Human Rights For Debaters Cheat Sheet

Edition 1.
1, 2017
Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

www.debate-motions.info
1
Fellow reader,
In today’s world, the issue of human rights is a fundamental issue, but at the same time it is
also an issue which is highly sensitive in nature. Human rights are celebrated, but also
violated. Human rights are praised, but also restricted.
This is why motions about and including human rights are debated often, may that be on
competitive level on tournaments, or at different prep debates in debate clubs and in
classrooms.
And it is not an easy topic. Because of the different rights and their impact, it can be difficult
to understand and debate the topic.
This is why a group of debaters from different countries stepped together and prepared
this e-book.
How to use it?
Read if from start to back first.
Then, read it again and mark all the important parts, examples and documents, that you
think will need in your debate career.
And then, print it out, or add it to your e-reader. Take it with you to debate tournaments (if
you are allowed to use e-readers there. Otherwise just print it) and use it in preparation for
debates.
Enjoy reading!

2
Content
Fellow reader, 2
Content 3
Chapter 1: Introduction to human rights 6

What are human rights? 6
Who has the responsibility to protect human rights? 7
What kinds of human rights are there? 8
Chapter 2: International human rights instruments 9

What are international human rights instruments? 9
What are the core international human rights instruments (treaties)? 10
Chapter 3: International courts and tribunals 13

What is the role of international courts and tribunals in protecting human rights? 13
What are the most prominent international judicial bodies? 13
Chapter 4: Several important human rights 18

What is the right to life? 18
What debate issues concern the right to life? 19
What is the right to equality? 20
What debate issues concern the right to equality? 21
What is the right to privacy? 22
What debate issues concern the right to privacy? 23
What is freedom of expression? 24
What debate issues concern the right to privacy? 24
What is freedom of choice? 25
What debate issues concern freedom of choice? 26
Chapter 5: Debates and arguments about human rights 27

* Death Penalty * 27
* Abortion * 28

3
* Euthanasia * 30
* Affirmative action * 31
* Mass surveillance * 32
* Children’s privacy * 33
* Hate speech * 34
* Journalistic sources * 35
* Prostitution, alcohol, tobacco, drugs * 36
Chapter 6: Most prominent human rights violations from around the world 38
Armenian Genocide 38
Bosnian Genocide 39
Child Slavery in the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) 39
Migrant workers in Qatar 40
Indigenous peoples of Australia and the Americas 40
Rwandan Genocide 41
Sexual slavery in the modern era 42
World War II 42
Chapter 7: Practice debate motions on human rights 44

Freedom of choice 44
Freedom of expression 44
Gender equality 45
Freedom of movement 45
LGBTQI rights 46
Minorities 46
Privacy 47
Religion 47
Right to life 47
Security 48
Social and economic security 48

4
Chapter 1: Introduction to human rights
“We declare that human rights are for all of us, all the time: whoever we are
and wherever we are from; no matter our class, our opinions, our sexual
orientation.” – Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
What are human rights?

Human rights are something all people are inherently entitled to simply by the fact of being
human and born into this world.
Based on the fundamental assumption that every individual is a moral and rational
human being who deserves to live in dignity, human rights establish certain basic standards
without which people cannot live a decent life. These standards are largely based on moral
and ethical principles, depending on what society considers crucial for a decent life.
Despite the fact that the modern conception of human rights is fairly new, the roots of
the belief in the sanctity of human life can be traced far back in history. In fact, the
underlying basis of the concept has its roots in nearly every religion and ethical tradition.
Such examples include, but are not limited to the Golden Rule (or law of reciprocity),
according to which a person must treat others as he or she would wish to be treated and the
“Eye for an eye” principle (or lex talionis) which implies the need for justice. In fact, all
societies have developed systems of justice in some form, in order to ensure the welfare and
wellbeing of their members.
However, throughout history the concept of human rights has significantly developed.
According to modern approaches, human rights are universal, inalienable, indivisible,
interrelated and interdependent.
Human rights are universal, meaning that they are applicable everywhere and held by
everyone equally, regardless of nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin,
colour, religion, language, or any other status. Human rights must be guaranteed to each
person, without exception and without discrimination of any kind. For example, despite
their age, children have human rights.
Human rights are inalienable, meaning that they cannot be taken away or renounced,
except as a result of a due process, which must be legally stipulated. For example,
governments may restrict the freedom of movement of persons who have been convicted
of crimes (in the context of imprisonment).

5
Human rights are indivisible, meaning that they form one integral whole which cannot
be divided. They are all equally important, implying that a certain right cannot be prioritized
over another. For example, economic rights cannot be emphasized at the expense of
political rights.
Human rights are highly interrelated and interdependent. Considering that they
constitute a complementary whole, human rights are very connected to each other. Each
right can only be enjoyed when the other rights are being enjoyed too. For example, the
right to health directly affects the right to life.
It is important to note that human rights are inseparably related with duties. When
claiming human rights, everyone also accepts responsibilities that go hand in hand with
those rights. Fulfilling such duties and responsibilities implies claiming solidarity with all
other human beings and respecting the rights of others.
Who has the responsibility to protect human rights?

States have a duty to respect and protect all human rights.
All states in the world have both moral and formal obligations to protect human rights.
In the modern world, human rights are often recognized and protected as legal rights,
meaning that they constitute a set of norms which are incorporated into both national and
international legal systems. Such norms often include specified procedures and mechanisms
to ensure effective enforcement and respect of human rights. These measures also serve to
ensure accountability of governments in cases of human rights violations, taking into
consideration that it is the governments’ duty and responsibility to protect human rights.
States have several formal obligations of action regarding each human right: to respect,
protect and fulfill human rights. Respecting and protecting human rights means that states
must not interfere directly with people realising their rights and must stop others from
interfering with peoples’ rights also. In order to fulfill human rights, governments must
create appropriate legislation and effective institutions so that people can effectively realise
their rights.
Additionally, states have several formal obligation of process: states must not
discriminate when meeting their obligations, must ensure adequate progress at a rate that
shows certain commitment and must provide effective remedy for human rights violation.
Lastly, governments must provide people opportunities to participate in realising their
rights.
It is important to take into consideration the fact that realising human rights often
depends on several more factors other than the state itself. Such factors include culture,
customs, resources, the strength of civil society and other external factors.

6
What kinds of human rights are there?
Traditionally, human rights are divided into five categories – civil rights, political rights,
economic rights, social rights and cultural rights. Human rights can be also classified as natural
or legal rights.
Civil rights include the ensuring of people's physical and mental integrity, life, and safety.
The origin of the word comes from the Latin jus civis (rights of a citizen). Civil rights are
mainly focused on the standards of judiciary and penal systems. The right to life, the right to
liberty and the right to equality are all civil rights.
Political rights enable people to participate in political processes within a society.
Political rights include the right to vote, the right to get elected and the right to criticize and
oppose the government.
The aim of the economic and social rights is to provide economic and social security to
people. They are focused on ensuring quality of life for everyone, especially for those not
participating in economic activities. It is essential for each person to be able to fulfill their
basic needs (food, shelter, clothing, etc.). These rights include the right to work, the right to
adequate wages and the right to education.
Cultural rights are focused on the cultural sphere of life. The aim of these rights is to
assure enjoyment of culture and they include the right to science and culture.
In a more philosophical context and according to the most prominent classification,
human rights can be classified as natural rights or legal rights.
Natural rights are fundamental human rights which are inherent to human beings, based
on universal, natural, moral principle. They come from the nature of man and the world itself
and are independent of transitory human law. For example, the right to life and the right to
liberty.
Legal rights are based on positive law that exists at a given time in a given space. These
rights are given to citizens and guaranteed by governments, which also means that they can
be modified, repealed, and restrained. For instance, the right to minimum wage and the
right to an attorney are legal rights.

7
Chapter 2: International human rights
instruments
“Democracy is not just constitutional and legislative rules; it is a culture and
practice and adhering by the law and respecting international human rights
principles.” – King of Bahrain Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa
What are international human rights instruments?

International human rights instruments are agreements, conventions, covenants, declarations,
treaties and other documents relevant to international human rights law and the protection
of human rights in general.
International human rights instruments constitute a set of various written documents
related to human rights on an international level. According to their legal character, they can
be either legally binding or non-legally binding.
Legally binding instruments are agreements between states that are concluded
under provisions of international law. Conventions, treaties and covenants are some
examples of legally binding instruments. By becoming parties to such international treaties,
states accept obligations and duties under international law – to respect, to protect and to
fulfil human rights. Through the process of ratification states give their formal consent for a
treaty and therefore make it officially valid and recognized, meaning that it is only after
ratifying a treaty that states become bound by it. After the ratification of an instrument,
states also undertake an obligation to create national legislation, measures and mechanisms
that are compatible with their treaty obligations and duties and can ensure effective
realisation of human rights. Additionally, in cases where legal proceedings on a national level
fail to address human rights violations, mechanisms for individual complaints are available
on regional and international level.
On the other hand, international instruments like declarations and recommendations
are considered as non-legally binding, meaning that they do not create lawfully binding
obligations for states, but are rather politically binding. In most cases, these are documents
of intent and their main aim is to ensure steady and progressive development over time.
Usually they tackle obligations regarding highly sensitive issues which states are still not
ready to fully commit to. However, such instruments often contain a set of core principles
and values that can further inspire a rich body of legally binding international instruments.
Declarations and recommendations have a tendency to grow into legally binding documents
over time.

