Comments on Rights

Comments on Rights for reflection on events and ideas with significant consequences on the discourse and the standing of institutions of rights

Do the violations associated with the war in Gaza amount to a Genocide

HUQUQ Editors Comments on Rights, International humanitarian Law, Research Notes Gaza Genocide, Genocide 0

by Amanda Nelson The term “Gaza genocide” refers to allegations and findings that Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. These allegations have been made by various United Nations bodies, human rights organizations, and experts. United Nations Findings: The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) has concluded that Israel has committed at least three of the constitutive acts of genocide in Gaza since October 7, 2023. Statements by high-level Israeli military and government officials have been cited as evidence of genocidal intent 1. The UN Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People determined that Israel’s actions in Gaza are consistent with the characteristics of genocide 1. International Court of Justice (ICJ): On December 29, 2023, South Africa filed an application with the ICJ, accusing Israel of violating its obligations under the Genocide Convention in relation to Palestinians in Gaza. The ICJ issued provisional measures on January 26, 2024, ordering Israel to prevent the commission of acts within Article II of the Genocide Convention and to ensure that Israeli military forces do not commit any of these acts 1. Human Rights Organizations: Amnesty International has concluded that Israel has committed and continues to commit genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Their report documents the systematic destruction of essential infrastructure, including universities, schools, mosques, churches, museums, and libraries 23. Human Rights Watch and other rights organizations have also accused Israel […]

The Perils of Individualism

HUQUQ Research Team Comments on Rights Individualism, Supremacism 0

How Rooting Human Rights in Individualism Fuels Supremacism and Atrocity by Demhas The modern conception of human rights is often rooted in individualism—placing the individual at the center of moral, political, and legal consideration. While individualism has undeniably contributed to personal freedoms and autonomy, an extreme focus on the individual can lead to dangerous distortions. Among these distortions, supremacism emerges as a byproduct of unchecked individual entitlement, and history has shown that supremacism is a powerful driver of human rights atrocities. At its core, individualism champions self-interest, autonomy, and personal achievement. While these values can encourage creativity and progress, they also risk fostering an exaggerated sense of self-importance and entitlement. When individuals or groups internalize the idea that their rights and desires take precedence over those of others, a supremacist mindset can take root. Supremacism—whether based on race, nationality, religion, or ideology—relies on the belief that certain individuals or groups are inherently superior and therefore justified in exerting control over others. History provides numerous examples where supremacist ideologies, deeply intertwined with extreme individualist thinking, have led to some of the worst human rights violations. Colonialism, for instance, was largely driven by the belief that European individuals had a superior right to land, resources, and governance over indigenous populations. Similarly, racial segregation, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing have often been justified by supremacist narratives that elevate certain groups above others, leading to systematic oppression and violence. The 20th century bore witness to extreme individualist and supremacist ideologies culminating in mass atrocities. The […]

Did Trump implicate US government and himself in crimes when he stated his intent to remove the people of Gaza and take over their land?

Research Assistants Comments on Rights Colonialism, Deportation and Populations Transfer, Genocide, Indigenous peoples Rights, Sovereign Immunity, State Crime 0

Anyone with a general understanding of international law, human rights norms, and historical precedents would recoil at the suggestion that a community be forcibly relocated to other countries while their land is seized by another nation-state. When such statements come from the leader of the world’s most powerful nation, they are cause for serious concern. To grasp the gravity of such remarks, it’s essential to consider the historical, legal, and political context behind them. In 2010, highly respected journalist Helen Thomas faced significant backlash after making a controversial statement suggesting that Jews who had migrated to Israel should return to their countries of origin. While speaking to Rabbi David Nesenoff at the White House during a Jewish Heritage event, she stated that Jews in Israel should “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go home” to places like Poland, Germany, and the United States. Her remarks were widely criticized as anti-Semitic and historically insensitive, given the long history of Jewish persecution in those countries. The consequences went beyond mere criticism—Thomas’s life and career were profoundly transformed. A prominent White House correspondent and columnist for decades, she abruptly retired from her position at Hearst Newspapers following the incident, effectively ending her career in journalism. In addition to losing the job she had excelled at for decades, several organizations rescinded the awards and honors she had previously received. Her comments dominated the news cycle for weeks, drawing widespread condemnation from political figures, media outlets, and advocacy groups, particularly Jewish organizations. Thomas later […]

