Debates on rights and justice Questionbank

Source A

Source B

Adapted from “Racism and discrimination”, a report by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), www.ohchr.org (2023).

Racial discrimination is a direct violation of Article 1 and Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which state that all human beings are equal in dignity and rights and are entitled to equal protection under the law.

Despite these principles, racial injustice remains widespread around the world. According to the UN Human Rights Office, people of African descent, Indigenous peoples, and ethnic minorities face systemic inequality in areas such as education, employment, housing, policing, and political representation. In some countries, these communities are disproportionately targeted by law enforcement and overrepresented in prisons.

High-profile incidents of racially motivated violence, such as the killing of George Floyd in the United States, have drawn international attention to the ways in which racism is embedded in institutions. These events have sparked global protests and renewed calls for justice, accountability, and reform.

The UN emphasizes that combating racial discrimination is not only a moral imperative but a legal obligation under international human rights law.

Source C

Adapted from: UN Human Rights Council, “Combating Racism: A Global Imperative” (2023)

Racial discrimination undermines the core principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), particularly Articles 1 and 7, which affirm that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and are entitled to equal protection under the law. Despite decades of international efforts, racism persists in both overt and systemic forms across the globe.

Victims of racial discrimination often face barriers to education, employment, healthcare, and political participation. In many countries, racialized communities are disproportionately targeted by law enforcement, subjected to harsher punishments, and denied justice. The UN stresses that racism is not just a social issue but a violation of international human rights law.

Global events such as the killing of George Floyd and the rise of far-right movements have reignited debates about racial injustice and accountability. The UN has called for stronger legal frameworks, reparations, and the dismantling of systemic racism. States are reminded that tolerance and diversity are not optional, they are obligations. Addressing racial discrimination is therefore central to realizing equality, justice, and human dignity for all.

Source D

Adapted from: Human Rights Watch, “Racism and the Right to Equality” (2022)

Racism is a human rights issue because it denies people equal treatment, access, and protection. It creates social hierarchies that exclude certain racial or ethnic groups from opportunities and dignity. Whether through racial profiling, exclusionary citizenship laws, or hate speech, racial discrimination harms both individuals and society as a whole.

Human Rights Watch reports that in countries such as Brazil, the United States, France, and India, people from racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to experience police brutality, poverty, and political marginalization. In some cases, these outcomes are reinforced by laws and policies that have discriminatory effects, even if not explicitly racist.

The report also highlights how global movements like Black Lives Matter and Indigenous rights campaigns have brought attention to racial injustice and challenged state inaction. However, it warns that many states pay lip service to equality while failing to make meaningful change.

Human Rights Watch urges governments to move beyond symbolic gestures and adopt structural reforms, such as anti-discrimination legislation, equitable public investment, and data collection on racial disparities. Combatting racial discrimination is not only a legal requirement under international human rights treaties but also a moral and social necessity.

Source A

Source B

Adapted from “What gender inequality looks like in Latin America”, Johanna Mendelson Forman, The Huffington Post (2014)

Gender inequality in Latin America is deeply rooted in cultural norms, prejudices, and persistent discrimination, as shown by the alarming wage gap between women and men. According to a UN report, women’s experiences and prospects are highly influenced by ethnicity, age, geography, migration status, and motherhood. For example, indigenous or Afro-descendant women, those living in rural areas, or women with children often face compounded barriers to advancement. Economic obstacles such as limited access to higher education prevent many women from attaining better jobs, and women remain concentrated in low-income, precarious work.

Organizations like the Inter-American Program on the Promotion of Women’s Human Rights and Gender Equity have called for full, equal access for women to work and resources. Some progress has been made—such as the Brasilia Consensus, which recognizes the value of unpaid domestic work—but much remains to be done. Persistent stereotypes about women’s roles in society, combined with insufficient government action, continue to limit women’s autonomy, participation, and rights. The report argues that unless structural barriers are dismantled and women’s unpaid labor is formally acknowledged, Latin America will continue to face stark gender inequalities with serious social and economic consequences.

Source C

Adapted from “Violence and women in Brazil: What happens indoors stays indoors”, Sandra Andrade, The Independent (2013)

Brazil has one of the world’s highest rates of violence against women, with over 92,000 women killed in their homes in the past three decades. Despite recent legal advances, including new laws recognizing violence against both men and women, the fight for women’s safety faces cultural and institutional resistance. Many cases of domestic abuse go unreported due to stigma, a culture of silence, and lack of effective response by authorities. The phrase “what happens indoors stays indoors” reflects widespread reluctance to speak out, both among victims and the wider community.