8
International human rights instruments can be also classified as global or regional
instruments.
Global instruments are treaties and other documents to which any state can be a party.
For example, such instruments are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
On the other hand, regional instruments are restricted to states in a specific region of
the world. Three crucial regional human rights instruments can be identified: the African
Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and the
European Convention on Human Rights.
International law also includes some peremptory norms – jus cogens. These norms
deal with certain fundamental principles of international law. They are considered
compelling, meaning that no derogation from them is ever permitted. There are not specific
criteria regarding precisely which norms are jus cogens. They are largely based on modern,
universally accepted social and political attitudes. Examples of jus cogens norms include:
prohibition on the use of force, genocide and generally crimes against humanity, prohibition
of torture, slavery and similar.
Apart from the question of legality itself, debating often requires to take into
consideration the criterion of legitimacy as well. While legality questions whether or not
something is a violation of obligations imposed by law, legitimacy is a question of support
for a certain action, depending on society’s perception of right and wrong. For example, it
can be argued that in certain situations humanitarian intervention is illegal, yet legitimate
and justified. What makes political authority legitimate can also be questioned.
What are the core international human rights instruments

(treaties)?
Universal Declaration of Human Rights; European Convention on Human Rights; International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights; International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination;
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment;
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members
of Their Families; Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, together with the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights constitute the so called International Bill of Human Rights which is the pillar for
protection of human rights within the United Nations.

9
Almost 70 years after it was adopted by the United Nationals General Assembly in
1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) remains one of the most relevant
instruments regarding human rights today. While human rights abuses and violations did not
end after it was adopted, the UDHR has provided countless people an opportunity to seek
justice through both national and international protection for their rights. Proclaiming that
“all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”, the declaration sets core
moral principles as to what is right and what is wrong. It stipulates the principles of
non-discrimination, equality, fairness and legality. It convenes a wide range of rights and
freedoms to which everyone is entitled. Examples include the right to life, the right to trial,
the right to privacy, the right to education, the right to public assembly, the right to
democracy as well as workers’ rights. The declaration also stipulates freedom of expression,
freedom of thought, freedom to move and freedom from torture, inhumane and degrading
treatment.
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
entered into force in 1976 and recognizes the following rights: the right to work, the right to
just and favorable conditions of work, the right to form and join trade unions and the right
to strike, the right to social security, the right to protection and assistance for the family and
the prohibition of child labour, the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to the
highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the right to education, the
freedom of parents to choose schools other than those established by public authorities and
the right to take part in cultural life and to benefit from scientific progress. It is the duty UN
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to monitor the implementation of the
ICESCR.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) entered into force in
1976 and recognizes the following rights: the right to life, freedom from torture and cruel,
inhuman or degrading punishment, freedom from slavery and forced labour, rights to liberty
and security, the right to justice and a fair trial, freedom of movement, the right to privacy,
the right to peaceful assembly, freedom of religion, thought and expression, freedom of
association, the right to marriage and rights of children, rights to ethnic, religious and
linguistic minorities to enjoy their own culture, equality and non-discrimination. The ICCPR is
monitored by the UN Human Rights Committee.
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,
commonly known as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) entered into force
in 1953. Its main aim is to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. The
Convention rights include: the right to life, freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading
treatment, freedom from slavery and forced labour, the right to liberty and security, the
right to a fair trial, the right to privacy, the right to marry and start a family, the right to
freedom of thought, belief and religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and
association. It also proclaims the principle of no punishment without law and stipulates

10
protection from discrimination in respect of all these rights and freedoms. The ECHR also
establishes the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
The African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) is an international

human rights instrument adopted by the African States members of the Organization of
African Unity. Aiming to promote and protect human rights in the African continent, it
entered into force and 1986. The Charter recognizes the following rights and freedoms:
freedom from discrimination, the right to equality, the right to life and personal integrity,
freedom from slavery, freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
the right to due process, the right to a fair trial, freedom of religion, freedom of information
and expression, freedom of association, freedom to assembly, freedom of movement,
freedom to political participation, the right to property, the right to work, the right to
health, the right to education, the right to family protection by the state, the right to
self-determination, the right to freely dispose of wealth and natural resources, the right to
development, the right to peace and security, the right to a generally satisfactory
environment.
The Charter also stipulates duties towards one’s family, the society, the State and
other legally recognized communities and the international community. Such duties include:
to respect and consider fellow human beings without discrimination, to preserve the
harmonious development of the family, to serve the national community and preserve and
strengthen social and national solidarity, not to compromise the security of the State, to
preserve and strengthen the national independence and the territorial integrity of one’s
country and to contribute to its defense, to work to the best of one’s abilities and
competence and to pay taxes imposed by law, to preserve and strengthen positive African
cultural values, to contribute to the promotion of African unity.
Regarding safeguard measures, the Charter establishes an African Commission on

Human and Peoples' Rights. Subsequently, with a protocol to the Charter, an African Court
on Human and Peoples’ Rights was established.

11
Chapter 3: International courts and tribunals
“There can be no peace without justice and respect for human rights.” – Irene
Khan, Former Secretary General of Amnesty International
What is the role of international courts and tribunals in

protecting human rights?
The fundamental role of international judicial bodies is to punish offenders, establish justice
and reestablish rule of law in cases of human rights violations, thus contributing to protecting
and promoting human rights.
Historically, the process of strengthening of the supranational character of
international law has inevitably led to the idea of establishing international courts and
tribunals. The idea itself is highly related to the attitude that key norms of international law
must be respected even in cases where states, as opposed to their role to guarantee justice,
in fact violate human rights. The ultimate goal of all modern international judicial bodies is to
sanction violations of international law provisions, particularly international humanitarian
law and human rights law.
International courts can be formed either by treaties among states (such as the
International Criminal Court) or under the authority of an international organization (such as
The International Court of Justice). International judicial bodies can be formed either as
permanent institutions or ad hoc tribunals, in order to judge on various subject matters,
which is why their jurisdiction must be properly defined. Regardless, it is essential that each
of the Courts and tribunals must always judge according to relevant international laws and
treaties.
What are the most prominent international judicial bodies?

The International Military Tribunal; The International Military Tribunal for the Far East; The
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia; The International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; The International Criminal Court; The International Court of
Justice; The European Court of Human Rights; The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights;
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights; The Special Court for Sierra Leone.
*

12
The Nuremberg Trials are a series of trials held between 1945 and 1946 before the
International Military Tribunal (IMT). The IMT was established in the aftermath of World
War II, in order to try and punish the major war criminals of the European Axis countries. The
Charter of the IMT specifies three types of crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal: crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
*
Similarly, the Tokyo Trials are a series of trials held between 1945 and 1948 before the
International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE). The IMTFE was also established
following World War II, in order to try and punish war criminals of the Far Eastern Axis
countries. The basic principles of the Charter of the IMT were subsequently adopted within
the Charter of the IMTFE, thus enabling Far Eastern war criminals to be brought before
justice regarding committed crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
*
The development of international criminal law as supranational law was reaffirmed
with the establishment of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons
Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the
Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, commonly known as the International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Located in The Hague in the
Netherlands, the Court was established in 1993 by resolutions of the United Nations Security
Council in order to try and prosecute perpetrators of serious crimes committed during the
Yugoslav Wars. The ICTY is the first ad hoc court established by the international community
itself, as opposed to the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals whose power and jurisdiction were
based on the de facto opportunity for the war winners to prosecute the war losers. On the
contrary, the ICTY has the power to prosecute war criminals, regardless of whether they
were on the winning or losing side.
The ICTY has jurisdiction over four categories of offences committed on the territory
of the former Yugoslavia since 1991: grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva conventions,
violations of the laws or customs of war, genocide and crimes against humanity.
The ICTY has jurisdiction over individual persons, while legal subjects, including
states, are excluded from its jurisdiction. The ICTY and national courts have concurrent
(parallel) jurisdiction, meaning that both national courts and the ICTY have the jurisdiction to
prosecute war criminals over serious violations of international humanitarian law committed
in the former Yugoslavia since 1991. However, in the interest of international justice, the ICTY
may take over national proceedings at any stage, in cases where national criminal justice
systems have proven to be ineffective. It is important to note that in compliance with the
principle non bis in idem (no legal action can be instituted twice for the same cause of
action), individuals cannot be prosecuted before national courts if they were already tried
before the ICTY. On the other hand, individuals can be tried before the ICTY even if they

