Is a human rights offense considered an actual crime or just a moral failing?

Question: Is a human rights offense considered an actual crime or just a moral failing? Answer: Human rights is a universal concept that is present in many academic disciplines as well as many areas of public life. This wide presence allows human rights offenses to be considered both crimes and moral offenses. For example, in education, human rights courses can be taught as an international studies course, where the discussion would focus on morality, or as a law course, where the discussion would center around legality. On a broader scale, the United Nations has created documents that cover both moral and legal boundaries. In February of 1947, Eleanor Roosevelt, Pen-Chun Chang, and Charles Malik drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On December 10th, 1948, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly as a common standard of achievements for all people and all nations. It includes 30 articles that define human rights such as the right to life, liberty, and security of person, the right to not be subjected to torture, and the right to not be held in slavery or servitude. Every country has signed the UDHR, but it is not legally binding. These signatures represent a moral commitment to the values represented by the Declaration. The hope when creating the UDHR was that the articles would be integrated into member states’ national laws and constitutions, and this was true for some. Despite these moral values being defined as law, many human rights offenses have still occurred. For example, the treatment of people of color in America violates human rights law. However, because it is government action that contributes to these violations, and it is the government’s responsibility to protect against them, there are often no repercussions. When academic scholars and activists discovered this problem, they put pressure on political leaders to create multilateral treaties. Multilateral treaties are made under the control of the UN Security Council. These treaties are legal, binding documents. There are nine main treaties and nine optional protocol treaties. The nine main treaties are The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; The Convention on the Rights of the Child; The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families; The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Six of these treaties were derived directly from the UDHR. If there is a violation of these treaties, there could be punishments such as sanctions or military intervention (authorization for countries with military forces to attack another country in the name of the UN Security Council). On July 1, 2002, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court came into force. This treaty established the first ever criminal court focusing on human rights abuses. The ICC has jurisdiction over the following categories of crime: crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The ICC is complementary to national criminal jurisdictions in State Parties. When national jurisdictions are either unwilling or unable to try crimes, the ICC is, in theory, a permanent, independent court with the power to do so. While the ICC seems ideal, it has failed in many ways. There have been many conflicts, armed conflicts, and wars, during which documented war crimes and crimes against humanities have taken place. However, the ICC has not taken any significant action to prosecute those responsible. When the ICC does take action, it tends to disproportionately go after African leaders. The Court took on many cases that involved African countries, and no cases that involved European countries, which in turn promoted many African countries to either withdraw or threaten to withdraw from the ICC. A rare example of the ICC operating the way it is intended is when the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Russian president, Vladimir Putin. This only occurred because all western European countries and US were in agreement that action needed to be taken. Russia has a veto power for the UN, so the only way to hold the Russian government accountable is through the ICC.

It’s critical to talk about the differences that lie between what an actual crime is defined as, and what a moral failing is defined as, in order to respond to this question. By definition, a crime is an act or behavior that is against the law and is subject to punishment. An actual crime may result in a variety of repercussions, including, but not restricted to, fines, probation, community service, incarceration, and so on. From a social perspective, an actual crime is understood as an infringement upon the legal standards set by an authoritative figure. These offenses range in intensity and might involve acts such as stealing, fraud, assault, etc. Whether someone is punished by the law or by the public's view is the primary distinction between a crime and a moral failing. A moral failing, on the other hand, can be defined as an action or behavior that, in accordance with one's own or the society’s perception of cultural or social norms, is deemed immoral or morally incorrect, even though it may not be punishable by law. Moral failings do not carry any legal consequences like physical crimes do, but they can nonetheless result in social rejection, reputational damage, feelings of guilt or regret, and other negative outcomes. From a societal perspective, a moral failing can be understood in a multitude of ways depending on the cultural norms, individual variations, and the structure of a community. While they are not technically illegal, lying to someone for personal benefit, being unfaithful, and breaking promises are a few instances of moral failings. In terms of whether a human rights offense should be classified as one or another, human rights offenses occupy a unique position where they are recognized as both severe breaches of moral and ethical standards and as criminal acts that warrant legal punishment and prevention. There have been several claimed human rights breaches, war crimes, and