guarantee protection; both political and legal against the state, territorial or Commonwealth provisions, a situation that violates treaty provisions (McBeth, Nolan & Rice, 2011). The UN has consistently demonstrated that governments, authorities and all relevant organizations in a jurisdiction must protect these fundamental freedoms and rights. I equally support this position. The implementation of international human rights issue is extremely important to the groups or individuals affected and should not be over-looked by authorities. However, the patchy way of treating these rights as demonstrated by the Australian case violates these provisions. For instance, the 1951 refugee convention is categorical that those seeking protection from political, social or any kind of persecution shall not be penalized if they enter a country without valid documents (McBeth, Nolan & Rice, 2011). However, over eighty percent of those who seek protection are given refugee status and have to remain in Australia. Again, most experience grave human rights violations while in their detention. Sadly, it is difficult for these people to be catered for or serviced by the state because of the legal procedures and the fact that they do not get legal redress. For instance, the case of TREVORROW v STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (No 5) [2007] SASC 285 (1 August 2007) demonstrates that the affected person have to go through a lengthy legal process for their issue to be addressed by state or territorial governments. The removal of Aboriginal children was a violation of the tenets of the protection by the state of South Australia. Such cases demonstrate how states and governments over-look these provisions. Therefore, authorities need to implement the legal provisions as stated the Australian Refugee Convention and the refugee determination process. More importantly, they need to use the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights Charter and ensure that they observe international law as a member of the global community. Topic 3: Substantive International Human Rights: the right to life The right to life is the most important of all human rights and freedoms. All statutes and conventions in Australia confirm that the right to life is a fundamental right for all people and no derogation, even during a state of emergency, can be allowed. The United Nations charter on human rights identifies this right as the most important. States have a duty to investigate any deprivation of life in an open and transparent way. However, the controversy about the right to life is concerned with the aspect of the start of life: When does life begin? Again, legal and political actions that deprive the right to life remain controversial. From a moral and religious perspective, the right to life begins at conception. However, legal and political positions have continued to contradict this position. For instance, acts like genocide and legal provisions like death penalty and state security policies and actions make the issue controversial around the world. However, I believe that the UN’s response to the issue does not address some of the religious and moral points of view. The United Nations’ response is largely political and follows legal provisions set by states and governments in many jurisdictions around the world; otherwise, governments borrow from its provisions in addressing the right to life issue. The right to life is an important issue to the global population and not only to those affected. Countries with death penalty need to review their statutes because such executions hinder the observance of a right that is inherent to people by virtue of being humans. Ideally, such people may never have their needs addressed (Piotrowicz & Kaye, 2000). Consider for instance, genocide, an act of indiscriminate killing of members of a particular group. In such violations, individuals or governments accused cannot say that they cater for the rights of those executed. Some may hide behind the veil of national security or combating global or international terrorism to deny these people their right to life. Again, pro-choice groups also interfere with the right to life as the advocate for one to make their decision on the issue. I believe that a pro-life approach and a review of death sentence in some jurisdictions will help to deal with the issue. Topic 4: Prisoners’ Rights and rights of those in Detention The rights of prisoners and those in detention are human rights issues as framed by the United Nations. According to a resolution adopted by the General Assemble in 1988, all people under any kind of detention or imprisonment are supposed to be treated in a humane way and with respect to their inherent dignity as human beings. Furthermore, they shall not be subjected to any form of torture. However, what is controversial about the issue is the treatment of prisoners and those in detention. For instance, according to an ABC report, U.S. prisoners lost the right to vote and in Scandinavia, prisoners are kept busy through a variety of activities as a form of punishment. In Australia, detention camps, especially for refugees and asylum seekers, have failed to heed the UN provisions on how to treat the detainees. Furthermore, detention of immigrants without giving the due process to live in the country is a controversial way of handling the issue. I believe that the United Nations Organization has pronounced itself on the issue and its response is good. For instance, the organization has consistently opposed “double detention,” extra-judicial executions and violation against women, especially sexual violence when seeking asylum. Again, I would be categorical that the issue of prisoners’ rights and the rights of those in detentions is an extremely important issue, not only to the affected individuals but the entire global population. The wisdom of denying prisoners an inherent right to participate in the future of their country is an absurd one and borders on discrimination (Piotrowicz & Kaye (2000). Again, punishing prisoners by keeping them busy creates no logic at all for a country that seeks to foster peace. However, in jurisdictions where these violations have occurred, the implication is that they have ignored their political obligations to offer these people better treatment as human beings yet they these rights belong to them. In my opinion, most of these people will never have their rights addressed by their states. Prisoners are human beings inherent to their dignity and human rights. The state should treat them as such. Those in detention must be accorded humane conditions to ease their pain while awaiting the conclusion and determination of their application process. States have largely been left to handle the refugee issue in the absence of a strong international framework that obligates them to ensuring that these people get the most humane treatment all the time. Australia needs to take appropriate measures to ensure that the detention camps are reduced and all asylum cases concluded within the set time (Groves, 2001). It is not right to detain people for such long periods without a humane solution. The need to implement existing legal frameworks in the Australian case of immigration detention camps is essential in the observance of international human rights. Additionally, governments like the United States, through their legislations must remove certain provisions that hinder fair treatment of prisoners because they are humans and inherent to their rights. References Groves, M (2001). International Law and Australian Prisoners 24(1) UNSW Law Journal 17. McBeth, A., Nolan, J. and Rice, S. (2011). The International Law of Human Rights Oxford University Press. Moeckli D., S. Shah & S. Sivakumaran (2010) ‘International Human Rights Law’ Oxford University Press. Wade, M. (2009) Genocide : The Criminal Law between Truth and Justice International CriminalJ ustice Review 19 2 June 2009 150-174 Piotrowicz, R. & S. Kaye (2000) Human Rights in International and Australia Law Butterworths. Ying, D (2005) Shrine worship opens WW11 wounds’ Beijing Review Feb 24, Vol.48, No. 8, p. 16. Read More