The History of Deporting Migrants Out of the USA and Its Conflict with Human Rights Treaties

Research Assistants Comments on Rights Deportation and Populations Transfer, Migration 0

Introduction: The United States has a long and complex history of deporting migrants, a practice that has often sparked significant controversy and raised questions about its compliance with international human rights standards. From the early 20th century to the present day, U.S. deportation policies have evolved in response to shifting political, economic, and social landscapes. However, many of these policies have conflicted with human rights treaties, particularly those addressing the rights of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. This article explores the history of deportations in the U.S. and examines how these actions have often clashed with international human rights obligations. Early Deportation Practices (18th and 19th Centuries) The origins of deportation in the United States can be traced back to the late 18th century. The Naturalization Act of 1798, part of the Alien and Sedition Acts, allowed the federal government to deport non-citizens deemed “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.” This early legislation was primarily aimed at political dissidents and reflected the young nation’s anxieties about foreign influence. While these early laws were primarily aimed at political dissidents, they set a precedent for using deportation as a tool of control. During the 19th century, deportation was not a widespread practice, as the country’s open immigration policies encouraged the arrival of millions of Europeans to support industrialization and westward expansion. However, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 marked a significant turning point. This law, the first to restrict immigration based on nationality, prohibited Chinese laborers from entering […]

Globalism and Human Rights

Research Assistants Comments on Rights Economics, Globalism, Globaliztion, Migration, Poverty 0

Globalization is the term used to describe the liberalization and interdependence between the world’s economies, cultures, and populations (Peterson Institute for International Economics). Globalization encompasses the growing cross-border trade of goods and services, foreign direct investment (FDI) and foreign portfolio investment (FPI), technology, and information between countries. Think of it as a “McDonaldization” of not just capital, labor, and commodities but of lifestyles, ideas, preferences, food, culture, and values–the interaction amongst people within states plays a vital role in transforming not just political institutions, but cultural standards (norms), and social connections (Swathi Hosamani and Shravani Hosamani 4). Furthermore, globalization brings about economic growth, technological progress, and infrastructure development and has the promise to bring lower-developed countries into the 21st century; however, simultaneously, many difficulties still arise at the intersection of economic progress and safeguarding human rights (Swathi et al. 7). First, what does it mean to safeguard human rights? “Human rights”, a term coined in the 20th century, nevertheless present since the beginning of civilization, are fundamental basic rights. Human Rights are natural or inherent within all of us by virtue of our existence. To safeguard human rights means to uphold the inherent worth and respect of every individual in the collective and in cultivating a cohesive society, protect against any attempt of infringement of one’s dignity, as a collective cannot triumph if even the inherent rights of one do not remain inviolable (Swathi et al. 7). Economic globalization does not just have significant potential to impact human rights; it […]

On the Release of Political Prisoners in Syria and Human Rights

HUQUQ Editors Comments on Rights Political Prisoners, Torture 0

There are good reasons for cheering the freeing of political prisoners held in Syria after the fall of the Baath rule. Indeed, no one should be imprisoned for political expression or for belonging to a political trend that disagrees with the ruling party. Therefore, probing evidence of torture and holding those responsible should be the most urgent action, but it must be done independently and transparently. The collapsed Syrian government, like all other governments around the world, created a “label” for social groups it wants to target, legislate a law that criminalize the “label”, and use the law to justify all its abuses. In the last 24 years alone, the Syrian government attached the label “terrorism” to all groups that have opposed its rule, and in many cases, even to those who called for political reform, and used the designation to justify exclusion, imprisonment, and torture of political opponents. The swift and relatively “peaceful” collapse of the Baath government this time, spared the Syrian people much death and destruction that they are all very familiar with. However, the political change is rooted in extreme violence that persisted for more than 14 years, a time during which all armed entities committed human rights abuses. It is unlikely that human rights abuses will end with the fall of Baath government. Earlier this year, for weeks, Syrians in Idlib took to the streets to protest the rule and practices of some of the groups that governed northwest Syrian. From March to May (2024), […]