13
were already tried by a national court (in cases where the proceedings before the national
court were not independent, objective and similar).
The Tribunal indicted 161 individuals and as of October 2016, it has completed
proceedings regarding 154 of them. The ICTY is expected to shut down after the completion
of the remaining trials of first instance and appeal proceedings that had been initiated prior
to 1 July 2013, while any appeal proceedings initiated afterwards have been under the
jurisdiction of the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (MICT).
*
Just like the ICTY, The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was also
established by a United Nations Security Council resolution in 1994, aiming to bring
individuals responsible for the Rwandan Genocide to justice. Located in Arusha, Tanzania,
the tribunal has had jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The
ICTR was officially closed at the end of 2015. A total of 95 individuals were indicted by the
ICTR. Following the completion of the Tribunal’s mandate, the Mechanism for International
Criminal Tribunal has taken over the remaining operations and functions of the Tribunal.
*
Located in The Hague in the Netherlands, The International Criminal Court (ICC) is
the first permanent autonomous international criminal court in the world. It was established
in 1998 by a multilateral treaty – the Rome Statute. Pursuant to the Rome Statute, the
Court’s role is to investigate, prosecute and try individuals accused of committing the most
serious crimes that concern the international community as a whole: genocide, war crimes,
crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression.
With the act of becoming a party to the Rome Statute, each state falls under the
jurisdiction of the Court (if the accused individual is a national of a State Party of if the
particular crime was committed within the territory of a Stare Party). However, by special
agreement, a State not party to the Statute may also agree to submit itself to the jurisdiction
of the ICC. The United Nations Security Council itself may also refer investigations to the
Court.
Unlike the tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the role of the
International Criminal Court is not to replace the national courts, but rather complement
them. It can investigate, prosecute and try individuals only in cases where the respective
Sate does not, cannot or is unwilling to do so, meaning that priority is given to national
criminal justice systems.
The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into
force of its Statute in 2002. In the course of its existence, the ICC has convicted only 3
individuals, among other reasons, largely due to the fact that governments often fail to fully

14
cooperate with the Court.
*
Established in 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and seated in The Hague in
the Netherlands, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the
United Nations. It is often referred to as the World Court. All members of the UN are parties
to the Statute of the International Court of Justice. However, a state which is not a member
of the UN may also become party to the Court’s Statute.
Only states may be parties in cases before the Court and each member of the UN
undertakes to comply with the decision of the ICJ, with respect to any case to which it is a
party. The fundamental role of the Court is to settle legal disputes submitted to it by states
and to provide advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it from UN bodies and
agencies.
*
Set up in 1959, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is an international court
established by the European Convention on Human Rights. Considering the fact that the
States Parties have undertaken to protect the rights set in the Convention, the Court has
jurisdiction to hear allegations of violations of the ECHR. The Court can rule on cases upon
receiving individual applications lodged by any person, group of individuals, company or
NGO and state applications brought by one state against another. If the Court finds a
violation of one or more of the human rights defined in the Convention, the concerned state
is obliged to execute the Court’s judgment, meaning that the Court’s judgments are legally
binding. Apart from judgments, the Court can also render advisory opinions.
In the course of almost 50 years the Court has delivered approximately 10.000
judgments and over 50.000 new applications are lodged every year. Most frequently, the
Court has found violations with respect to the right to a fair trial, the right to life, protection
of property and prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
*
Established by a Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights in
1998 and situated in Arusha, Tanzania, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights has
a fundamental role in protecting human rights in Africa. Its jurisdiction applies to states that
have ratified the Protocol, which is why the Court’s decisions are binding on all state parties.
The Court’s mission is to complement and reinforce the functions of the African Commission
on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

15
The Court may rule on cases and disputes submitted to it by individuals and NGOs,
related to the interpretation and application of the Charter, the Protocol and any other
human rights instrument ratified by the states concerned. However, in order for a case to be
admissible, states against which the complaint is brought must make a declaration accepting
the competence of the court to receive such complaints. To date, only Burkina Faso, Côte
d'Ivoire, Ghana, Mali, Malawi, Rwanda and Tanzania have made the declaration.
*
Established in 1979 and seated in the city of San José, Costa Rica, the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights is an international court whose aim is to protect and promote basic
human rights within the Organization of American States (OAS) member countries. The
Court’s functions are to judge on alleged violations of the American Convention on Human
Rights and issue advisory opinions on legal matters brought to it by OAS member states or
other OAS bodies. However, in contrast to the European human rights system, cases cannot
be directly brought before the Court by individuals, but rather only by a State Party or the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
Despite ratifying the Convention, a state party must also voluntarily accept the
Court’s jurisdiction, either on a blanket basis or regarding a specific case. As of now, the
following states parties have submitted themselves to the Court’s jurisdiction: Argentina,
Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras,
Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela. The United
States have not ratified the Convention.

16
Chapter 4: Several important human rights
“To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.” – Civil
rights activist Nelson Mandela
What is the right to life?

Based on the fundamental belief in human dignity, the right to life serves to affirm, promote
and protect the inherent right to live of all human beings.
Besides the fact that the right to life means that nobody is entitled to try to end a
person’s life, it also includes a prohibition for states to deprive a person of life arbitrarily or
unlawfully.
The right to life also stipulates that states must create legislation to safeguard life. In
light of this, all relevant international human rights instruments (such as the European
Convention on Human Rights) stipulate that everyone’s right to life must be protected by
law.
Besides the obligation to create appropriate laws, states also have a duty to
undertake necessary measures to protect human lives. Such measures include for example,
investigating deaths in custody or suspicious deaths in general, as well as protecting people
when their lives are at risk. Governments should also always take into consideration the
right to life in decision-making processes regarding areas that can affect the right to life
(medical treatments, for instance).
Although the right to life is generally considered as an absolute right, meaning that it
cannot ever be derogated, there are certain circumstances under which the right to life does
not apply. For instance, if a person dies while the police uses necessary, essential and
proportional force to refrain that particular person from unlawfully conducting a terrorist
attack, it cannot be argued that the government deprived the person of life unlawfully or
arbitrarily.
It is also recognized that states cannot always absolutely fulfil their positive
obligation to protect a person’s life. For example, due to limited resources, governments
cannot always provide life-saving drugs to each patient.

17
What debate issues concern the right to life?
Debate issues that concern the moral concept of the right to life often include the death
penalty, abortion and euthanasia.
*
In light of the fact that the death penalty literally means handing down a sentence of
death as punishment for a committed crime, the use of the death penalty in the 21st century
is a highly controversial subject matter. Despite the fact that in 2008 the United Nations
adopted a resolution calling for a global moratorium on the use of death penalty, as of now,
58 countries still use the death penalty. All European countries have abolished the death
penalty, with the exception of Belarus. While Russian criminal law still stipulates death
penalty as a punishment for crimes, Russia has not executed anyone since 1996, meaning
that the death penalty is abolished in practice.
According to Amnesty International, at least 1.032 people were executed in
23 countries in 2016. Most of all known executions took place in the following six countries:
China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United States.
*
Considering the fact that abortion is a deliberate termination of human pregnancy,
modern debates often deal with the morality of abortion. While almost everyone believes
that all human beings are entitled to the right to life, debating abortion often imposes the
question: When exactly does a human being become human?
While the United Nations human rights experts call the world to repeal restrictive
abortions laws and affirm abortion as a human right, a total of six countries still do not allow
abortion under any circumstances (the Holy See, Malta, Dominican Republic, El Salvador,
Nicaragua and Chile). On the other hand, despite officially allowing abortion under certain
circumstances, many countries have such tight regulation upon abortion that it basically
becomes impossible.
*
The term euthanasia refers to the process of intentionally depriving a patient of life,
aiming to relive the patient from further pain and suffering, imposed as a result of an
incurable and painful disease. Debating the controversial issue of euthanasia includes
discussing both the moral and legal aspects of purposely ending someone’s life because of
noble reasons.
Non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia are illegal in all countries (respectively
meaning that either the patient’s consent is unavailable or the patient was deprived of life
against his or her will). Voluntary euthanasia however, is legal in some countries, including

18
Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
What is the right to equality?

As one of the fundamental principles of international human rights law, the right to equality
means that all persons must be treated equally before the law, without any discrimination
whatsoever.
The right to equality serves to guarantee that under equal circumstances, all people
must and will be treated equally, both in law and in practice. This means that all equal cases
should be treated in an equal manner by public authorities, especially with respect to
treatment in economic and social context, as well as in the area of gender.
The concept of equality is inevitably interrelated with the principle of
non-discrimination. Defined as unreasonably and unjustifiably depriving a person of a certain
right in order to place him in a disadvantageous, unfavorable condition, discrimination can
be either direct or indirect. Direct discrimination arises directly from laws (and regulations in
general), while indirect discrimination refers specifically to the manner of implementing
existing legislation. This means that in certain situations, regardless of the fact that the
legislation itself is fair and objective, the application of the legislative provisions in practice
can lead to discrimination.
Both direct and indirect discrimination are strictly prohibited under international
human rights law on several grounds: race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, property, birth and other status. However, the prohibition
of discrimination extends to other grounds as well. The abovementioned grounds serve
merely as illustrative examples.
Respecting the principle of non-discrimination does not prevent governments from
taking appropriate measures in order to promote and achieve full and effective equality in
practice. In such situations however, the difference in the treatment of people must have a
reasonable justification. The means employed must be also proportional to the aim of the
difference in treatment, in order for such policies not to fall within the scope of
discrimination.
Under certain circumstances, the principle of equality may even require governments
to undertake affirmative action policies – favoring members of disadvantaged groups. The
aim of such policies is to ultimately reduce or eliminate preconditions that are basically the
foundation for discrimination within society. For instance, states have a tendency to employ
persons of groups that have been historically discriminated against.

