Chomsky’s Discourse on US Foreign Policy, Media and Human Rights Interface: Implications to Indian Media

2012 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Ashok Antony D’Souza
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Ruling Elite ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
News Reports ◽  
Propaganda Model ◽  
Noam Chomsky ◽  
Us Imperialism ◽  
The Us

The United States (US) is usually thought of as a nation representing freedom, democracy and human rights. However, as shown by Noam Chomsky and a few others, the US has turned out to be the most dominant imperialist nation as it is a ‘super power’ with immense political and economic clout. The US has been involved in human rights’ violations, Chomsky claims, with an intention of capturing markets for its goods and services, but has been successful in veiling it by shaping popular consciousness through its hegemony over popular media. Chomsky argues that the US has been preparing the ground for human rights’ violations by the use of ‘Propaganda Model’ which ‘filters’ reality in such a way as to give the ‘news’ that is perverted to serve the needs of the ruling elite. For instance, in many of the ‘news’ reports the weapons of mass destruction used by the US are attributed human traits while the citizens of the enemy nation are presented as nameless “aggressors” or “terrorists”. The relevance of the paper rests on working out the implications of Chomsky’s perspectives on the use of media by the US to serve its propagandist model and the implications of such tendencies to nations like India. The paper also tries to work out the possible way out of this impasse. Keywords: Culture of terrorism, human rights, media, propaganda model, US imperialism

The Effect of US Troop Deployments on Human Rights

2016 ◽  
Vol 61 (10) ◽  
pp. 2020-2042 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam R. Bell ◽  
K. Chad Clay ◽  
Carla Martinez Machain
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Host Country ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Host State ◽  
Local Populations ◽  
External Threats ◽  
High Security ◽  
The Us

US noninvasion troops deployed abroad often try to promote greater respect for human rights in the host country. The host country, having an incentive to retain the troop presence, may choose to comply with these requests. We argue that this effect will not be at play in states with high security salience for the United States (US) (for which the US may not be able to credibly threaten to remove the troops). In these cases, US deployments will provide the leader with security from both internal and external threats that is independent of the local population’s support for the leader. Host state leaders thus become less reliant on (and potentially less responsive to) their local populations, which in turn may lead to increased human rights violations. In this article, we use data on both US troop deployments abroad and on human rights violations to test these arguments from 1982 to 2005.

scholarly journals Gender, Violence, and Trauma in Immigration Detention in the United States

Social Work ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurie Cook Heffron
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Immigration Detention ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Detention Facilities

While international law protects the rights of individuals to seek asylum and to be treated humanely and with dignity, immigration detention, the practice of confining individuals accused of violating immigration law, has surfaced as a growing response to the large numbers of individuals and families on the move throughout the world in search of freedom, safety, and economic security. Detention has long been used as a strategy for enforcement of immigration laws across the globe, and has also been used as a tactic to dissuade and control future migration. The detention of immigrants consistently presents concerns about and allegations of civil and human rights violations and negative bio-psycho-social impacts on those detained. Given the contemporary expansion of the immigration detention system in the United States, this bibliography will focus primarily on the context of immigration detention within the United States. This bibliography includes selected scholarly resources from the social sciences, health, and legal fields to present an overview of immigration detention, the impact on survivors of violence and trauma, and detention alternatives. While the Global Detention Project and other nonprofit organizations aim to track the scope of immigration detention worldwide, numbers of individuals detained, as well as the number and location of detention facilities, immigration detention remain difficult to track. In the United States, the average daily population of immigration detention facilities in the United States had increased from 6,785 in 1994 to more than 38,000 in 2017. That number has risen to closer to 50,000 in recent years and manifests across a wide variety of facilities, including temporary and long-term holding facilities operated by a host of federal, state, local, and private for-profit entities. The US government has broad, though not absolute, power over immigration and immigration detention. Authorization of the detention of immigrants dates back to 1798 with the Alien Enemies Act, which allowed for the detention of immigrants from “hostile” countries during times of war. As of 1875, another series of laws expanded the framework of detention, in particular pertaining to the incarceration of individuals with criminal convictions. Further changes were made in 1952 with the Immigration and Nationality Act, then more drastically in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which served to begin a decades-long expansion of the US immigration detention system. This expansion has also led to numerous allegations of civil and human rights violations related to due process, exploitative labor practices, sexual and physical abuse, and inadequate medical care, as well as growing concern about the impact of immigration detention on survivors of violence and trauma, particularly children, women, and LGBTQ communities. The author would like to acknowledge the significant contributions of Jessenia Herzberg in researching and reviewing literature on immigration detention.

scholarly journals United States’s Intevention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-67
Author(s):  
Indri Susilo ◽  
Rizqi Apriani Putri ◽  
Nur Azizah
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Humanitarian Aid ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Islamic State ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Military Aid ◽  
Library Research ◽  
The Us

