Search

Some countries, human rights organizations, artificial intelligence experts and academics have expressed doubts about the moral, ethical, and legal development and use of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS). The United States, United Kingdom, Israel, Russia and many other countries have disagreed with these concerns. This paper will argue that (1) LAWS already exist and are in use by many countries for both defensive and offensive purposes and (2) LAWS cannot be legislated away; the technology is pervasive from smart cars and autonomous ships to military self-protection systems. As long as countries and their respective militaries follow internationally accepted norms when using LAWS such as the Laws of War, principles of war, and have a systematic legal review process, militaries will have the sufficient and necessary controls to address those who criticize and oppose their development and use.

Darius Atighetchi’s paper is connoted by “fear”: fear that Islam could be “colonized” by other cultures; and specifically fear for the danger of corruption of Islam because of the paradigm of “human rights” as a product of Western culture. The text begins with the complaint of “Western-international colonization” and it ends by quoting the same concern, clearly and loudly expressed by some major Islamic organizations.

While reading “Between Humaneness and Human Rights”, I found myself more than once nodding in agreement. And I began asking myself how to provide a reply from a Christian perspective, when much of what I could say had already been said, and better, through the presentation of what was referred to as the Jewish tradition. Should my Christian presentation just echo what was said or should I look for anything uniquely Christian in relation to bioethics and as being different from what could be said in other religious traditions? And is this really possible?

Professor Heyd argues that modern bioethics, being rights- based, stand in sharp contrast to all religion based bioethics which, by definition, are duty-based.

It is time for a paradigm shift in the science of applied behavior analysis. Our current approach to applied research perpetuates power imbalances. We posit that the purpose of applied behavior analysis is to enable and expand human rights and to eliminate the legacies of colonial, oppressive social structures. We report the findings from our examination of the content of our flagship applied research journal. We reviewed 50 years of applied experiments from the standpoint of respect, beneficence, justice, and the participation of individuals and communities. Although there is some promise and movement toward inclusion, our findings indicate that we have not prioritized full participation across all segments of society, especially persons and communities that are marginalized. Social justice rests on the belief that human life is to be universally cherished and valued. In this paper we suggest that policies, strategies, and research practices within our field be interwoven with a commitment to social justice, including racial justice, for all. We offer recommendations to neutralize and diffuse power imbalances and to work toward a shift from colonial to participatory practices in the methods and aims of our applied science.

This paper presents a review of existing literature to understand the effects and effectiveness of human rights treaties in the Asia Pacific region, particularly in Southeast Asian countries, in contrast to Western nations. The review argues that factors at the international/treaty level and factors at the domestic state level increase the difficulty of implementing effective international treaties on human rights. At the international level, the treaties and organizations to which states belong suffer some weakness as discussed in international relations theories, while seven factors are particularly important for promoting effectiveness of international human rights treaties at the domestic level: political capacity, economic development, national human rights institutes, regional human rights courts, regional intergovernmental organizations, strength of civil society, and political stability. Although the number of international human rights agreements signed and ratified by Asia Pacific states is increasing following the trends of Western states, less research focuses on the implementation and effects of these institutions. Asia Pacific nations face vastly different conditions than Western nations, such as more complicated security environments, larger cultural and religious differences, and less development and democratic values in some cases. Due to these differences, it is important to consider other potential variables that influence efficacy of treaty instruments for non-Western nations. What are the differences between implementation of human rights treaties in Western and Asian nations? How do they affect the efficacy of international agreements on individual human rights?