Freedom from Fear and Want in the Context of International Human Essay

Freedom from Fear and Want in the Context of International valet de chambre Rights Law - Essay ExampleCenter of discussion in this paper is freedom from dismay and indispensability that appear to be unattainable aspirations. It is perhaps unreasonable to expect to live a life free of fear and want, unless the individual shares the upper echelons of society. The connection between freedom from fear and want with merciful rights is based on concepts of tender-hearted security and human welfare. Essentially freedom from fear is a manifestation of the trend toward aligning human security with fundamental human rights at global law. Likewise, freedom from want adds to existing international human rights by extending fundamental liberties to include welfare as an arm of fundamental human rights. On its face, the inclusion of human security and welfare as an arm of international human rights is certainly consistent with developments in modern times particularly with respect to intern ational poverty and international conflicts and terrorism. However, making human security and welfare a fundamental human right poses some problems with respect to protecting welfare and security and safeguarding other fundamental freedoms which may necessarily be contravened in the interest of promoting freedom from want and security. It may be misleading to think of international human rights as an international Bill of Human Rights because in the absence of a centralized system of enforcement, the recognition and enforcement of an international Bill of Rights are only as good as the national declares implementation and enforcement of those rights. ... nternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1976 (CCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights 1976 (CESR) (Meron, 1986). The International Bill of Human Rights has been expanded via a number of subsequent declarations, covenants and protocols internationally and regionally (Smith, 2007). I t may be misleading to think of international human rights as an international Bill of Human Rights because in the absence of a centralized system of enforcement, the recognition and enforcement of an international Bill of Rights are only as good as the national states implementation and enforcement of those rights. It is one thing for a national political relation to recognize an international Bill of Human Rights and quite another for a national government to implement and enforce an international Bill of Human Rights. Even more uncertain is the economic ability of a national government to guarantee that citizens inside its territories are accorded freedom from fear and want as legitimate arms of the international Bill of Human Rights. Be that as it may, it has been argued that the idea of international human rights was initially articulated by US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his Four Freedoms address to Congress on December 10, 1948. During that address, Roosevelt stat ed that his political aspirations were built some pursuing a social and political environment in which the world would be secure enough to safeguard four specific freedoms the freedom of expression, religion, from want and fear (Power & Allison, 200, p. 4). Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are more easily achieved as the cost of enforcing free expression and free religion is arguably quite low compared to the cost of ensuring freedom from fear