Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 17 views

    Reaction Paper #9

    Uploaded by

    Cameron Lewis
    The document discusses issues with how the United States has historically understood and upheld fundamental human rights both domestically and internationally. It argues that the US view of human rights has been flawed and shallow, focusing too narrowly on concepts like freedom and democracy rather than protecting basic economic and social rights. This has led to inefficient policies and tolerance of widespread suffering. The document calls for overhauling how human rights are defined to include additional rights, and holding entities like companies responsible for violations in order to better protect human rights around the world.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Reaction Paper #9

    Uploaded by

    Cameron Lewis
    17 views4 pages
    The document discusses issues with how the United States has historically understood and upheld fundamental human rights both domestically and internationally. It argues that the US view of human rights has been flawed and shallow, focusing too narrowly on concepts like freedom and democracy rather than protecting basic economic and social rights. This has led to inefficient policies and tolerance of widespread suffering. The document calls for overhauling how human rights are defined to include additional rights, and holding entities like companies responsible for violations in order to better protect human rights around the world.

    Original Description:

    z

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses issues with how the United States has historically understood and upheld fundamental human rights both domestically and internationally. It argues that the US view of human rights has been flawed and shallow, focusing too narrowly on concepts like freedom and democracy rather than protecting basic economic and social rights. This has led to inefficient policies and tolerance of widespread suffering. The document calls for overhauling how human rights are defined to include additional rights, and holding entities like companies responsible for violations in order to better protect human rights around the world.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    17 views4 pages

    Reaction Paper #9

    Uploaded by

    Cameron Lewis
    The document discusses issues with how the United States has historically understood and upheld fundamental human rights both domestically and internationally. It argues that the US view of human rights has been flawed and shallow, focusing too narrowly on concepts like freedom and democracy rather than protecting basic economic and social rights. This has led to inefficient policies and tolerance of widespread suffering. The document calls for overhauling how human rights are defined to include additional rights, and holding entities like companies responsible for violations in order to better protect human rights around the world.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    Cameron Lewis

    POLS 400: Democracy and Citizenship

    Dr.Beahm

    Reaction Paper #9

    The United States' foreign policy has been filled with “syndromes.” The Vietnam syndrome

    produced an aversion to American military intervention overseas after the consequences of the

    war. The Somalia syndrome created a strong aversion to US intervention in failing states in the

    wake of the 1993 US actions in Somalia. Even the “Mogadishu syndrome,” a fear of politically

    unpopular casualties apart of a UN mission. These have significantly impacted any intervention

    attempts, whether from a military or humanitarian standpoint. Unintended consequences of these

    fears have generated a weak understanding of what Americans believe as the ideal Liberal

    Democratic vision. The lack of knowing what this vision is has contaminated our stance on

    human rights, generating inefficient policies that have affected those domestically and foreign.

    The United States must create a new understanding of human rights and who is held accountable

    for violating these fundamental rights to stop these misconceptions. Which will produce efficient

    policy, home and abroad, and cure our “syndromes.”

    The United States' understanding of fundamental human rights has been flawed by the smoke

    and mirrors of “freedom.”In the post-cold war era, the Reagen administration set the United

    States on a trajectory of a “disaggregated minimalist understanding of freedom”(Donnelly,

    pg.212). This minimal definition of freedom did not entail protecting human rights and instead

    eliminated its usage. The use of the word “freedom” and “democracy” gave the ability to “pursit

    of ideological and security objectives as a defense to democracy”(Donnelly, pg.212).

