W10 Reading: Human rights/ Joon Hee Lee
Human rights are legal rights that apply universally to all human beings. It stresses that humans must respect and care for each other, and this right, which cannot be taken away without proper legal procedures, has become the basis of all public policy.
However, it has not been long since the discussion on human rights that we knew took place. For the first time in the 17th century, human rights discussed about their existence became sophisticated through two revolutions (the Declaration of American Independence, the Declaration of Human Rights in France), protecting the rights and freedoms of many citizens by law.
Many will admit that human rights guarantee at least the standard of living humanly. Therefore, most would think that this value applies universally. But it occurred to me that it wasn't. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was the first global human rights treaty to be adopted by the United Nations, but it had limitations that it had no legal binding force. And in the process of forming the UDHR, many countries have engaged in war of nerves with different interests depending on the system, raising questions about the rationality of human rights.
One of the most interesting arguments was the debate of universal and relativistic views. They argued that human rights should be applied in a variety of ways, just as different countries have different cultures, emotions and situations. This, of course, is regarded as a ridiculous argument, but I thought it was commendable to see it from a special point of view.
Human rights have been in their present form, constantly repeating revisions from the past. I think this continued development was possible because of the growing awareness of human rights. Then, can human rights be further developed now? What would it be if it had the right to be more important in the future than it is now?
Comments
Post a Comment