Humanitarian intervention and the spread of human rights can be recognised as progressively challenging the nation based order of the order and adjusting it to embrace universal values and individual human rights. The international realm has persisted to stress the significance of non-intervention, however, it is arguable that military involvement must be legalised in disregarding the sovereignty rule in cases where states have succumbed to civil disorder or when a regime massively infringes its citizen’s rights. As the United Nations prohibits war, excluding self-defence and united action with the approval of the United Nations Security Council, humanitarian intervention produces major dilemmas for the international realm which is established on nation rights such as sovereignty, self rule and the rights to non use of force. Presumably, sovereign nations behave as defenders of their civilian’s protection, however, many human rights activists assert that nations are allowed to act aggressively towards their own population, regarding sovereignty as their authorisation for abuse. Spurring vigorous debate among theorists is the issue as to whether totalitarian nations should be acknowledged as genuine member of the international community and provided with the protection of the non intervention standard, or whether they have forfeited their sovereign rights and ought to be exposed to legitimate intervention.
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.
Katheryne Gottlieb U.S history November 22, 2011 Foreign Policies “The right of self defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals, and whether the attack be made by Spain herself or by those who abuse her power, its obligation is not the less strong,” James Monroe (brainyquote.com). Monroe believed that the United States should stay out of foreign affairs, unless the safety or security was threatened by another country, and that Europe should stay out of American affairs. Monroe stated that the Americas were no longer open for European colonization. Even though a few amendments have been made to the doctrine America still uses some of the ideas of Monroe’s ideas in decisions made by the government.
Writ of Habeas Corpus: Should it be Extended to Enemy Combatants Kristin K. Lilienthal POL 120: American National Government Prof. Stephen Chortanoff February 4, 2013 Writ of Habeas Corpus: Should it be Extended to Enemy Combatants The arguments regarding how to treat suspected terrorist being detained in the war on terror, has become a divisive issue in the United States. Since these individuals are not members of a military organization that identifies with any one country or state, the traditional rules of Prisoners of War (POW) set forth by the Geneva Convention do not apply. The question, does the individuals being held as “enemy combatants” have a right to the protection of Habeas Corpus provided by the United States
Although instead of taking the military’s advice, and launching an invasion, Kennedy does deserve credit for the innovative approach of the blockade. However, Kennedy should not receive the Noble Peace Prize for doing his job. The Noble Peace Prize is given to the person who has done the most for the abolishment of war. President Kennedy’s goal was to eradicate communism, regardless of innocent lives that were taken in the process. His choice to put missiles in Turkey and his choice to put the United States in a war with Vietnam, a war that could not be won does not show a person trying to abolish war.
Basing her arguments further on development studies, human rights, politics and even law subjects, Lint explores the general field of international law in regards to how it applies to human right to life. National as well as international security has been explored as one area where human rights are always under threat. The voice in this peer-review article is that of an authority figure considering that Alexander is a
On the face of it, the containment of demonstrators would appear to be a clear breach of Art 5, however the courts have now focused on the exceptional circumstances in which the state will have lawful justification to employ the tactic. Until the convention was received into domestic law, domestic law continued to afford virtually no recognition to rights to meet or march. Now under Section 6 of HRA, those seeking to exercise rights of protest and assembly can rely on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention and any other relevant right, against public authorities, in particular the police. The Court has repeatedly asserted that freedom of expression, ‘’constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society’’ that exceptions to it ‘’must be narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions, convincingly established.’’1 However the Commission has been readily satisfied that decisions of the national authorities to adopt quite far reaching measures, including complete bans in order to prevent disorder are within their margin of appriation.2 The court has also found ‘’the margin of appreciation’’ extends in particular to the choice of the reasonable and appropriate means to be used by the authority to ensure that lawful manifestations take place peacefully.3 When looking at lawful manifestations they must bear in mind the common law doctrine of breach of the peace. The leading case is Howell4 in which it
How would you feel if you were forced to learn a new culture, language, and a new style of a country? Forcing an immigrant to adapt to a new country is morally wrong and should not be allowed. Forcing nonresidents to learn America’s culture and language is wrong because it would contradict the 1st amendment, they would be destroying the immigrant’s culture, and no foreign individual would be unique. Immigrants have the rights as anyone else, and restricting them is cold hearted. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Breaking this amendment will oppose the laws that our founding fathers made which outlined the fundamentals of this outstanding country we live in. Therefore, America has no right to demand nonresidents to learn their culture. Nobody denies that a personality can be created by culture. Culture determines many things about you such as what you eat, how you speak, what your beliefs are, what clothing you where,
It was not a revolution, it was a civil war - a war for independence. The goal was not to overthrow and replace the existing British government. The goal was to separate from that government. The war simply does not, by any rational use of language and logic, meet the criteria of a revolution. One thing the war did not achieve is the creation of a single new and independent nation in North America.
Without this authorization, any military activity against another country is illegal. There are two exceptions to this law: one is that, if your nation has been subjected to an armed attack by another nation, you may respond militarily in self-defense. The condition were not by the 9/11 attacks, however, because they were not carried out by another nation. Afghanistan did not attack the United States, and therefore this was not why the United States should have gone to war. Indeed, the 19 men charged with the crime were not Afghans.