Abstract
This paper focuses on three issues that I consider essential for human rights and on which I want to turn everyone's attention. I deal with the basic concepts of human rights and their development. Then I will look at what the political impact of human rights is and why they were placed on politics and the courts. Because there are some fundamental rights that no government can interfere with. The first problem is the restoration and revision of some of the basic rights that should include social groups that are delicate nowadays.
The second problem that I want to underline is the specific inclusion of the problems of children and war refugees. Problematic is the imposition of specific mechanisms for the restoration of human rights in each state. Also, these mechanisms are world-wide. The third problem I would like to mention is cybersecurity for the personal information of people of different groups. Often the breach of personal security has severe consequences for the fundamental rights of individuals.
Introduction in law and human rights
In the first studies of different books of law, I can say some very objective analyzes, and very few of them seem to be the union of the objective and the subjective. What we have called human rights and which are defined bylaws is the intersection between politics and laws. Meetings between different policies and laws are often infrequent and unfriendly due to the way different groups view these laws and rights. [1] Often, these clashes of opinions and views are unfriendly to one another. If we look at it from the standpoint of all of us, these human rights are nothing new or special, and often even when recognized by the laws, they change their construction. These are the thoughts of Sir William Blackstone. [5] He has called these human rights natural rights that make people the same beings and with individual rights. In our view, we have some laws which are fundamental to the narrative and some which are most necessary and well defined by the laws. However, what are the laws? They are simple joint decisions of a grouping that should set a rule in social relations, but also preserve the natural rights of each of us. Human society is earlier than civilizations and the state. It has inherited us over the years some legitimate rights that have been called natural rights to the life of every human being. These natural rights cannot be suppressed by any law or by certain policies. They are older than the state and impermissible to violate. [5] These inherited legitimate rights give rise to the modern idea that defines human rights. By taking these human rights as legitimate, then our outlook expands and becomes much more open. We accept the rights of different societies; we strive to recognize the rights of people of different groups and on different continents. So, for example, in the coherent conflicts of war, we can say that different states in Europe and also in our state have received different refugees. Why have we done this? This leads us to the conclusion that it is their natural right to live and leave a country in which they are endangered. They have the right to defend their right to save their lives from threats. Whereas we are and most modern and democratic societies recognize this right without being recognized and based on our legislation. We are not saying we have laws, and we're saying if there is a need for change in those laws, we can think and make that change. [1] These changes will be made by politics and also by the decisions of some elected and specialist people in this field. This is also the basis of all democratic legislation to protect human rights.
Fundamentals of human rights and also wrongs
In a democratic system, people feel free, but is that true? Is human freedom complete in every situation? In my opinion, the democratic system is a system that makes decisions based on the majority. If a majority decides that a law is fair, then it is accepted as such. Nevertheless, there may be small groups that may be affected by different laws. [4] As mentioned above, for some immutable natural rights, these should not depend on the policies of different countries. If we look at political developments in certain regimes and in the democracy, we can openly express some opinions. In the closed political regimes of communism, the laws of the country themselves were governed by a group of people who spared no one in their laws, and especially those who did not accept their policies. In the regimes of the kingdoms, it depended on the opinion of a political leader. In democratic politics, however, the laws also depend on a select group. But are there any laws that transcend politics that have to pass these social restrictions? Because people and the group are often powerful beings, who can decide wrong. As mentioned above, for some immutable natural rights, these should not depend on the policies of different countries. If we look at political developments in certain regimes and in the democracy, we can openly express some opinions. In the closed political regimes of communism, the laws of the country themselves were governed by a group of people who spared no one in their laws, and especially those who did not accept their policies. In the regimes of the kingdoms, it depended on the opinion of a political leader. In democratic politics, however, the laws also depend on a select group. However, are there any laws that transcend politics that have to pass these social restrictions. People, most of the time, are too influential, and they even being in a group can make wrong decisions. [4]