Efforts by activists, including the Anglican Service of Diakonia and Development (SADD), aim to break this silence by encouraging churches and communities to confront violence. However, ingrained machismo—the cultural ideal of strong, dominant masculinity—creates resistance from law enforcement and society at large. Campaigners highlight that ending violence requires not only legal change but also social transformation, particularly in challenging the normalization of abuse. Ultimately, the article calls for collective action and open dialogue, warning that ignoring the problem only perpetuates harm and undermines progress toward gender equality and basic human rights.

Source D

Adapted from “International Women’s Day and gender equality in Brazil”, Americas Quarterly (2013)

In Brazil, women’s activism has a long history, dating back to the struggle against dictatorship in the 1980s, when women helped lay the foundation for democracy. The Movement of Rural Women Workers (MMTR), founded by teenage girls in southern Brazil, targeted one of the most resistant spaces: the home. By demanding an equal voice and urging men to share household labor, these activists challenged deep-seated gender norms and pushed for legal and economic equality.

Over 25 years, these efforts have led to significant reforms, including laws promoting gender equality in the constitution and social security benefits for rural women. Yet, progress remains incomplete. Many women continue to leave school early for domestic work, and achieving formal equality has not eradicated discrimination or changed all social attitudes. The article emphasizes that speaking out for rights is only the beginning; true transformation requires sustained activism and accountability. The persistence of inequality, even after decades of struggle, highlights the difficulty of reforming gender roles. The piece concludes by stressing that, despite legislative gains, the battle for women’s rights and genuine equality is ongoing, both in Brazil and globally.

Source A

Source B

Adapted from: International Crisis Group, “Dilemmas of Humanitarian Intervention” (2022)

Humanitarian intervention remains one of the most contested practices in international politics. While the idea is rooted in moral and legal obligations to protect populations from mass atrocities, interventions often provoke significant controversy. Critics argue that military interventions—no matter the cause—can escalate violence, deepen instability, and cause civilian harm.

In some cases, the intervening states are accused of having ulterior motives such as resource access, regime change, or geopolitical influence. This erodes trust in the legitimacy of humanitarian justifications. For example, the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya was initially backed by a UN resolution to protect civilians but later shifted toward regime removal, drawing criticism from both allies and rivals.

The domestic impact can also be intense. In both intervening and target countries, public protests and political backlash often arise. Populations may resist foreign involvement, fearing the undermining of sovereignty, while citizens of intervening states question the human and financial costs of military action abroad.

Ultimately, while the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine aims to prevent genocide and war crimes, it remains inconsistently applied and vulnerable to politicization, making humanitarian intervention both a tool of hope and a source of controversy.

Source C

Adapted from: UN General Assembly Debate, “Sovereignty and the Use of Force” (2021)

The principle of state sovereignty remains foundational in international relations. Many governments—especially in the Global South—have voiced concerns over the growing use of humanitarian justifications for foreign intervention. These states argue that intervention without host nation consent violates international law and opens the door for misuse by powerful countries.

For small or developing states, sovereignty is often equated with survival. Historical experiences of colonization and foreign occupation fuel skepticism about externally led humanitarian action. Even when intervention is framed as protection, it can be perceived as a threat to national autonomy and long-term stability.

Delegates at the UN have called for a clearer distinction between genuine humanitarian need and strategic self-interest. They point to the inconsistent application of intervention—such as in Syria, Yemen, and Myanmar—as evidence that international actors intervene selectively based on political interests, not universal moral standards.

Some advocate for strengthening regional peacekeeping mechanisms and diplomatic conflict resolution rather than military engagement. They stress that multilateralism and respect for sovereignty are essential for sustaining international peace. From this perspective, legitimacy is derived not only from intention but from legal mandates, transparency, and respect for the self-determination of peoples.

Source D

Adapted from: Human Rights Watch, “Failing to Protect: The Cost of Inaction” (2023)

When mass atrocities occur and the world fails to respond, the consequences are devastating. Human Rights Watch argues that the international community’s repeated inability to act decisively in the face of war crimes and crimes against humanity undermines both human rights and global security.

Cases like Rwanda (1994), Srebrenica (1995), and more recently Tigray and Syria, highlight the high cost of non-intervention. In each instance, early warnings were ignored, and political divisions prevented timely action. The organization stresses that sovereignty cannot be used as a shield for mass violence, and that the world has a moral obligation to act when civilians are at risk.

HRW supports the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) but criticizes the lack of political will and consistency in its implementation. Powerful states often use the UN Security Council to block action when it conflicts with their strategic interests.

From this perspective, legitimacy stems not just from international law, but from moral urgency. Failure to act not only damages credibility but emboldens abusive regimes. Humanitarian intervention, though imperfect, remains one of the few tools available to prevent mass suffering—and its absence carries long-term consequences for justice, stability, and human dignity.