Source A

Source B

Adapted from “Crackdowns on protests and freedom of expression continue globally,” an article by Human Rights Watch, www.hrw.org (2023).

Freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 19 and 20). Yet in recent years, these rights have come under increasing threat across multiple regions.

According to Human Rights Watch, governments in countries such as India, Egypt, and China have used excessive force to disperse protests, blocked internet access, and arrested activists and journalists. Authorities have frequently labelled protest movements as “threats to national security,” justifying harsh crackdowns and prolonged detentions.

These violations not only silence dissenting voices but also weaken democratic accountability. In many cases, marginalized communities, including women, students, and ethnic minorities, are disproportionately targeted, making it harder for them to advocate for justice or reform.

Despite these pressures, civil society movements have continued to demand change, highlighting the enduring importance of protecting freedom of speech and assembly in ensuring broader human rights protections.

Source C

Adapted from: “Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights,” UN Human Rights Council, www.ohchr.org (2022).

Many governments justify restrictive laws and practices in the name of national security. However, the UN Human Rights Council has raised serious concerns that such measures often violate fundamental human rights.

In recent years, anti-terror legislation in countries such as France, Egypt, and the Philippines has allowed for indefinite detention, internet shut-downs, mass surveillance, and the banning of public gatherings. Critics argue that these measures disproportionately target political activists, minority communities, and human rights defenders.

The UN emphasizes that while states have a duty to protect their citizens from terrorism, they must also uphold international human rights obligations. Counter-terror policies should be necessary, proportionate, and subject to independent oversight to prevent abuse of power and the erosion of civil liberties.

Source D

Adapted from: “Crackdown on Press Freedom,” Reporters Without Borders, www.rsf.org (2023).

Freedom of the press is essential to democracy and accountability, but it is increasingly under threat. Reporters Without Borders reports that in over 70 countries, journalists are being harassed, jailed, or killed for reporting on corruption, conflict, or human rights violations.

In places like Turkey, China, and Eritrea, governments have shut down media outlets, censored online platforms, and labelled independent journalists as enemies of the state. In more democratic countries, legal intimidation and surveillance have created a chilling effect, causing journalists to self-censor.

The organization stresses that attacks on press freedom not only violate the rights of journalists, but also undermine the public’s right to information. It calls for urgent international action to protect media workers and restore space for free, independent journalism.

Source A

Source B

Adapted from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), Article 32 (2007)

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.

Collective rights represent the shared interests and identity of a group, which are distinct from individual rights. For many indigenous communities, the right to land is not just an individual property right but a collective right to survival, culture, and self-determination. This framework challenges traditional Western notions of individual justice by arguing that the group’s historical and spiritual connection to a territory must be legally protected to ensure the human rights of all its members are realized.

Source C

Adapted from an editorial: “National Development and the Public Interest,” The Daily Progress (2019)

Critics of large-scale infrastructure and mining projects often ignore the broader mandate of the state: the welfare of the entire nation. While respect for local communities is important, it cannot override the state’s sovereign right to develop its natural resources for the benefit of the majority. The revenues generated from these projects provide the schools, hospitals, and infrastructure needed to lift millions out of poverty.

A system that grants a small minority a permanent veto over national economic strategy is fundamentally unjust to the rest of the citizenry. The state must balance competing interests, but its primary duty is to the collective prosperity of its people. Individual and group grievances must be managed through fair compensation, but the progress of the nation as a whole is a priority that ensures the long-term enjoyment of social and economic rights for every citizen.

Source D

Adapted from a report by Cultural Survival: “The Struggle for Ancestral Land,” (2021)

For the Ogoni people and many other groups, the land is more than a resource; it is the foundation of their identity and existence. Recent years have seen an escalation of conflict as governments grant licenses to multinational corporations without the genuine consent of the residents. Activists argue that “development” forced upon a community is not development at all, but a form of dispossession.

In many cases, legal victories in international courts—which recognize the collective titles of indigenous peoples—are ignored by national governments. The persistence of these conflicts highlights the clash between two views of justice: one that prioritizes the global market and national GDP, and another that prioritizes the dignity and cultural continuity of traditional societies. True justice requires recognizing that certain rights, such as the right to ancestral land, are non-negotiable and cannot be simply “bought off” with compensation.

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.