Towards a global alliance to compensate for colonialism and its crimes

Research Assistants Comments on Rights Colonialism, Exploitation, Human Rights 0

by Muhammed Khalil Al-Mousa * The idea of colonialism has historically been based on the practice of imposing political, economic, social, cultural and legal domination by a foreign state, often a Western state, over a foreign territory and its inhabitants. Colonialism, which extended from the sixteenth century until the middle of the twentieth century, was a practice not prohibited under traditional international law, but it became prohibited since the middle of the twentieth century, when the United Nations decolonized the world. Colonial practices and policies were built on plundering the wealth of the colonial peoples, accumulating wealth and capital at their expense, impoverishing, marginalizing, enslaving and trading them, destroying their industries and agricultural and commercial activities, as well as the oppression, oppression and brutality practiced by the colonial powers in the lands under their control. Those colonial policies and practices led to structural imbalances between colonial and colonial states, manifested in historical injustice and inequality.

UN: “Stop denying racism, start dismantling it”

Editorial Team Reports, Comments on Rights Supremacism 0

UN Human Rights Chief urges immediate, transformative action to uproot systemic racism GENEVA (28 June 2021) – UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet on Monday issued an urgent call for States to adopt a “transformative agenda” to uproot systemic racism, as she published a report casting a spotlight on the litany of violations of economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights suffered by people of African descent – on a daily basis and across different States and jurisdictions. The report states that the worldwide mobilization of people calling for racial justice has forced a long-delayed reckoning with racism and shifted debates towards a focus on the systemic nature of racism and the institutions that perpetrate it.

The human right that benefits…

Research Assistants Comments on Rights environment 0

This provocative article’s main thesis is succinctly captured by the title, the human right that benefits nature. While informative with the level of details and timelines that chronicle the struggle of community organizers to secure livable clean spaces, it nonetheless perpetuates the idea that human rights are claims for specific rights independent of whatever else is happening in the world. The piece, however, highlights the need for the reframing human rights discourse. It reveals human rights as outcomes of plurality of intra- and interconnected systems with direct and indirect effects. To have a fuller grasp of the causes, motives, and effects of human rights abuses, we must adopt the systems thinking framework. Such a paradigm shift will allow us to account for determinant and affluent systems that directly and indirectly produce the human wrongs that has devastated and continue to devastate communities and the environment. The systems thinking paradigm, when applied to human rights, reveals the deliberate designs that connect the smallest single cell organism to the planet earth and beyond; it underscores the fact that human rights, in the end, benefit humans. …Read the human right that benefits nature

Impact of Sovereign and Absolute Immunity on Human Rights

Prof. Souaiaia Comments on Rights Absolute Immunity, Sovereign Immunity 0

by Ahmed E. Souaiaia Those who believe in top-down paradigm for the promotion of human rights norms are given another good example of the misplaced expectations as the new US administration tackles the legacy of abuse and human rights violations. I have consistently argued that legislating through executive order does not necessarily promote the long-term health of a human rights regime. When considering the fact that human rights abuses are primarily carried out by governments, it becomes evident that entrusting the protection of human rights to a government amounts to asking violators to look after the wellbeing of the victims: individuals, minority, and vulnerable groups. Although the Obama administration, through a series of executive orders, intended to end the abusive and illegal practices such as torture and indefinite detention of suspects: In Guantanamo prison alone, a total of 779 people were detained for years, only to release 538 of these people without ever being charged of crime. Additionally, the extrajudicial spying on citizens conceived and practiced by the Bush administration was never fully addressed. Ultimately, the Obama’s executive orders rendered many pending or future court interventions in many of these matters moot. Not giving the courts an opportunity to issue a legal ruling regarding the extent of executive authority will deprive future victims from a powerful legal precedent on the one hand, and leave the door open for future administrations to reverse these executive orders or initiate a new regime of abusive and illegal practices.