    Consequently, The effective wordage has corrupted any American international rights policy
    since then, doing the bare minimum. After the Reagan administration, the language shifted to

    one that used human rights as a framework, but the strength of Reagan's “freedom” stuck,

    transitioning into “democratization.” Americans have seen democratization as the leading force

    of human rights policy and intervention (Donnelly, pg.214). However, the understanding that

    human rights are effectively accomplished after removing “right-wing generals or Stalinist

    Bureaucrats” and elections are instituted does not constitute protecting human rights. The

    understanding is that if one can vote and is still breathing, they merely have their fundamental

    human rights. Yet, Americans do not comprehend how much more must be done for human

    rights. The same issue has occurred domestically with the understanding of Human rights that

    has caused problems. Jack Donnelly states, “American tolerance of massive preventable

    suffering at home and abroad is tied to our refusal to see such suffering as a matter of human

    rights” (Donnelly, pg.218). It is not seen as a human right violation if one is homeless or

    economically misfortuned, but “such a poor thing.” However, it should be noted this is not the

    American unwillingness to accept it takes more than listed, but rather the shallow education of

    what human rights are and how to uphold them.

    The misconception of what human rights are, however, is just one rung on the ladder of why

    we are ineffective in the realm of human rights. The other issue has been that we need a better

    median of what requires intervention. It has, historically, been way too low or far too high.

    Currently, the status quo of human rights intervention is the Responsibility to Protect(R2P). The

    implementation of R2P created far too high standards that would ensure it would stop

    imperialism and ensure intervention was legit (T. Hilderbrandt, C. Hilderbrandt, Holm, and

    Pevehouse, pg.245). Consequently, the International realm has seen zero to little intervention.
    Therefore, We need to create a new set of fundamental human rights and a set of responsibilities

    for persons responsible for human rights violations, creating real change.

    The most effective way to see this occur is an overhaul of change in the deeply rooted

    understanding of human rights. We need to justly define what each person in this world is

    entitled to than just “freedom.”More human rights, including economic well-being and

    reproductive rights, need to be included. Others include malnutrition and violations of political

    and civil rights. Adding these fundamental rights will generate more understanding and robust

    international responses rather than seeing violations of these as “normal.” A clear understanding

    is also needed for those responsible for human rights violations. The most significant addition

    necessary is companies, which can be notorious for violating the fundamental rights of workers.

    The lack of responsibility of companies is drastic; According to Rhys Jenkins, “CSR has not

    explicitly dealt with the poverty impacts of business activities.” Instead, turning a blind eye to

    corporations' impact on people and communities where they engage in business. Companies need

    to be held for their actions, and can quickly be done following the guidance of how companies

    are treated within the U.S. legal system. If action is not taken, then the human value of suffering

    will never enter the accounts of companies and not be addressed.

    The dissenting opinion to creating a new “doctrine” will be the ineffectiveness of the

    anarchical nature within the international sphere. However, the sovereignty of states does not

    mean anarchy. Louis Henkin states, “the ‘privacy of states is an important value, but is not an

    iron curtain.” There are vast ways to ensure countries and companies abide by new standards,

    and it only requires a few states with the power to control the globe and International law. Louis

    Henkin justifies this argument through the US, stating, “The United States. have power in their

    law and power, in fact, to ensure that companies respect human rights, companies with which
    they are affiliated, and that these companies do not themselves, or in complicity with others

    including foreign governments, violate human rights” (Henkin, pg.13). Therefore, the argument

    of anarchy is obsolete, and commitment will not deter any state, company, or person from

    committing to new action in fear of retaliation. It’s necessary for “in the here and now, and the

    near future, many real, flesh and blood, individual human beings and families suffer” from the

    actions of the few (Donnelly, pg.220).

    References

    Jack Donnelly, “Democracy and U.S Foreign Policy” in David Forsythe, ed., The United States

    and Human Rights (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000).

    Louis Henkin, “That ‘S’ Word: Sovereignty, and Globalization, and Human Rights, Et Ceterea,”

    Fordham Law Review 68 (1999): 1-14

    Timothy Hildebrandt, Courtney Hillebrecht, Peter M.Holm, and Jon Pevehouse, “The Domestic

    Politics of Humanitarian Intervention: Public Opinion, Partisanship, and Ideology, “Foreign

    Policy Analysis 9 (2013): 243-266

    Rhys Jenkins, “Globalization, Corporate Social Responsibility and Poverty, “International

    Affairs 81 (2005): 525-40

    You might also like