19
What debate issues concern the right to equality?
Debates frequently deal with different causes and effects of discrimination based on national,
ethnic, racial, social or other grounds. Recognizing that complete and effective equality (in
terms of equality of income, equality of opportunities etc.) is nearly impossible, it is often
required for debaters to propose and discuss policies that strive the achieve an optimal
solution.
*
Discrimination based on nationality refers to treating people in an unfavorable
manner because they are from a particular country or part of the world, or simply because
they appear to be of a certain ethnic background.
Recently, a number of European countries face an alarming rise in racist and
xenophobic attacks on asylum-seekers and other immigrants and refugees. Many minorities
are also subject to racism and harassment, such as communities of Asian or African origin,
Roma people, Aborigines etc. This is especially common in countries where ethnic based
conflicts have happened throughout history and the effects of those conflicts still linger.
In the modern war against terrorism and crime in general the use of race or ethnicity
as a basis for suspecting an individual of having committed a crime is also a deeply troubling
problem. Racial profiling itself is in fact a discriminatory practice by law enforcement
officials. Racial profiling is thought to be a common practice in the United States.
*
A major problem in today’s world is also the discrimination based on sexual

orientation. This is a type of discrimination that numerous people are subject to because of
their sexual orientation or preferences. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and
queer people around the world face inequality and violence, sometimes even execution
because of their sexual preferences.
LGBTIQ rights (laws that affect lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and
queer people) include, but are not limited to: the right to same-sex marriage, the right to
adoption and recognition of LGBTIQ parenting, anti-bullying legislation and
non-discrimination laws and similar.
Post-Soviet states such as Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia are considered as the least
LGBTIQ friendly countries in Europe. Countries like Iran, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia are also
thought to have draconian anti-gay laws. On the other hand, Belgium, Malta, the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom are often highly ranked in terms of respect and
promotion of LGBTIQ rights.
*

20
Despite recognizing the progress made in many states throughout the world,
discrimination based on gender is still very common. Such discrimination can take many
forms, several of which are sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, and unequal pay
for women, regardless of the fact that they do the same jobs as men. Additionally, modern
feministic movements often emphasize that women are at a greater risk of rape and prone
to domestic violence.
Moreover, women in less progressive countries struggle with difficulties such as
being denied the right to work and travel without the permission of their husbands and the
right to represent matrimonial property.
*
Discrimination against people with disabilities is also very common in today. The
term “disabilities” covers a wide range of circumstances – physical, intellectual, psychiatric,
sensory, neurological and learning disabilities, physical disfigurement and even the presence
of disease-causing organisms in the body (HIV infection, for instance).
People with disabilities around the world are often deprived of some fundamental
rights, such as the right to education, the right to work and the right to create a family.
Apart from discrimination, it is not uncommon for people with disabilities to also face
exclusion and dehumanization, leading to a violation of the inherent dignity and worth of
their human self.
It is estimated that more than 650 million people in the world live with disabilities.
One of the core international human rights instrument in the process of combating
discrimination against people with disabilities is the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
What is the right to privacy?

The right to privacy serves to protect individuals against unnecessary and unjustified
surveillance and intrusion into their personal lives.
The right to privacy extends to protection from intrusion on behalf of both
governments and private parties at the same time. It can refer to information privacy, which
deals with the rules and procedures regarding collecting and handling personal data such as
medical records; bodily privacy, which involves protecting individuals against any invasive
procedures, such as cavity searches or genetic tests; correspondence privacy, which
concerns the privacy of all forms of communications, such as via e-mail or telephone; and
territorial privacy, which covers intrusion into homes, workplaces and similar spaces.
The significance of the right to privacy became essentially important in the modern,

21
digital age. However, regardless of its importance, the right to privacy can be lawfully and
proportionally limited, under circumstances in which information is deemed of vital
necessity, especially for reasons such as national security and public safety, or the
prevention of crimes, for instance.
What debate issues concern the right to privacy?

Since the significance of the right to privacy became essentially important in the modern,
digital age, debate issues regarding the right to privacy often cover mass surveillance issues and
monitoring children’s digital behavior.
*
In the process of combating crime, especially worldwide terrorism, government
security agencies have engaged in extensive, global, mass surveillance activities. With crime
on the rise, mass surveillance of populations is also rapidly increasing, especially due to the
fact that technology is constantly evolving and enabling various forms of surveillance. While
recognizing the value of information in preventing, diminishing and sanctioning crimes,
debates frequently impose the question of whether it is worth giving up individual liberties
in order to ultimately ensure and provide security.
The United Kingdom government for instance, is thought to be one of the most
prone to surveillance governments. Recent development of events implies that in the near
future, the power of governments to even legally override encryption may be discussed.
*
Considering that the concept of privacy also extends to protection from intrusion
from private parties, debates often require discussing the concept of parents monitoring or
spying their children’s (cyber) activities. When surfing the internet or engaging in
(anonymous) social media conversations, children and young adolescents are one click away
from disturbing pornography, bullying, radicalization and similar jeopardies. In light of their
vulnerability and youth, the possible effects and outcomes of being subject to such
information can be extremely negative.
Despite the fact that nearly everyone agrees that it is the parents’ duty to ensure the
safety and wellbeing of their children, it is questionable whether the aim justifies the means,
considering that children are also entitle to the right to privacy.

22
What is freedom of expression?
Freedom of expression includes the right of each individual to hold opinions, to seek, receive
and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers, without state
interference.
In order for a society to progress, it is necessary for good and bad ideas to be filtered,
leading to acceptance of good ideas and rejection of bad ideas. Individuals must discuss,
debate and communicate with each other in order to find compromises that they agree on.
Having access to information and having the right to express oneself freely regarding
important issues in society is fundamental for development of any society.
The general term “freedom of expression” covers a wide range of types of
expression, including political, artistic and commercial expression. The protection of political
expression plays a vital role in promoting democratic values and upholding democracy itself.
On the other hand, the protection of artistic expression serves both to ensure development
and improvement of ideas and to foster individual accomplishment as well. Lastly,
commercial expression is conveyed for the purpose of making a profit.
In order to successfully accomplish the abovementioned aims, freedom of expression
comprises of protection of all types of opinions – both popular, widely held opinions as well
as unpopular, controversial opinions.
Freedom of expression is also highly related to the concept of free media, based on
the premise that free and constant flow of information is a precondition for the existence of
debate and progress in a society.
However, since the exercise of freedom of expression carries with it duties and
responsibilities, it may be proportionally restricted under well-defined and justified
circumstances, prescribed by law. Such limitations must pursue a legitimate aim, such as
national security and public safety, prevention of crime, protection of health or morals,
protection of the rights or reputation of others and similar.
What debate issues concern the right to privacy?

Despite being a fundamental human right, in practice, freedom of expression is often restricted
because of various aims, leading to controversial debates about whether such imposed
limitations are justified under the specific circumstances, like in cases where hate speech is
practiced, for instance.
*
The thin line between freedom of expression and hate speech is in the focus of the
23
21st century. The excessive (anonymous) use of social media by individuals for example, has
led to the rise of hate speech on social media platforms, which is an increasingly relevant
problem. For instance, there have been many cases where through the use of social media
individuals publicly incited ethnic, racial or religious hatred.
Debates often tackle the artistic freedom of individuals too, especially in the context
of celebrities who promote violence or other values that are thought to be negative.
Despite the generally accepted belief that misuse of human rights must be forbidden,
society is polarized on the question of whether hate speech should fall in the scope of
freedom of expression. The importance of freedom of expression in comparison with other
fundamental rights and principles can also be debated.
*
Another controversial issue in the modern society is whether journalists’ right to
protect their sources is absolute. While it is a fact that protection of journalistic sources (in
the sense of not being forced to reveal one’s source) is one of the fundamental
preconditions for press freedom, governments sometimes limit journalists’ right to protect
their sources, most often in the context of national security and public safety.
What is freedom of choice?

Freedom of choice is the opportunity and autonomy of an individual to choose and carry out a
particular action, without any constraints by external parties.
The right to choose may refer to social, moral, economic any many other areas in a
society. For instance, people choose whether to marry and have a family, citizens in
democratic societies elect their leaders, and consumers choose different goods and services
on a daily level.
The amount of choices available in a society also implies the level of freedom in that
society. More developed and progressive states provide more available opportunities to
their citizens. Ultimately, when an individual has more choices available, one also has more
opportunities and chances to find happiness (in accordance with the utilitarian approach).
Freedom of choice also means that an individual has a right to exercise one’s
freedom in a manner he or she chooses. However, this freedom is not absolute. There are
certain exceptions to this freedom, usually in cases where particular actions may put an
individual or others in danger or prevent or obstruct other individuals from exercising their
freedoms. In general, governments tend to limit freedom of choice when the exercise of
that freedom leads to violating universally held beliefs and values within a society.

