Human Rights in the Era of Globalization

Human rights embody ore values. Among them, there is the dignity of all human beings their equality of fundamental worth and their need to live in this community, with respect and empathy for others, but also with some measure of industrial liberty. Mostly west world countries don't have any monopoly on these values, but people feel that they are always influenced by western countries. In a greater or lesser degree, they embraced the world's major religious and philosophical tradition from around the world.

However, most cultures in most eras saw these traditions as a duty than as rights. After that these countries made some enormous changes for the good of their people which were accepted and adapted quickly, and the world is a small place, so other countries citizens also adapted these changes, but these changes are illegal according to their country, so they could not continue with the changes. These western countries highlighted community than individuality. Other countries focused more on the country's growth rather than their people's growth. Hence, the globalization of human rights should be promoted so other countries' people who seek development can follow it and it will make people better which will lead to the betterment of the country. so, we can say that human rights consciousness will be global. Almost everywhere the language of rights is spoken by diplomatic, governing, academic activists and the press which can reach to every single person on the earth.

International law today formally recognizes almost all persons, in almost all places. And international human rights law is now being implemented by every single country in the world with some exceptions. After implementing these laws people have witnessed some revolutions around them in the last two-three decades. There were many incidents of systematic violence against women and children in third world countries but after the globalization of human rights, these numbers have drastically decreased. There is still poverty and inequality between people, rich will treat the poor as their labor or as untouchables. The rights revolution has yet to triumph on the ground. There are some first world countries who are hesitating for the globalization of human rights. For example, The U.S. is not prepared for implementing international human right as a law. American citizen believes that they have rights but on paper, there are very few. America refuses to join globally accepted treaties on rights of women and children, on landmines or in human trafficking or in international criminal court. America has approved treaties on genocide, torture, race discrimination, and civil and political rights. All these things are more constrained because politics is conflictual, confused and uncontrolled.

The main human rights challenge in the current century is to translate global consciousness, law, and institutions into reality. We have many of the necessary tools to complete our challenge. But our capacity to wield them will be shaped in many ways some will be positive, and some will be negative. The main concern whether we have the will, the determination and the intelligence to put good use the tools we have for the rights evolution which can make the world a better place to live. It has become virtually impossible to discuss world affairs in diplomatic circles, the press or even in parliaments without referring to their human rights aspects. Some activists also state the human rights as "secular religion" of 20thcentury. International human rights are the eyes of the society from where we can see the relations of people to governments, individuals to societies and minorities to majorities. But even in this progressive world, some governments do not really believe that all rights stand equal. Just like the Chinese government have no more use for civil or political rights than do the Americans for economic welfare and social rights. For such countries indivisibility of rights is a mere diplomatic function and will need strong support from international organizations for decades to come.

After all that mess, the world can become a better place to live where everyone has the same right and everyone is free to do whatever they like. At the global level, the U.N. has developed a wide array of human rights organizations and mechanisms. But most, weighted down by the lowest common denominator of disparate national and regional human rights commitments, are weak and ineffective. This is evidenced by their explosion. each new mechanism is proposed by them in the hope that it will get success where other mechanisms have failed. This hope is rarely fulfilled. A case exemplifying an invocation of rights to invalidate legislation that does raise an issue of legitimacy is that of the alleged "right to abortion." We all agree that freedom of movement should not be systematically denied without due process of law. The controversy about the legitimacy of the restriction imposed on Japanese and Americans during world war 2 is not about the principle, but about its application in that particular case.

Abortion, on the other hand, raises very different issues, we all agree that murder is a serious crime, and it violates the right to live. Some people think abortion is murder. For them, laws permitting it are laws legitimating murder, and consequently patently immoral. I believe that women should have the liberty to decide whether or not to bear a child even after they got pregnant. I think my country should have a right for women where they can choose whether they want the child or no? but I don't think that such liberty is required by women's human rights. I hope these two examples may illustrate what I have in mind when I talk about the difference. The failures of the rights revolution on the grounds are well known and sobering. In terms of economic and social rights, the picture is similar. In the last two decades, life expectancy in the developing countries rose from fifty-five to sixty-five years. adult literacy has increased from several numbers. And in the villages of first world countries, there is access of rural populations to safe drinking water has increased drastically. But more than a billion people in developing countries still lack access to safe drinking water and well over two billion has no access to sanitation. One out of five people worldwide survives on less than a dollar a day. Inequality has also increased among the countries.

The progress of global human rights is possible, but the rights of revolution still have to go far before its value of the security, equality, and liberty are realized for most people. In a nutshell, what has taken place in the last half-century is qualitatively different and far more intense than its pioneers. There has been a revolution in law and their institutions. In both a formal and a real sense, basic human rights are no longer national, but global. The revolution took place because many countries made significant changes in their native rights and accepted these rights as a necessity. Globalizing the human rights is a way of thinking. It is voluntary association with a concept that signifies the way of thinking and living within multiple cross-cutting communities, cities, states, and nations. The globalization of human rights revolution to date is an achievement of historic magnitude and it will take time to complete.

Did you like this example?

1071

45