moral failings in the current conflict between Israel and Palestinian groups.The Israel-Hamas war is currently occuring in the Gaza Strip, which has been under a violent blockade for 16 years. There have been at least 37,900 people killed and over 80,000 that have been wounded since October 7th, 2023. This raises the question of why this is occurring and why it hasn’t been stopped. Human rights offenses are portrayed here through both the lenses of actual crimes and moral failings. Regarding actual crimes, the Israel-Hamas conflict exemplifies a number of human rights violations that are defined as such by both national and international law. Those engaged in an armed conflict are required by international humanitarian law, particularly the Geneva Conventions, to make a clear distinction between combatants and civilians and refrain from purposefully targeting people or civilian infrastructure. Attacks that might injure more civilians than would be necessary to achieve the expected military advantage are meant to be prohibited by the legal framework. Israel has been often accused of responding to rocket assaults from Gaza with disproportionate force, including airstrikes and artillery shelling that result in high civilian casualties and widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure. The actions that have been taken within the context of this war against Gaza are examples of legal violations. Due to security concerns, Israel has blocked Gaza from the air, land, and sea since 2007, to prevent weapons smuggling and attacks by Hamas. The blockade negatively affects Gaza's economy and quality of life by limiting the movement of people and products. This imposes a legal concern because while critics argue that the blockade amounts to collective punishment, this is prohibited under international law. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that, “No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.” As a result of the blockade's restrictions on access to healthcare, essential supplies, and building materials, humanitarian issues have gotten worse. Perceptions of targeted killings as real crimes are also possible. Targeting combatants in armed conflict is permitted by international law, but operations must limit harm to civilians. The act of extrajudicial executions without due process gives rise to important ethical and legal concerns. Israel has executed terrorists, including leaders of Hamas, purposefully. Although the goal of these operations is to neutralize security concerns, they frequently cause collateral damage, including the deaths of civilians. Conversely, Hamas has been launching rockets and mortars into Israeli territory, indiscriminately targeting residential areas. The targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure is prohibited by international law, including the laws of war. According to organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), such acts are classified as war crimes. In an effort to prevent Israeli attacks, Hamas has also been accused with employing civilians as human shields by positioning military targets inside or close to highly populated civilian neighborhoods. International law prohibits the use of human shields because it puts civilian lives in danger and goes against the idea of non-combatant protection. In this case, violations of human rights are also seen as moral failings. Civilians have suffered as a result of the Israel-Hamas conflict. Gaza is currently experiencing a serious humanitarian crisis as a result of the conflict given that more than two million people consistently lack access to clean water, electricity, medical supplies, and other necessities. Children make up a large proportion of Gaza's population, and as a result, they have experienced trauma, limited educational opportunities, and poor health. The war has had detrimental effects on the society’s psychological being as well. Both Israeli and Palestinian citizens suffer from constant exposure to violence, devastation, and instability; this can result in PTSD and other mental health problems. Future generations' social and psychological development is impacted by the ongoing war, which feeds cycles of hatred and violence and impacts both sides. Consequently, this has led to both the Israeli and Hamas government to lack moral responsibility for their civilians. The blockade and military strategies have raised moral and legal questions about the treatment of Gaza’s civilian population. Hamas has been criticized for employing strategies that put civilians in danger, suppressing dissent within its territory, and putting military goals before the welfare of Gaza's citizens. Organizations like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and others constantly record and report on violations by both sides in reaction to these moral failings, calling for responsibility and respect for human rights. There has been a persistent need for additional inquiries and responsibility for both sides. As a result, international reactions have been crucial to providing humanitarian relief and assistance. Humanitarian aid is supplied by nations and international organizations to lessen the suffering in Gaza. Food, medical supplies, and assistance with rebuilding efforts are included in this. Diplomatic efforts are made by international entities, such as the United States, the European Union, and regional countries, to mediate ceasefires and advance enduring peace. Therefore, there are many different perspectives and interpretations on the circumstances surrounding a human rights violation and whether it should be viewed as an actual crime or a moral failing. With serious transgressions of international law and moral principles committed by both Israel and Palestinian organizations like Hamas, the situation in Gaza is a complicated interplay of actual crimes and moral failings. Although legal structures offer opportunities for accountability, the ongoing moral failings emphasize the need for empathy, humanitarian assistance, and constant diplomatic attempts to resolve the conflict and prevent further suffering.