24
What debate issues concern freedom of choice?
Debates often focus on discussing whether individuals should be allowed to make choices that
may put them or others in danger or generally lead to morally compromising the society as a
whole.
*
In every debate regarding abortion, the right to choose is inevitably discussed in the
context of the right of a woman to choose abortion as a viable option. The clash in such
debates is whether the right of a woman to choose outweighs any right claimed for an
embryo or fetus.
*
Banning smoking, criminalizing marijuana and prostitution, are several prominent
examples of limitations of the freedom of choice. In all of these cases, governments tend to
take away the people’s right to choose. Based on the assumptions that these are all harmful
actions and that if given a choice to convey such actions individuals would do so and
therefore harm themselves and others, governments often decide not to provide people
with such an opportunity at all. Usually, such actions are justified with the premise that it’s
the government’s duty to protect the people.

25
Chapter 5: Debates and arguments about human rights
“The issue of human rights is one of the most fundamental human issues and
also one of the most sensitive and controversial.” – Supreme Leader of Iran
Sayyi Ali Hosseini Khamenei
Debates and arguments about the right to life
* Death Penalty *
Supporters of the death penalty usually offer the following arguments:
1. The death penalty is justified for the worst crimes
The concept of why society punishes criminal offenders has evolved throughout history.
There have been and still are numerous theories that aim to explain the connection between
punishment and justice itself. However, one thing has always remained a constant – the
belief that one of the main reasons for punishing offenders is to inflict vengeance for a
wrong act.
Taking into consideration the universally agreed on principle of proportionality, meaning
that the punishment must fit the crime, supporters often claim that people who commit
monstrous crimes deserve to be punished in the worst way – by death. Additionally,
executing such individuals helps the victims’ close ones and society as a whole to achieve
closure.
2. The death penalty is effective
Recognizing that punishing offenders is also aimed to achieve prevention, in the context
of both special and general deterrence, the death penalty achieves these objectives as well,
and it can be therefore considered as effective.
First and foremost, once an offender is no longer alive, he or she cannot commit any
more crimes that affect society negatively. Additionally, introducing and exercising the
death penalty within a criminal justice system serves to prevent potential wrongdoers of
committing heinous crimes at the same time, due to the so called “scary effect”. The
simultaneous accomplishment of these two objectives at the same time, ultimately means
that the state is fulfilling its role and duty to protect its citizens.
Some supporters of the death penalty also emphasize that it is much less expensive than
prison and contributes to solving the issue of overcrowded prisons.

26
On the other hand, opponents of the death penalty offer claim the following arguments:
1. The death penalty can never be justified
While justice is important, society should not adopt the retributive “eye for an eye”
approach towards justice. On the contrary, states should stay above such trivial concepts
and promote an open-minded, fair, reasonable and consistent concept of justice, based on
the fundamental premise that even the inhumane deserve humanity.
Additionally, in the process of promoting and protecting certain values in society, states
must also abide by those values, meaning that the sanctity of human life and dignity should
not be devaluated in the process of protecting human lives. This means that even people
who do not respect the rules in a society should be protected by those very same rules,
which is why often even the families of the victims reasonably oppose the death penalty and
are in favor of prison as a punishment.
2. Prison is more effective that the death penalty
The aims that can be achieved by using the death penalty can also be achieved by
imprisoning. If an individual’s freedom of movement is limited, he or she cannot effectively
commit crimes anymore (at least towards the general population).
The frequent use of the death penalty also means that it will gradually lose its “scary
effect”. In fact, it is very common for criminals to even prefer being executed instead of
having to suffer the consequences for a long time in jail.
Opponents also claim that the death penalty in reality is not less expensive than prison
because of the long, due process that occurs before such punishment is meted out.
Lastly, not only imprisonment can fulfil the aims of prevention in a more appropriate
way, it has another significant advantage over the death penalty – wrongful convictions are
reversible.
* Abortion *
Supporters of abortion claim the following arguments:
1. Women have a right to choose
The ability of a woman to have control of her body is of crucial importance. Considering
the fact that it is a woman’s inherent responsibility to carry the child for nine months during
pregnancy and undergo childbirth all by herself, a woman should be entitled to the right to
decide whether to proceed with the pregnancy and submit her body and her personality to
all the subsequent consequences, without any external parties’ influence whatsoever.

27
Supporters also claim that an embryo or a fetus cannot be considered as a human being
yet, which is why when exercising her freedom to choose, a woman is not violating the right
to life of another “individual”. Others argue that even if it is agreed that an embryo or a
fetus can be considered as a human being, the right of a woman to choose still outweighs
the right to life of the unborn child. This is based on the presumption that women should
not have to sacrifice themselves in order to give birth to an unwanted child, because this
leads to a significantly decreased quality of life for both the mother and the child, which is in
fact a violation of the very core of the principle of the right to life – dignity.
2. The existence of the opportunity for abortion is necessary and practical
Under certain circumstances, due to medical reasons, a pregnancy can endanger the
mother’s life. In such cases, in the interest of preserving a life, it is crucial for the mother to
have an opportunity to undergo abortion procedures. Similarly, due to criminal reasons,
rape victims do not choose to become pregnant in the first place. Because of this, such
women should not be subject to future suffering and consequences. Instead, they should be
given the option to terminate their pregnancy. Lastly, due to social or economic reasons,
some women cannot guarantee to afford a decent life for the unborn child. Because this is
of utmost importance for the future quality of both the lives of the mother and the chils, and
quality is more important than quantity, it is necessary for women to have the freedom to
choose abortion.
Depriving a woman of her right to choose has practical implications that must be taken
into consideration too. Unwanted pregnancies can result in women subjecting themselves
to illegal, unsafe abortions, thus endangering their health and life.
On the other hand, opponents of abortion argue that:

1. Abortion violates the right to life
Considering that an embryo or a fetus is a form of life, abortion opponents claim that
prenatal humans have the right to life from the moment of conception. According to this
premise, terminating the life of an unborn child violates the very core of the right to life,
especially since it should apply to everyone, regardless of where that particular life comes
from.
Despite the fact that women have autonomy over their bodies, still, the right to choose
cannot serve to justify murder, which is why ultimately freedom of choice does not
outweigh the right to life of the unborn child.
2. A chance for a quality life is better than no chance at all
Regardless of where it comes from, each life has a potential value to society as a whole,
meaning that each individual can contribute to society in some way. Ending the child’s life

28
before it is born diminishes that potential.
Despite the fact that there is a possibility for that child not to have a life of great quality,
still, providing the child with even the slightest chance of a decent life is way better that
terminating that life beforehand. Ultimately, denying someone life simply due to the
circumstances of their conception cannot be ever morally justified.
* Euthanasia *
Euthanasia advocates offer the following arguments:
1. Every patient has a right to choose when to die
While the right to life is important, with every right comes a choice whether to realise
and enjoy that right. Subsequently, the right to life also implies the right to die. When it
comes specifically to euthanasia, the decision whether to live or die has the utmost impact
on the patient himself or herself. Due to this, each patient should also have an autonomous
choice whether and when to die.
2. Allowing patients to die with dignity is noble
Since when it comes to euthanasia patients suffer of incurable and painful diseases, their
death is basically simply a question of time. Because death is inevitable, allowing people to
die with dignity, as opposed to prolonging their life under circumstances in which they
suffer, is ultimately a noble, morally justified act.
On the other hand, euthanasia opponents argue that:
1. States have a duty to preserve people’s lives
The right to life implies that governments have an obligation to protect people’s lives,
due to the universally accepted principle of the sanctity of life. Therefore, the right to life
does not include a "right to be killed”.
It is also a state’s duty to balance the choices of some people with the negative
outcomes on other people. Recognizing that the death of a patient also affects other
people, states should not allow any patient to be killed, regardless of the patient’s will.
2. Alternative treatments are available
Patients who suffer painful diseases can be subject to various alternative treatments in
order for the pain to be relieved. Eradicating the symptoms of a disease does not necessarily
include killing the patient.
Lastly, in light of the fact that medicine and science are continuously developed, doctors
can never be absolutely sure that a particular disease is incurable. While a particular disease
can be considered as incurable today, there is a very real chance for it to become curable

29
tomorrow. Due to this, it is better to provide patients with alternative treatments and give
them even the slightest chance to live, in comparison with terminating their life beforehand.
Debates and arguments about the right to equality and non-discrimination
* Affirmative action *
Affirmative action policies can be implemented in many different ways, some of which
include preferential selection, quotas and access schemes. Such policies can be targeted at
nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, disabilities and other similar grounds.
However, in general, the supporters of affirmative action offer the following arguments:
1. States have a moral duty to implement affirmative action policies
Societies which have treated a certain group of people unjustly in the past, not only are
morally corrupted, but have also affected those people in a negative and harmful way.
Groups who have been systematically and continuously discriminated against have suffered
ruthless consequences and as a result are often deprived of education, employment
opportunities and similar, meaning that in the status quo they are in an unfavorable position
when compared to other groups.
Recognizing that discrimination is unjustified, unacceptable and has a long-term negative
impact on those groups who have been subject to discrimination, societies, or governments
in particular, have a moral obligation to right past wrongs. While past wrongs cannot be
simply undone, affirmative action policies can provide tremendous help in the process of
compensating those groups for the past, thus leveling the playing field for all people.
2. Affirmative action helps achieve diversity and equality
Fighting discrimination on the long run and overcoming its negative effects requires
tackling the very source of discrimination within a society. Affirmative action policies ensure
that diversity is present in people’s everyday lives, thus leading to the creation of integrated
communities.
Since the negative effects of past discrimination linger in societies, the presence of
various groups of people who interact and are exposed to each other in general, helps
decrease prejudice and barriers among people. Building such bridges eventually results in
decreasing the gaps among people and diminishing or even eradicating discrimination.
On a practical level, this also ensures equal opportunities for success for every individual,
regardless of their belonging to a certain group. Emphasizing that diversity and equality are
crucial for progress in a society, it can be argued that affirmative action also brings progress
and prosperity for everyone on the long run.

