PLCY 110 Final | Questions With 100% Correct Answers | Verified

Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Answer--December 10th, 1948 (post WWII) -Defined human rights through treaties that certain countries signed and ratified -Defined human rights as being based on inherent human dignity no matter person's background -Universal approach -48 countries in favor, 0 against, 8 abstentions -Didn't have force of law (simply agreement of principle) and wasn't binding to the members -US Constitution states that signed and ratified treaties and provisions are domestic law (ONLY when 2/3 of Senate ratify) 8 Countries who Abstained and Reasons - Answer--8 countries: USSR, Ukraine, Belarus, Yugoslavia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, South Africa, and Saudi Arabia -South Africa abstained because of its system of apartheid in which white dominated govt. denied political rights to black citizens -Soviet Union (and satellite countries) abstained because they objected to privileging political and civil rights -Saudi Arabia abstained because they objected to Article 18 (freedom to practice one's religion) as their law forbid practice of other religions in public Treaties following UDHR - Answer--Not many were adopted since they weren't binding -One convention in 1966 separated economic, social, and cultural rights from civil and political rights -Even if a country signs a treaty, they can have stipulations towards parts of the treaties they don't agree with Proscriptive rights - Answer--AKA negative rights -proscribe govt. from doing something to you as an individual -Keep govt. from infringing on particular inherent natural rights that you have -Found in covenant on civil and political rights -People in Western, developed countries prioritize these because of liberty -ex. US Bill of Rights-ex. Due process rights stop govt. from putting you in prison without fair jury trial Prescriptive rights - Answer--AKA positive rights -State things that you are entitled to as a citizen, resident of that country -Govt. should be expected to provide for you -Low-income, developing countries prioritize these because they believe that the rights offer economic success -If govt. cannot get basic needs, govt. should play a role in making sure you get them -ex. right to education, right to quality healthcare Categories of Human Rights - Answer--Security: right to life and security of person -Liberty: rights to freedom of slavery, prison, religion -Political: rights to participate in politics (voting) -Due Process: protects against abuse of legal system -Equality: equal citizenship before the law and against discrimination -Welfare: prescriptive rights; economic and social rights, provision of education, protections against sever poverty and starvation Prescriptive vs. Proscriptive Rights Debate - Answer--Article 25 in UDHR=prescriptive -Article 3, 4, and 5=proscriptive -Caused by govt. representatives who justify meeting basic needs over freedom of media or speech (most non-Democratic countries believe in this) -ex. Chinese govt has claimed that since 1981, they've raised 600 million people out of poverty to middle class; However, they still deny political rights -Comes down to perspective of country Universalism - Answer--All human beings are entitled to certain basic rights -Believed to be culturally imperialist, rooted in particular political and secular outlook -Rooted in philosophers like John Locke -Applicable in North America, western Europe, and JapanRelativism - Answer--Believes that human rights vary according to context -Context can come from culture, ethnicity, and religion -Not all rights will be equally applicable in all contacts for all people -Application and promotion of rights will vary by country or region -Govts, should be free to choose which rights to provide Universalism vs. Relativism debate - Answer--Article 2=universalist -Govt. of some countries may prioritize some rights over others which may not be successful -Dictatorships, authoritarian govts, prioritze rights for their supporters' welfare, not population Article 16 of UDHR - Answer--Most controversial -Talks about equal consent to marriage -Easily can think of exceptions within cultures, (e.g. gender inequality, child marriage) Realists (Does International Law Matter?) - Answer--Believe that international law doesn't matter because leaders don't change behavior and there is no international system to enforce -Point out that regimes and corrupt govt. can get away with violations -Treaties are only for appearance and benefits Liberal Institutionalists (Does International Law Matter?) - Answer--International law matters, but not as much as domestic law -Believe why would countries use time and resources to not comply to the treaties -Signing and ratifying shows that countries actually do value international law -Know that international norm can be influenced by international law -Prevents a govt. from saying that they don't value human rights (will look illegitimate) -International law also requires countries to send reports of compliance to the convention that they're a part of Bodies that Monitor Human Rights - Answer--Est. by UDHR-UN Commission on Human Rights (1946)/Human Rights Council (2005) -NGOs -Global Media -IGOs -Individual states UN Commission on Human Rights (1946)/Human Rights Council (2005) - Answer--Human rights treaty bodies that are stated within the treaty to monitor that treaty -Countries seemed to join for own interest (ex. Sudan) -No independent experts on commission -Transition to Council was caused by lobbying of NGOs (ex. Amnesty International) -New council is more legitimate and authoritative -47 members are part of human rights org (NGO and govt.) and human rights experts NGOs - Answer--AKA non-governmental organizations -Use naming and shaming technique -Annual reports of human rights conditions in country made publicly available Global Media - Answer--Directly call out countries for human rights violations -Help NGOs and IGOs IGOS - Answer-Regional Intergovernmental organizations Transnational Activist Network (TANs) - Answer--Civil society leaders across countries are connected to use language and the act of treaties to educate population -Cause pressure on country to shed light on their human rights progress, activism, and education within population about their own rights Naming and shaming technique - Answer--Name violators and shame them for their violations -Created by Emilie M. Hafner Burton-Burton has performed research that shows correlation between action and better govt. progress -NGOs have highest impact as action increases -recent ex. NGOs and global media called out US for police brutality and poor response to protests Effects of Naming and Shaming - Answer--If countries have been named and shamed: -foreign direct investments from businesses decrease, which can lower trade and economic growth -govt. can start to change behaviors towards human rights -not an overnight effects -caused by positive OR negative naming and shaming Global Progress on Human Rights - Answer--Liberal institutionalists believe in this -Today, countries are actually more respectable towards human rights -Can be seen in a circular diagram: diffusion of norms -- treaties/international law -- monitoring -- enforcement -Enforcement can occur through military actions, economic incentives, naming and shaming, NGOs, IGOS, UN, and other countries Genocide - Answer--Means that actions are committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part a national, ethical, racial, or religious group -Doesn't include political groups because Soviet Union and satellite countries feared that they were performing genocide at the time -Dr. Gregory Stanton studies genocide and says that in the 20th century there were 100 million people who were murdered by their own government Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - Answer--Created in 1948 -Defines genocide -US and other countries ratified with provisions in order to grant immunity to certain groups -147-48 countries are part of treaty -Believes that there has been more than 40 cases of genocide or politicide (includes political groups) since 1955Intent to Destroy - Answer--Even if you don't succeed, acting with this is genocide -Also means that things that result in destruction of group without intent IS NOT genocide National - Answer-groups defined by common country of nationality or origin Ethical - Answer-groups defined by common cultural traditions, language, heritage Racial - Answer--groups defined by common physical traits