As I began preparing for class this evening, I began reflecting on the question I had posed in the syllabus: "What impedes nations from fully implementing human rights?" I became dissatisfied with the question though, because 1) it's a damn hard question, and 2) I don't think we have the resources to answer it yet, not in any meaningful way.
Consequentially, I began to reflect on why I asked the question in the first place: I wanted to draw your attention to the World Wars, their cause, their devastation, their effects. Most particularly, I wanted to make you aware of the language of human rights that emerged after the second World War in a document that was accepted by most nations called The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You can read it here:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
So what do the World Wars have to do with Human Rights, and my question, after all? I consider now that I have a modest thesis to propose to you, and this will be the basis of our discussion in class on Wednesday.
In what ways are the causes of the Great Wars similar, or parallel to the causes of why nations fail to fully implement human rights?
I am thinking of such notions as the balance of power, the rivalry of imitation and competition, and the ignorance of historical thinking in political action. Now I am even more curious how you will answer this questions than before:
What impedes nations from fully implementing human rights?
2 comments:
After reading the section, "An Accident Waiting to Happen", I was able to conclude that the main causes of WWI were alliances, nationalism, industrialized militarism, Europe's imperial reach around the world, and of course the "incident" aka the assassination. I wasn't quite sure how any of these reasons can relate to why nations fail to fully implement human rights. I believe that nations fail to fully implement human rights because they are "all talk" or their time is invested in more important issues. Although there may be some slight connections, from the information I obtained from the reading, I was not able to make any connections.
Good read on the causes of WWI, Morgan. I have a difficult time seeing the connection between the causes of WWI and the full implementation of human rights as well. (Of course, there is no assassination causing the full implementation of human rights to fail.) I do wonder, however, if there is a connection.
You mention alliances, nationalism, industrialized militarism and Europe's "reach" as causes of WWI. What is is about alliances that make nations act (or not act)? Why do alliances have such power?
Does a particular nationalist identity make it possible to interpret other peoples in a way that encourages particular action (or inaction)?
How much does an industrialized military actually aid those whose rights are impeded? How much might it keep those rights away?
If the scope of Europe's reach was so powerful as to cause a World War, is it possible for another country, or perhaps a different set of ideals, to have a similar reach that gives it the same power to act or not act toward the full implementation of human rights.
These are all very abstract thoughts, and we should flesh them out a bit, but I think we might find that there are some similarities between the kinds of causes that motivated the civil war and the kinds of causes that keep human rights from fully being implemented.
Good post, Morgan.
Post a Comment