What Is Human Rights Violation?

Every day, an enormous amount of human beings has to live, having their basic human rights violated, their freedom challenged and their safety threatened. What is worse, distressingly often the true culprits behind these violations are the very same governments that are obliged to protect them and allow them to live with dignity. The voices of those daring to criticize them are silenced – and, appallingly so, these governments and the states they represent are so far beyond shame as to accuse those calling them out of fabricating lies and interfering with their sovereignty. This is the reality that raises the need for concrete discourse at the UN. However controversially, this essay intends to prove that the UN human rights debate on country-specific

What is sovereignty to the citizens, if the state continuously on purpose fails to ensure the protection of their human rights? It is but a poor excuse for unwillingness to behave in compliance with international humanitarian and human rights law. But the very basic point is that the UN bodies are fully justified to point out and address the human rights violations. Fundamentally, of course it is interference – but well-justified and vital to the citizens of the state in question, one to which the UN is entitled even while preserving its founding

We need to discuss political prisoners in Russia and non-citizens in Latvia, discrimination of women in Saudi Arabia and people of color in the US or humans rights violations of citizens in China as well as in Slovakia. There is nothing worse for these people than to fade into obscurity. A discussion at the UN, even if it does not result in resolution, means publicity and spotlight for the suffering. It means they cannot be hidden away by their governments, forgotten and unknown. And this is the ultimate argument for debate on country-specific issues – even if the process in the UN itself results in nothing, the situation itself will get attention of millions. And, in case of human rights violations, attention often means pressure, and, consequently, progress.

To conclude, both theoretical principles and practical application of the concept backs the UN human rights debate on country-specific issues. Firstly, it is a right thing to do because the UN has to supervise that its member states will honor their commitments to their citizens and their wellbeing. Secondly, this concrete discourse has real impact on the state in question, creating pressure on the governments to behave in compliance with the international human rights law by resulting in action taken by both the UN and the public. All in all, it is a