30
On the other hand, opponents of affirmative action claim the following:
1. Meritocracy is better than affirmative action
Despite the fact that affirmative action is also referred to as “positive” discrimination, it
still is discrimination in its very core, because it is simply reversing discrimination towards
other groups. Confirming that discrimination is unjust, affirmative action is also unjust.
On the other hand, systems based on meritocracy offer truly fair chances for prosperity
for everyone. Within such systems, the crucial factor that is taken into consideration is the
individual’s skills and abilities, instead of their gender, race, nationality or similar.
Meritocracy is essential for a progress in society on the long run. Ultimately, more
progressive societies have a better chance on eliminating discrimination on any grounds.
2. Affirmative action policies are not effective
Affirmative action policies often put people in positions that they are practically not
prepared for, resulting in various negative effects for them, such as low self-esteem, inability
to effectively cope with tasks and similar. These effects actually decrease the chances for
individual progress and happiness. Subsequently, those people are still perceived as
incompetent, inferior people.
Other negative effects, even counter effects can also be identified. Giving privileges for
people and treating them in a distinctive manner just because they are a part of a certain
group, actually reinforces prejudice and stereotypes against that group. Therefore, instead
of achieving equality, affirmative action policies emphasize differences and increase
inequality and discrimination on the long run.
Debates and arguments about the right to privacy
* Mass surveillance *
Supporters of government sanctioned mass surveillance emphasize that:
1. Mass surveillance is necessary to protect national security
The obligation of every state to protect its citizens is undisputable. In a very strict sense,
the duty to protect usually refers to physical protection of the citizens against violent
attacks, treats and similar. However, successful protection is very much dependent on
obtaining and operating according to relevant, actionable, useful information.
Mass surveillance provides governments with the opportunity to keep track on people’s
31
whereabouts, plans, correspondence and similar, so it can therefore contribute to early
discovery of potential offenders and prevent numerous crimes. Additionally, surveillance
serves to deter potential criminals from actually committing criminal acts. Lastly, using
surveillance as a technique can ease catching previously unknown criminals and help bring
them to justice.
2. Law-abiding citizens will not be affected in a negative way
Since law-abiding citizens have nothing to hide, mass surveillance does not put them at
risk in any way. In fact, those people should not be concerned if the state is limiting their
privacy for the sake of ensuring their safety.
On the other hand, opponents of mass surveillance base their attitude on the arguments
that:
1. Mass surveillance undermines the values of democracy
While it is true that states have a burden to protect their citizens, doing so by engaging in
mass surveillance activities is not justified. Recognizing that the right to privacy and freedom
from intrusion in people’s personal lives are some of the key values that democracies are
built upon, the ends do not justify the means in the case of mass surveillance. While ensuring
safety and defending democracy, governments must not lose the values that make
democracy worth defending in the first place.
Lastly, mass surveillance does not always guarantee that criminal acts will be prevented
and criminals will be punished. Technology might be constantly developing, but techniques
to overcome the obstacle of surveillance are also increasing.
2. It is wrong to monitor law-abiding citizens
Monitoring law-abiding citizens does not put them at a physical risk, but it still intrudes
their personal lives. In fact, law-abiding individuals who have nothing to hide should be
absolutely entitled to enjoy their freedom and privacy without any constrains and
limitations. Righteous citizens should not suffer any consequences simply because there
might be some potential wrongdoer somewhere in society.
* Children’s privacy *
People who support children’s absolute right to privacy claim that:
1. Children have the right to privacy just like adults
Regardless of their age, children are human beings and are therefore also entitled to the
right to privacy just like any adult. Their privacy must be protected and policies that limit
their privacy cannot be justified. While spying and monitoring children’s (cyber) activities
32
may seem like the easiest way for maintaining control over children, still, parents should
strive to enforce more reasonable and less intrusive measures of control, encouraging their
children to freely disclose relevant information.
However, opponents offer the following reasoning:
1. Spying on children is both justified and effective
Despite being entitled to the right to privacy, children cannot be equaled with adults
when it comes to policies regarding the amount of limitation of this particular right. Children
are not yet fully developed in the sense of being able to differentiate positive from negative
ideas, values and actions, which is why they must be protected by their parents. Despite
implementing other measures to ensure good upbringing and children’s safety, under
certain circumstances spying is what makes the difference between successful and
unsuccessful parenting. When all else fails, parents should resort to spying on their children
in order to have all relevant information when deciding what’s best for the children and
ultimately manage to protect their children.
Debates and arguments about freedom of expression
* Hate speech *
Supporters of legislation against hate speech base their opinion on the following
arguments:
1. Hate speech is an abuse of human rights
While having the right to express oneself is an important catalyst of progress in society,
hate speech should not be synonymous with freedom of expression. Unlike the case with
expressing unpopular, or even shocking, but yet, constructive opinions, the purpose of
practicing hate speech is to simply incite hate and offend someone. Therefore, allowing
people to practice hate speech masked as freedom of expression is inexcusable, because
such an act would constitute acceptance and promotion of human rights misuse and abuse,
which is unjustified.
Furthermore, even if hate speech does fall under the category of freedom of expression,
no rights are absolute. In light of the fact that practicing hate speech is a potential threat to
other people’s freedoms and rights, as well as to society as a whole, hate speech must be
restricted.
2. Hate speech has negative consequences
Hate speech can incite violence, murder, assault and other hate crimes. Even if hate
33
speech itself does not ultimately lead to actual violence and physical harms, still, hate
speech certainly does cause psychological harms to those targeted by it.
Lastly, hate speech plays a significant role in supporting discrimination, which is also
harmful and has numerous negative consequences.
On the other hand, advocates for not limiting hate speech claim the following:
1. Hate speech by itself is not harmful enough to justify limiting individual freedoms
People’s way of reacting to different situations is determined by dozens of factor, such
as social conditions, surroundings and age. Hate speech itself cannot directly generate
violence and crimes. Some psychosocial consequences that might occur because of hate
speech are so minor, that they do not quite accomplish the criteria of minimum severity or
harmfulness so that restricting individuals’ freedom of expression can be justified. Giving up
important individual freedoms because of potential future minor wrongdoings is not
reasonable.
2. Hate speech bring benefits to society
The fundamental principle that freedom of expression lays upon is the aim to enable
exchange of diverse ideas in society. Society can benefit even from unpopular ideas,
because such controversial ideas incite debate, identify problems and issues in various
spheres in society and ultimately prove what exactly is wrong with a particular idea.
If an individual expresses hate speech that lacks grounding, then such an opinion would
most likely be quickly and publicly discredited and demolished. This is beneficial not only
because it can prove people who practice hate speech are wrong, but it can also prevent
other people from adopting hateful points of view in the future.
* Journalistic sources *
Supporters of journalists’ right to protect their sources claim that:
1. The right to confidentiality ensures flow of information
In today’s society, media plays an essential role in providing flow of information and
shaping public opinion and values. On a daily basis, media depend to a large extent on
members of the public for supply of information. However, anonymity is often a
precondition for the source’s willingness to speak, especially in cases where citizens come
forward with information of a highly sensitive nature. Therefore, the journalists’ right to
maintain confidentiality with respect to their sources is of crucial importance for media to be

34
able to function freely in a democratic society.
On the other hand, opponents offer the following argument:

1. Public interest prevails over the right to maintain confidentiality
Like the right to freedom of expression it is derived from, the right to maintain
confidentiality of sources is not an absolute one. In certain exceptional circumstances, it
must be subject to some limitations, in favor of greater interests and values. Public interest
is a justified reason to restrict this right, because the safety of society as a whole is more
important than one person’s willingness to remain anonymous.
Debates and arguments about freedom of choice
* Prostitution, alcohol, tobacco, drugs *

Supporters of prostitution, use of alcohol, tobacco, drugs and similar substances offer
the following generic arguments:
1. Individuals should be free to choose what is good for themselves
States have a responsibility to defend individuals’ freedom of choice and to ensure that
people have an autonomy to decide what is good or bad for themselves. While governments
should make sure that people are informed about potential risks from a certain substance or
action, it should not actually stop people from taking such risks in life. Because such
decisions have the greatest impact over the individual who chooses to indulge in such
actions and does not cause harm to others in any way, it is not justified for states to
interfere with freedom of choice.
2. Legalizing is beneficial
When certain substances or actions are legal and regulated by law, through such
regulations states manage to minimize potential risks for individuals. Therefore,
governments can in fact provide safety for people who decide to engage in potentially
harmful actions. Legalizing prostitution, the use of alcohol, tobacco and drugs can also
improve state’s economies, which is beneficial for society as a whole.

