When is a violation of human rights allowed? Should it ever be allowed? Are there certain things you can/want to do that mandate a restriction or annulment of your human rights?

Guantanamo bay prison is an active example of a breach and violation of human rights. The US government detains men there without a trail, and in many cases without tangible evidence. Therefore the US government is keeping prisoners in the prison whom have been kidnapped from their homes, in foreign countries, purely because the US government suspects them of potentially being terrorists. For many of the prisoners, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. One of such victims is a German national, Murat Kurnaz. He was held in Guantanamo bay for five years, after which the US stated that all evidence they had against him were “groundless.” As such he was held innocently in Guantanamo, without proper trial, without having committed a crime, for the US to decide after five years that he was innocent. During his interrogations he was beaten repeatedly and went under torture such as; waterboarding (simulated drowning), hanging (from the arms, for days at a time), beatings (by soldiers in full riot gear), and also electric shocking. He suffered torture for five years, before the US government finally accepted that he could be innocent. He stated that many of the prisoners admitted to crimes they never committed purely because they didn’t want to be tortured further.

In what way is this justified? In what circumstances could Murat’s treatment perhaps be permitted? Should the US do such atrocities to perhaps save its citizens and soldiers from harm? Ultimately, should the US be able to limit and deprive the human rights of some, to conserve and protect the lives and rights of others?

Perhaps one can argue that in the plight of many one has to sacrifice a few. However doing so with Human rights, relegates the few to animals. Therefore meaning that those few that lost their rights, have lost their status as humans and are thus relegated to the rank of non-humans. Essentially by doing so, the US government brings eliminates the status of a few men to that of lesser humans, purely based upon a political ideology, or the suspicion of some attack on any US interest. Therefore the US dictates who exactly it considers a worthy and rightful human, and whom it considers a lesser human. This would mean based upon political ideology, the US creates a divide in the global society, by giving some rights, and taking the rights away of others.

Every country in the world has laws that are unique to itself. This being because laws are inspired from the country’s culture, history, population and religion. Therefore there is no way that each country has an identical group of laws. Therefore how can we create international laws? How can we create laws that perhaps may conform to a set of cultures, but not others? By doing so, international laws really do prioritize certain cultures, histories, populations and religions over that of others. So to what degree are international laws really international laws? Or are they rather the “most popular” or “most powerful” countries’ expression of how they believe the rest of the world should live in cohesion with each other?

I believe that true international law is something that will never be really achieved in the near future. However I do consider the idea that all the countries can come to a consensus or an agreement on certain issues is manageable. An example of this may be the Geneva convention. Even then there are certain issues that are not in the interest of certain nations for them to agree upon, therefore hindering global progress through global unity. Again an example of this may be the Kyoto protocol, through which the world essentially could lower its CO2 output, and make a development in saving the environment.

This made me come to the conclusion that countries, and more specifically their leaders, care too much about their own nation rather than the entire world they live in. This therefore would put the priorities of the nation above that of the entire world. This is seen through the lack of cohesion in the accurate global representation of international law. This can be seen through countries such as the United States and Iran being at odds about certain issues, and consequently hindering the progress of both nations, and especially their people by refusing to work together.

Through diplomatic issues of the present and especially the past, countries are hindering the progress of the world on the whole through the refusal of co-operation and legal cohesion. Through legal cohesion, countries would be able to stand together on equal footing. No country would be bigger or better than another, each country would and could have its equal say due to its legal equality. There would be no inferiority in between nations, therefore restricting global tensions and issues due to the accepted equality between nations.

Laws and legal systems may just be a foundation for justice for the individual but it is also a source of equality and therefore a source of importance. WIthout accurate global input on a concrete set of laws that apply globally on all issues, no country will ever stand on equal footing with another. Each country will have those above it and below it. Without a legal system, the world will be a huge feudal hierarchy. As much as the UN is trying to do this, it has still proved inefficient to be able to provide the world with what it needs.