Only a few years ago, people accepted the death penalty as fair and supported it on several occasions. But there have been times that the decision has been hasty and not fair. This led us years later to remove and no longer accept as punishment. Is it right for a group of people to make laws to take another person's life? There are various debates about this, and they continue in some countries and have such a debate.[1]
In conclusion of all these analyzes, I think this is the path that would take us and lead us to a much higher statement which should uphold some basic human rights. These rights appear to lie with everyone and should not be violated by anyone. Therefore societies accept them and call them an irreducible boundary. Human rights do not depend on whether they like a political group or legislation because they stand far above and are rights established as the basis of societies for millennia. Often in the epochs, which have been called religious and when religion has often had a significant influence on societies, then these rights have been regarded as divine laws, and they were inviolable. Written on the tablets of the stone of Moses and placed for all humankind. They are the base of all the religious books to protect all the people and the poor with the same rights in society. [1]
In the period of democracy and also implemented today, there emerged as a social and legitimate need to protect many of these rights, and the human rights convention was drafted. It is the adoption of a much larger part of society that makes us decide on some of the most human rights laws, and that has made us think and revise them. If these laws that are put in place in democracy affect a grouping or one of the fundamental rights, then they are reviewed and decided upon by state institutions. In my moral and personal judgment as a human rights scholar, I think they are the basis of society and are also very necessary. They are accepted before political debates and interests but are also above all the debates and disapproval of certain groups. When a state makes decisions that violate these human rights, then there must be higher institutions to protect them.
Categories of fundamental rights
The first question that comes to our mind is, what is the basis for all human rights? What are these human rights for which a convention outlining the basic laws is written? These rights are clear to all of us, but I am very keen to accept the idea of dividing these rights into several categories. From many other scholars, I can first say that two categories of basic human rights have been accepted, which have been designated as such by all and by every democratic country. The first category includes the basic rights to life without which one cannot live. Living without them means living in a place where strength is the basis of survival. We have the right to live, not to be killed, to be unjustly punished, and to be equal before the law. The court before us must be impartial and protect only a legitimate right.
The second category of rights is those without which societies cannot live in a democratic country because they would lack complete freedom of speech and thought. Everyone has the right to express his opinion and not to be tried or punished. But if he does not affect the lives of other people who have as many rights as he does. [5]
It could also express my opinion on how these other category rights affect people. The expression of free thought immensely influenced my parents living at the beginning of their lives in the communist era. State institutions could judge any opinion that was against the political, social, or economic situation. It would also affect their lives, and they could turn into politicians. [5] They still today do not think they can say their opinion openly and without fear. That is how I think I was born in a democratic state. However, it is also problematic for other people who have lived through such a difficult period in which the state decided on your life and had no right to express your beliefs.
As I have said above, I would like to include some other categories of laws that I have thought of as necessary for all societies.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
I also emphasize to include a specific category of laws, and these are the laws for children. Children's laws must be prioritized and the fundamental rights of each one of them. [11] In some parts of eastern Europe, most child protection laws are not enforced. There are no basic standards for their rights. They must be incorporated into the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, any government should be obliged to accept it as such and not be debated. Also, since children are the seed of life and the future of society, their rights should be above all states and not be influenced by political and social disagreements. [8]
Another specific category of human rights may include the protection and security of online information. [2] Every person's private information is nowadays featured online. These data are very simple to obtain from particular persons or used by certain states. I see as a separate category of human rights protection of personal information rights and protection from the impact of such an attack.
