My opponent claims that there is no mandate to give priority to the interests of foreign countries. The US had scant self-interest in pressing human rights in Bosnia, for example, but chose to do so.
If the resolution said, "Nations should make some sacrifices to advance the universal right of free speech. However, the resolution leaves it entirely up to government to decide what constitutes "universal human rights," without clues as to what those rights are. Therefore, it is only logical that international human rights law has established that the right to vote in elections should be granted to all citizens above a certain age.
Demanding self-sacrifice as a priority is immoral. A government ought to start by ensuring the human rights of its citizens, which benefits both universal human rights and national interest. America is not in "political association" with Nigeria.
It further stipulated that the will of the people shall be expressed in elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage. If so, the resolution is negated as being absurd and self-contradictory.
The right to have a firearm must be reinstated separately. Other just nations will have similar definitions.
The self-contradiction is that a "just government" is mandating an immoral action. Unfortunately, we are limited to characters per round. Therefore the resolution then becomes, "self-interest should be prioritized above self-interest. This does NOT mean that this government is prioritizing self-interest; but sometimes the best way to serve universal human rights in the long term is a little self-preservation in the short term.
If the government chooses to support human rights, the interests of people within the nation will be harmed. Similarly, a government that prioritizes human rights violations will often act in its own self-interest; it is impossible for a broken government to ensure universal human rights.
All people are created with certain unalienable rights. Pro argues that sometimes pursuing human rights is consistent with self-interest.Prisoners’ rights to read, write, speak, practice their religion, and communicate with the outside world are often curtailed far beyond what is necessary for institutional security.
An Argument in Favor of Convicts Entitled to Their Human Rights Once They Finished Their Time ( words, 3 pages) Life After Prison For centuries the United States has created a caste system to place people at the very bottom, and.
The rice plantations follow a task system where the slaves are given tasks and once the tasks were finished they could hunt, fish, or cultivate their own food. Jul 03, · Arizona law allows for first-time, single-offense felons to have their citizenship rights restored automatically, save gun ownership, once they have been released from jail or prison.
The right to have a firearm must be reinstated separately. The verdict finally came back on April 3: The case marks the first time that an ex-head of state was forced to face his accusers in a US court for human-rights abuses. While ensuring one's own human rights or the human rights of a nation's citizens can take first priority, it is unjust to worry about the comfort of one's citizens when there are human beings throughout the world being stripped of their very rights.Download