The recognition of human rights is an inherent consensus that reflects God. Diverse nations have formalized specific attributes of concurrent civic rights. This practice has led to a human rights regime that strives to protect nations from external attacks; and brings into question the actions of authoritarian nations. Nations that reject democracy and fail to adopt human rights initiatives simultaneously strive to thwart religion and the worship of God.
History
The first instance of human rights in recorded history appear in the Old Testament, whereby Moses leads the Jews out of Egypt and into the land of Canaan, (Num 34:1,2); rejecting slavery and forced servitude, (Deu 4:20). Conversely, the “first [modern] global human rights movement,” was “the antislavery movement,” (Mingst & McKibben, p. 75). Following WWII, nations converged together to identify “the statement identified 30 human rights principles covering both political and economic rights,” and establish a “new moral order,” (Mingst & McKibben, p. 764).
The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is considered “a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations,” adopted by the United Nations members, (UN). The UDHR is “widely recognized as having inspired, and paved the way for, the adoption of more than seventy human rights treaties, applied today on a permanent basis at global and regional levels,” (UN).
The International Bill of Rights is “the collective name” for “the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights,” (Mingst & McKibben, p. 769). These documents compose the framework for universal human rights throughout the world.
Assessment
To best assess the international community’s record on the protection of human rights, specific aspects must be addressed. These four characteristics include (1) the necessity of human rights; (2) the universality of human rights; (3) the hierarchy of human rights; and (4) rational responses to human rights violations, (Mingst & McKibben, pp. 757, 758). Further assessing government’s duty to preserve human rights, includes the “recognition of the inherent dignity” and “the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family;” thereby preserving “freedom, justice and peace in the world,” (UN).
America is obligated to steward its righteous behavior; it is witnessed by both allies and enemies (Rom 1:14).
Conversely, China infringes on the human rights of its citizens by redefining its abuses. China’s president “Xi called on his government to ‘struggle against terrorism, infiltration and separation,’ promising to show ‘absolutely no mercy’ in eradicating radical Islam in Xinjiang,” (Mingst & McKibben, p. 751). Further, China engages in “forced sterilization, forced abortion, and involuntary implantation of birth control,” alongside “arbitrary detention and forced labor,” of its minorities, (State).
Similarly, Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs writes that Ukraine’s persistent human rights violations originated in “the Ukrainian public authorities,” (Mid.RU). Ukraine’s “new Nazism . . . has developed in the urban centers of the east and south” parts of the nation, (Mid.Ru). It has engaged in “subordination of the church to the state, banning of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarch), (Mid.Ru).
The examples in China and Ukraine represent the rejection of non-Christian nations and authoritarian dictatorships. Rebecca Munson of Liberty University’s Helms School of Government writes that “[t]he human rights regime causes problems for authoritarian states;” adding, “China’s need to rewrite the rules reminds Americans and Christians of their reason for hope,” (Munson, R., ProvidenceMag, 2021).
Munson explains this “hope” is conveyed in the attraction of America’s “unrivaled allure,” whereby “challengers have to compensate for through indoctrination, manipulation, brutality, and oppression,” (Munson, R., ProvidenceMag, 2021).
Analysis
Realism is the best theoretical perspective to understand this record. Notably, all religions “assert the dignity of individuals and people’s responsibilities to fellow human beings,” (Mingst & McKibben, p. 756). But a plurilateral system of human rights is unsustainable, (Mar 3:24). Realism explains each state’s tendency to alter its behavior; “[a]lthough institutionalists are united in their opposition to realist claims about institutions, each institutionalist theory makes a different argument about how institutions work to alter state behavior,” (Mearsheimer, J., p. 7).
Unlike the institutional liberal perspective, Mearsheimer’s “central conclusion” is, concisely that “institutions have minimal influence on state behavior, and thus hold little promise for promoting stability in the post-Cold War world,” (Mearsheimer, J., p. 7).
Further, under the framework of realism, “states act on the national interest, which focuses on security rather than the protection of human rights,” (Mingst & McKibben, p. 824). Conversely, “if human rights violations committed by one state do jeopardize another state’s national interest, then that state would have justification to act,” (Mingst & McKibben, p. 824).
Human rights standards are established by “the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) involve, first and foremost, setting the international human rights standards articulated in the many international treaties,” (Mingst & McKibben, p. 782).
Further, “[g]enerally, international human rights treaties address separate issues,” (Mingst & McKibben, p. 792). But the United Nations Charter declares, “[n]othing . . . shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in . . . the domestic jurisdiction of any state,” (UN, 1973). The UN Charter’s absolute declarations have been exploited by invoking domestic equivocation to interpret the meaning of human rights and the rights of a particular nation’s citizenry. To best conserve the preservation of human dignity, and the Western understanding of the inherent rights of man, America must bear the torch of obligation, (Mat 5:15,16). This means preserving God intentions and condemning the behavior of other nation-states that violate these expectations.
Human Rights are a moral obligation; hegemons are endowed with the duty to manage international continuity and preserve objective natural law, (Deu 6:24,25).
Nations possess a responsibility to protect (R2P), an “emerging norm that the international community should help individuals suffering at the hands of their own state or others when the home state fails to provide security,” (Mingst & McKibben, p. 823). But the threshold of condemnation must be tuned to violations of human dignity, limited to ethnic equality and religious freedom. Further, realism comports with human rights in that it formally rejects the encroachment of any state unto another. Rosa Brooks writes that, “once you assert that every state can decide for itself that a military intervention inside another state’s borders is justified, regardless of the Security Council, you’re on a very slippery slope,” (Mingst & McKibben, p. 822). Thus, human rights are an extension from Heaven, whereby all man is recognized to be created in the image of God, and therefore must be treated with dignity—no matter his worldview.
Conclusion
In sum, human rights represent the enumeration of inherent natural law. Realism best depicts any nation’s willingness to adopt a value system that ensures its own security. The formalization of human rights depicts a culmination of consensus that compassion, impartiality, and the recognition of God. Despite the polarization of worldly conflicts, the human race is connected by its Creator, (Acts 17:26). Today, human rights are a global movement, with increasing applicability. Realism is the best perspective to understand the changes that have occurred and the intended direction of this global trend.
Bibliography
Mid.Ru. (Accessed on May7th, 2025). Ukrainian Nazism Today: Origin and Ideological and Political Typology. https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/historical_materials/1920326/
Mingst, K.A.; McKibben, H.E. (2021). Essentials of International Relations (Ninth Edition). (Function). Kindle Edition.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (1994). The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5–49. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539078
ProvidenceMag. (Accessed on May 7th, 2025). Hope for Human Rights Despite China’s Threats. Providence. https://providencemag.com/2021/12/hope-human-rights-despite-china-threats/
State. (Accessed on May 7th, 2025). The Chinese Communist Party’s Human Rights Abuses in Xinjiang. https://2017-2021.state.gov/ccpabuses/
UN. (Accessed on May 7th, 2025). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
UN. (Accessed on May 7th, 2025). United Nations Charter. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text
Jordan Muhsin 