The dynamic International mechanism for human rights
Any country should have a mechanism that has all the basic law for the human rights that has to be international. [2] According to all the theories given to us, a source of laws has been created that is fully protected and must be completely independent of all democratically elected governments of certain countries. These fundamental laws must definitely have institutions that are universally responsible for their protection and recognition. Such a mechanism could refer to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, the courts that operate over states such as the Hague Tribunal. Different mechanisms in the countries and Europe work for human rights, for peacekeeping in different regions, for anti-discrimination rights, for maintaining gender stability between men and women. Also, for the integration of human rights into all aspects of their life. In my opinion, another powerful mechanism should be the protection of war refugees. [7]
Human rights development
Human rights being enforced by an international organization, and in our European case, they manage to determine all the steps of individual vulnerability and when this comes from their state. [3] We have seen that many of the conflicts that have taken place in the region have been resolved and have been able to reach even higher organizations. If anyone has a right to a particular case even to his state, he has the right to seek it even at the highest international level. One such example is the Hague court. [6]
In recent years, refugees coming from Syria are a problem that we can call international. Different countries that have more developed economies have accepted them and also integrated them into their societies. Nevertheless, these decisions have been made in the countries of Europe that have offered assistance. [3] Why we cannot have a much more powerful mechanism to undertake the resolution and protection of civilians amidst various political conflicts. These mechanisms appear to be institutions over states, over policies, and more influence in one state. To fully protect the rights of everyone. [6]
Aspects seen as problematic on human rights
Government human rights organizations have a problem that I see as such. This problematic is on the issues of immigrants and war refugees. Most European countries have accepted war refugees and usually, have passed some laws to protect them. But problematic for them is their integration into society. [2] They have rights but not the same rights in all states. Can human rights be imposed as world obligations? Can there be a world organization that is above all governments? I think that for children and refugees, there must be organizations to help and integrate them into the societies of different countries. [3] Even if this may not be entirely possible, these organizations will have full support and accommodation space for these two groups that have been and are problematic.
New problematic and the safety of human rights in the digital area
Are human rights at risk in the digital age? We live in a digital age in which we are hearing about private conversations of celebrities who have been made public. But without thinking about it a little more personal. Would we like to see our private conversation as something public?
Nowadays, I am looking at scientific, technical, and social conferences for the protection of digital information rights. But on a legal basis, these rights as new and inexperienced are untreated by the laws. [11] Some restrictions have been attempted to be made on electronic networks, but there is no personal or social restraint to prevent them. As we limit ourselves to hurting a person physically, we should be thinking and dealing with a person's personal information, and when that information or threat is digital. [12]
It seems like in this time we do not have e personal life and private communications. People's privacy and personal information can be misused at any time. We have heard that personal and private phone calls often come from different people in leadership positions. If these calls are not made with intimidation or coercion and harm somebody, then there is a violation of human rights. All the safety of the rights in the information is called cybersecurity, and all the crimes are called cyber-crimes. Some of the biggest challenges are the digital certification of authority that is essential for development. However, although the information is vital at this time, it is not comparable to the laws established in the human rights convention. But he can be a threat to many of them and to the freedom of a personal life even under state rules.
These human rights restrictions or infringements on Internet information may be taken into consideration by different countries and incorporated into state legislation. Some progress has been made in recent years but again little compared to the social need for them. Recent developments have seen that when personal information rights are violated, many people may experience the consequences of their lives as a restriction, but also the basic rights conferred by the human rights convention, especially for those laws that we have categorized in the second grouping of human rights. Cybercrime can threaten one's privacy, threaten personal information, and often life. We have seen that disclosure of state and normal and personal information has brought about conflicts and discrimination. [10] Cybercrime is often not widely viewed as breaching a person's privacy. Most people support this when it comes to a politically known person. Specific organizations must protect the right to personal information. Social media should also protect it in the case of public persons. [12] If this information is not an indication of a problem or a crime and followed by the government. It should then be completely prohibited from being made public. Another critical problem is educating people to live in a digital age and not to divulge personal information.
Conclusions
The human rights convention was the basic solution for the legislation of many states. It protects all people and should become fully applicable to all countries. The Convention on Human Rights must be imposed on all states. Also, even to the other states of the world that are not integrated and are in the risk of war. There must be international mechanisms to impose it.
Vulnerable groups such as children and refugees in emergencies should not be imposed on a state with more economic conditions. They should be protected from physical space and also economic space. Certain international mechanisms should create these spaces. Another contemporary problematic is cybersecurity. It should be reviewed frequently to make changes and establish rights related to the privacy of individuals.
Stuck on your essay?