35
On the other hand, opponents claim that:
1. Governments should ban harmful substances and actions
Recognizing that states have a duty to protect their citizens, if certain substances or
actions are proven to cause harm, states have a moral obligation to ban them. While
informing people about potential risks might only have the effect of discouraging them to
indulge in harmful actions, banning serves to guarantee that people will actually refrain from
such actions and therefore effectively protect them.
2. Banning will benefit society as a whole
The use of alcohol, tobacco and drugs, as well as engaging in prostitution have proven to
be harmful to both individuals and society as a whole. In reality, these thing affects
negatively third parties as well, especially families and close people, but also society as a
whole. While it is often claimed that health issues concern each person individually, in fact,
all people are interdependent and society functions as a complementary, connected whole.
In this context, taxes collected from drugs consumers will be basically redirected towards
treatment of drug addicts. Therefore, banning dangerous things is essential to provide
safety and ensure the wellbeing of society as a whole.

36
Chapter 6: Most prominent human rights
violations from around the world
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” – Civil rights activist
Martin Luther King
Armenian Genocide
The Armenian Genocide, commonly known as the Armenian Holocaust, refers to the
atrocities committed against the Armenian population living in the Ottoman Empire during
World War I. Starting from 24 April 1915 when over 200 Armenian community leaders were
arrested in Constantinople (the majority of which were later executed), this monstrous
genocide was methodically administered by the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) –
the political party which was in power at the time, commonly known as the Young Turks.
During the genocide, the Armenian population was subjected to massacre, torture,
starvation, expropriation and deportation. A vast majority of the Armenian people was
removed to Syria, where subsequently deportees were sent into “death marches” – forcibly
taken into the Syrian desert, deprived of food and water and periodically raped and tortured
until their death. At the same time, large numbers of Armenians were abused and ultimately
exterminated on the territory of the Ottoman Empire.
When the World War I ended in 1918, the Young Turks fled to Germany and the
Armenian genocide stopped. However, between 1920 and 1923 the atrocities were renewed,
leading to further mistreatment of the Armenian population.
Approximately 1.5 million Armenians perished in the course of the massacres
(between 1915 and 1923).
The Armenian Genocide was condemned by the international community as a crime
against humanity. Despite the fact that the UN Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”, the Turkish
government still does not acknowledge these unfortunate events as genocide.

37
Bosnian Genocide
The Bosnian Genocide generally refers to the broad campaign for systematic ethnic
cleansing of the Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims), carried out on the territory of Bosnia and
Herzegovina from April 1992 until 1995 or specifically to the Srebrenica Genocide (also
against Bosniaks) perpetrated in the town of Srebrenica in July 1995.
These atrocities were perpetrated by the Army of the Republika Srpska (VRS) – led
by ethnic Bosnian Serbs, together with paramilitary Serbian units. During the Bosnian War
(in the period from 1992 until 1995), Bosnian Serbs committed murder, rape, sexual assault,
torture, robbery and other brutal crimes against civilians. Many Bosniaks were sent into
concentration camps and subjected to torture and other inhumane and degrading
treatment. Women were systematically gang-raped.
In 1993, the United Nations declared Gorazde, Srebrenica, Zepa and other Muslim
enclaves as safe regions, protected by international peacekeeping forces. These towns
remained under control of the Bosnian government by 1995. Regardless of the presence of
UN peacekeepers, in 1995 the Bosnian Serbs committed a large massacre in the area of
Srebrenica, resulting in the death of approximately 8.000 men.
All these crimes resulted in the deaths of approximately 100.000 people by 1995 (the
majority of which were Bosniaks), as well as to the expulsion of around 30.000 more
Bosniaks.
While the international community has strongly condemned all of the
above-mentioned crimes, only the Srebrenica Massacre has been found to be a genocide by
the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
Child Slavery in the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA)

Since the beginning of the 1990s, the rebel group Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) has
been known to operate primarily in northern Uganda, but also on the territories of South
Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The main
objective of this guerilla group was to create a state based on its leader’s (Joseph Kony)
interpretation of the biblical Ten Commandments.
Since the LRA started fighting, it has kidnapped, enslaved and controlled more than
20.000 children. Young boys were trained to become soldiers and were subsequently forced
into combat, to fight on the front lines. They also served as guards, spies, messengers and
conducted suicide missions.

38
Girls were forced into sexual slavery, in order to serve as concubines for the guerrilla
group’s commanders. Many young girls were also sold or traded to arms dealers. Numerous
girls were also subjected to forced labour.
In 2005, the International Criminal Court issued warrants for four LRA leaders’ arrest,
including Joseph Kony, accusing them of gross human right violations (crimes against
humanity and war crimes) – approximately 10.000 murders and abduction and enslavement
of more than 24.000 children.
Migrant workers in Qatar

Approximately 90 percent of Qatar’s population are migrant workers from countries
including Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Sri Lanka. In the years leading up to the 2022 World
Cup, Qatar has engaged many migrant workers in construction jobs for the 2022 World Cup
Stadiums and infrastructure.
Despite abuses such as low pay, miserable living conditions and poor health and
safety standards, Qatar has also held in place the kafala system under which migrant
workers need their employer’s permission to change jobs or leave the country.
International human rights groups and labour organizations often emphasize that
the kafala system has resulted in modern slavery. It is estimated that over 1.000 migrant
workers a year are dying.
While Qatar has made some reforms, such as allowing workers who have completed
contracts to change jobs, imposing fines of businesses who confiscate employee’s passports
and similar, workers still need a permit to change jobs during their contract and are subject
to poor living and safety conditions.
Seeing that the implemented reforms are not enough, migrant workers on 2022
World Cup remain at serious risk of further abuse and exploitation.
Indigenous peoples of Australia and the Americas

Aboriginal people in Australia have had their human rights violated
throughout history and the effects of such violations linger until today. Many indigenous
people still do not effectively enjoy their rights, including the right to education, the right to
work, the right to property and similar.

39
One of the most controversial issues is the issue of the Stolen Generations. In the
period from the early to mid 20th century, numerous Indigenous children were forcibly
removed from their families as a part of government assimilation policies. These children
were forced to adopt to white culture (they were forbidden to speak their traditional
languages and forced to reject their Indigenous heritage). It is estimated that approximately
100.000 Aboriginal children were taken away from their homes.
Similarly, Native Americans have been denied their human rights throughout history.
In the period from 1790 until 1920 numerous Native Americans were assimilated, primarily
through education. Native American boarding schools were established and children were
forced to attend those school. Moreover, in these schools children were required to
abandon their traditional culture values and were instead forced to speak English, attend
church and similar.
Even in the 21st century, regardless of all (inter)national treaties, conventions and
documents, Indigenous Peoples are still discriminated against to some extent, especially in
the context of sovereignty and cultural and linguistic preservation.
Rwandan Genocide
The Rwandan Genocide refers to the 1994 mass slaughter of (mostly) members of
the Tutsi ethnic minority in Rwanda, perpetrated by government members of the Hutu
ethnic majority, with assistance from the Hutu paramilitary organizations Interahamwe and
Impuzamugambi.
In the context of the already ongoing Rwandan Civil War between the (mostly Hutu)
Rwandan government and the Tutsi-led Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF), the genocide was
sparked by the death of the Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana (a Hutu), when his
plane was shot down above the capital of Kigali on 6 April 1994.
Despite the fact that during the very following day the brutal massacre begun in
Kigali, it rapidly spread over the territory of the whole country, considering that Hutu
civilians were also encouraged to rape, mutilate and kill their Tutsi neighbors. Newspapers
and radio stations broadcasted hate propaganda and handed out hit-lists. Thousands of
Tutsi women were taken away and forced into sex slavery. In the 100-day period in which
the genocide took place, approximately 800.000 Tutsi were murdered.
In early July, the RPF took control of Rwanda. However, this further escalated the
crisis because around 2 million (mostly Hutu) refugees fled to the Democratic Republic of
Congo, out of fear of retaliation.

40
The international community generally remained on the sidelines during the
genocide. The United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda was in fact reduced to a
bystander role.
Sexual slavery in the modern era

While slavery is illegal everywhere, it still exists in various forms globally. Sex
trafficking (or human trafficking, forced prostitution) is one of the forms of modern day
slavery.
Sex trafficking violates fundamental human rights, because sex trafficker resort to
violence, threats and other forms of coercion to compel both adults and children to engage
in commercial sex acts against their will. Regardless of whether it occurs within a country or
across national borders, sex trafficking violates the right to bodily integrity, dignity, equality
and freedom from violence and torture.
Sex trafficking is most often encountered in wealthy regions such as the United
States, in Western Europe, and in the Middle East. It is estimated that there are around 20 to
30 million slaves in the world today, a majority of which are exploited in the global
commercial sex trade. More than 90 % of sex trafficking victims are women and girls.
Forced marriage, or marriage where at least one of the parties is married without
their consent, is also a form of sexual slavery. Fuelled by gender inequality, poverty and
traditions, it is a common practice in various cultures across the world, especially on some
territories of South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, child marriage remains one of
the most controversial and prominent human rights violation worldwide. It is estimated that
around 700 million women and over 150 million men already suffer the consequences of
child marriage.
World War II
The Second World War was the deadliest war in history that lasted from 1939 to 1945.
More than 30 countries worldwide were involved in the war, resulting in more than 50
million casualties on both sides. Although conflicts related to the war began earlier, the war
itself was sparked by Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939. Germany, Italy and Japan were
considered as the leaders of the Axis powers, while China, France, the Soviet Union, the
United Kingdom and the United States were all a part of the Allies of World War II.

41
During the Second World War numerous monstrous atrocities were committed,
including genocide, massacres and mass-bombings. Most importantly, what is today known
as the Holocaust was conducted. During the Holocaust more than 6 million European Jews
were systematically murdered by Nazi Germany and its allies.
Jews were sent to concentration camps equipped with gas chambers for the purpose
of extermination. In the concentration camps, they were forced to do extreme physical
work while being deprived of food and were also subjected to ruthless treatment, violent
torture and brutal executions. Jews, especially children, were also forced to undergo horrific
“medical” procedures and subjected to unprecedented “medical” experiments, most often
resulting in their death.
Some of the characteristics of the Nazi states that significantly contributed to the
escalation and maintenance of the horrific situation which resulted in gross human rights
violations are the use of violence in order to keep control of people, spread of hate and
propaganda against other races of people, no freedom of speech or press allowed, no
opposition allowed.
The Second World War ended with the surrender of the Axis powers on 8 May 1945.
In the aftermath of the war, the Allied Nations established the intergovernmental
organization – the United Nations, in order to prevent another such conflict and abuse of
human rights.

42
Chapter 7: Practice debate motions on human rights
“Human rights is a universal standard. It is a component of every religion and
every civilization.” – Human rights activist Shirin Ebadi
Freedom of choice
∗ This house will allow organized fight clubs
∗ This house would abolish taxes on alcohol and cigarettes that go beyond normal sales
taxes
∗ This house would allow prisoners to vote
∗ This house would ban alcohol
∗ This house would ban all pornography
∗ This house would ban children from becoming professional models
∗ This house would ban gambling
∗ This house would ban smoking in public places
∗ This house would impose democracy
∗ This house would legalise all drugs
∗ This house would legalise prostitution
∗ This house would legalise the sale of human organs
∗ This house would make voting compulsory
∗ This house would put vice tax on fast food
∗ This house would require approval from local referenda for all major land development
decisions (e.g. stadiums, airport extensions, railways etc.)
∗ This house would require democratic states to hold a national referendum to ratify free
trade agreements
Freedom of expression
∗ This house believes that it should be a criminal offence to make comments which could
promote hatred against people of particular races, religions, disabilities, sexualities or
gender identities
∗ This house believes that politicians should not have public profiles on twitter and other
social networking sites
∗ This house believes that social media sites should not limit the sexual expressions of its

43
users
∗ This house supports restrictions on free speech to combat the rise of right-wing
populism
∗ This house would ban all advertising of consumer goods and services
∗ This house would ban music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles
∗ This house would censor the Internet
∗ This house would criminalize the public denial of evolution
∗ This house would exempt academic disputes from defamation law
∗ This house would not prosecute defamation
∗ This house would place a worldwide ban on tobacco advertising
Gender equality
∗ This house believes that major film and television awards shows should abolish awards
categories separated by gender
∗ This house believes that mothers should stay at home and look after their children
∗ This house believes that sexually provocative female celebrities, who publicly identify as
feminists, harm the movement
∗ This house believes that the creation of feminist icons and their cults of personality are
good for the feminist movement
∗ This house believes that the feminist movement should actively fight to liberate men
from their prescribed gender roles
∗ This house believes that the feminist movement should actively promote norms of stable
monogamous relationships
∗ This house believes that the government should pay house wives and husbands for their
work
∗ This house believes that the world would be a better place if women from privileged
backgrounds turned down any benefits arising from affirmative action programs
∗ This house believes that women can only achieve equality under a secular system of
government
∗ This house would make fathers take paternity leave
Freedom of movement
∗ This house believes that immigration endangers European society
∗ This house supports free immigration
44
∗ This house supports the free movement of labour worldwide
∗ This house would allow anyone to take up residence in any country, provided that they
will not be an economic burden to that country
∗ This house would allow countries to pay other countries to settle asylum-seekers who
reach their borders
∗ This house would repatriate all illegal immigrants
LGBTQI rights
∗ This house believes that homosexuals should be able to adopt
∗ This house believes that gay rights organisations should out gay public figures
∗ This house believes that the gay rights movement should abandon the claim that
sexuality is not a choice
∗ This house would allow gay couples to marry
∗ This house would fabricate evidence in order to create the impression that historical
icons had been gay
Minorities
∗ This house believes that EU should sanction member countries for their mistreatment of
minorities
∗ This house believes that foster children should be placed into families with similar
backgrounds
∗ This house believes that governments should create schools which teach in indigenous
languages
∗ This house believes that governments should subsidise the traditional arts of minority
cultures
∗ This house believes that governments with racially diverse populations should never
record the ethnic or racial background of their residents
∗ This house believes that Holocaust denial should be a crime
∗ This house believes that national sporting teams should reflect the diversity of the
national population
∗ This house regrets the commodification of indigenous cultures
∗ This house would ban all procedures to alter one’s racial appearance
∗ This house would financially incentivize both inter-faith and inter-ethnic marriages
∗ This house would never categorize people on their race
45
∗ This house would prohibit disadvantaged groups from being portrayed as antagonists in
fictional media
∗ This house would require deaf parents to send their kids (whether deaf/hearing) to
mainstream schools for their primary & secondary education
∗ This house would use affirmative action in response to historical injustice
Privacy
∗ This house believes that protesters should not fight for their causes anonymously
∗ This house believes that sperm and egg donors should retain their anonymity
∗ This house believes that the media should be prevented by law from intruding the lives
of public figures
∗ This house believes that when doctors discover a patient has a STD, they should reveal
that information to the patient’s partner
∗ This house regrets the media focus on the personal lives of politicians
∗ This house would have a criminal DNA database
∗ This house would not allow companies to collect/sell the personal data of their clients
∗ This house would require individuals to reveal their actual identity when communicating
on the internet
Religion
∗ This house would abolish religious primary and secondary schools
∗ This house would allow children who have reached the age of majority to sue their
parents for religious indoctrination
∗ This house would ban advocacy for religious belief in public places
∗ This house would not allow religious communities to expel members on the basis of
views or actions that contradict doctrinal teachings
∗ This house would prohibit religious organisations from speaking out against
homosexuality
∗ This house would require government schools to teach religious studies
Right to life

46
∗ This house believes that assisted suicide should be legalized
∗ This house supports a right to die
∗ This house would allow prisoners to choose death over life sentence
∗ This house would ban abortion except in cases where the mother’s health is at risk
∗ This house would forbid all types of abortion
∗ This house would grant those diagnosed with terminal illnesses the right to access
treatments that have not completed clinical testing
∗ This house would punish the worst crimes with death
Security
∗ This house believes that national security should take precedence over individual rights
∗ This house believes that state-sanctioned torture is justified in exceptional cases
∗ This house believes that the police should use racial profiling to fight crime
∗ This house supports media censorship during times of political crisis
∗ This house would arm teachers
∗ This house would ban all reporting of individual hostage taking
∗ This house would cease the use of detention without trial in the war on terror
∗ This house would limit media reporting of terrorist atrocities
∗ This house, as a medical professional employed by the United States military or security
services, would, and would encourage others, to refuse orders to provide medical
treatment to individuals undergoing “enhanced interrogation techniques”
Social and economic security

∗ This house believes that multinational companies should be liable for human rights
abuses that occur anywhere in their supply chain
∗ This house believes that poor people should be given two votes in elections
∗ This house would ban all private healthcare in favor of a comprehensive public
healthcare system
∗ This house would ban strikes by those working in essential state services
∗ This house would create public housing for the poor in wealthy areas
∗ This house would limit Government ministers’ standard of living to that of someone on
the current median wage
∗ This house would make labour union membership compulsory in large industries
∗ This house would provide all a minimum standard of living
47

Human Rights For Debaters Cheat Sheet

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Rights For Debaters Cheat Sheet

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Edition 1.

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

Chapter 1: Introduction to human rights 6

Chapter 2: International human rights instruments 9

Chapter 3: International courts and tribunals 13

Chapter 4: Several important human rights 18

Chapter 5: Debates and arguments about human rights 27

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

Chapter 7: Practice debate motions on human rights 44

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

What are human rights?

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

Who has the responsibility to protect human rights?

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

What are international human rights instruments?

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

What are the core international human rights instruments

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

The ​African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) is an international

Regarding safeguard measures, the Charter establishes an African Commission on

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

What is the role of international courts and tribunals in

What are the most prominent international judicial bodies?

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

What is the right to life?

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

What is the right to equality?

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

A major problem in today’s world is also the ​discrimination based on sexual

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

What is the right to privacy?

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

What debate issues concern the right to privacy?

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

What debate issues concern the right to privacy?

What is freedom of choice?

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

Debates and arguments about the right to life

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

On the other hand, opponents of abortion argue that:

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

Debates and arguments about the right to privacy

Debates and arguments about freedom of expression

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

On the other hand, opponents offer the following argument:

Debates and arguments about freedom of choice

* Prostitution, alcohol, tobacco, drugs *

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

Human Rights Cheat Sheet for Debaters, 2017

Child Slavery in the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA)

The African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) is an international

A major problem in today’s world is also the discrimination based on sexual