ABSTRACTCombating terrorism is one of the foreign policy of the United States (US). The Islamic State of Iraq and The Levant (ISIL) or The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is one of the movement deemed terrorists and has disturbed world peace. Ultimately the US decided to intervene to deal with the frequent acts of terror by ISIS which resulted in gross human rights violations.This article aims to find out how the US intervention to combat human rights abuses and acts of terror that have been done by ISIS.The method in this article was to do library research in the form of books, articles, journals and various media relevant in this article.It has been found that the form of settlement efforts to reduce human rights violations, the US made preventive and repressive efforts. In preventive efforts, the US created an international coalition to gain support to counter terror committed by ISIS. Then the repressive effort is humanitarian intervention in the form of military aid and humanitarian aid. The US donates $ 1.2 billion annually and 350 million dollars as a form of military and humanitarian aid to combat ISIS. Keywords: Humanitarian Interventions, Human Rights Violations, International Coalition, United States Intervention

scholarly journals United States’s Intevention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-67
Author(s):  
Indri Susilo ◽  
Rizqi Apriani Putri ◽  
Nur Azizah
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Humanitarian Aid ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Islamic State ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Military Aid ◽  
Library Research ◽  
The Us

ABSTRACTCombating terrorism is one of the foreign policy of the United States (US). The Islamic State of Iraq and The Levant (ISIL) or The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is one of the movement deemed terrorists and has disturbed world peace. Ultimately the US decided to intervene to deal with the frequent acts of terror by ISIS which resulted in gross human rights violations.This article aims to find out how the US intervention to combat human rights abuses and acts of terror that have been done by ISIS.The method in this article was to do library research in the form of books, articles, journals and various media relevant in this article.It has been found that the form of settlement efforts to reduce human rights violations, the US made preventive and repressive efforts. In preventive efforts, the US created an international coalition to gain support to counter terror committed by ISIS. Then the repressive effort is humanitarian intervention in the form of military aid and humanitarian aid. The US donates $ 1.2 billion annually and 350 million dollars as a form of military and humanitarian aid to combat ISIS. Keywords: Humanitarian Interventions, Human Rights Violations, International Coalition, United States Intervention

Palestine Unbound

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 130-134
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Task Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Tel Aviv ◽  
The Us ◽  
Intention To Move ◽  
Arab Israeli Conflict ◽  
The U.S

This section, updated regularly on the blog Palestine Square, covers popular conversations related to the Palestinians and the Arab-Israeli conflict during the quarter 16 November 2017 to 15 February 2018: #JerusalemIstheCapitalofPalestine went viral after U.S. president Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and announced his intention to move the U.S. embassy there from Tel Aviv. The arrest of Palestinian teenager Ahed Tamimi for slapping an Israeli soldier also prompted a viral campaign under the hashtag #FreeAhed. A smaller campaign protested the exclusion of Palestinian human rights from the agenda of the annual Creating Change conference organized by the US-based National LGBTQ Task Force in Washington. And, UNRWA publicized its emergency funding appeal, following the decision of the United States to slash funding to the organization, with the hashtag #DignityIsPriceless.

American and Canadian Civil Actions Alleging Human Rights Violations Abroad by Oil and Gas Companies

2008 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Horlick ◽  
Joe Cyr ◽  
Scott Reynolds ◽  
Andrew Behrman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
The Government ◽  
Oil And Gas Companies ◽  
Political Question ◽  
The U.S

Under the United States Alien Tort Statute, which permits non-U.S. citizens to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts for human rights violations that are violations of the law of nations, plaintiffs have filed claims against multinational oil and gas corporations for the direct or complicit commission of such violations carried out by the government of the country in which the corporation operated. In addition to exercising jurisdiction over U.S. corporations, U.S. courts have exercised jurisdiction in cases involving non-U.S. defendants for alleged wrongful conduct against non-U.S. plaintiffs committed outside the U.S.The exercise of jurisdiction by U.S. courts over non-U.S. defendants for alleged wrongful conduct against non-U.S. plaintiffs committed outside of the U.S. raises serious questions as to the jurisdictional foundation on which the power of U.S. courts to adjudicate them rests. Defences that foreign defendants can raise against the exercise of jurisdiction by the U.S. courts are an objection to the extraterritorial assertion of jurisdiction, the act of state doctrine, the political question doctrine, forum non conveniens, and the principle of comity. These defences are bolstered by the support of the defendant’s home government and other governments.

Moving towards Complicity as a Criterion of Attribution of Private Conducts: Imputation to States of Corporate Abuses in the US Case Law

2011 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 989-1007
Author(s):  
DANIELE AMOROSO
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
State Involvement ◽  
The Us ◽  
Terrorist Groups ◽  
Traditional Paradigm ◽  
Corporate Liability ◽  
Private Wrongs

AbstractAccording to the agency paradigm enshrined by the 2001 ILC Articles on State Responsibility, private conducts are attributed to a state when they are carried out on the state's behalf or under its tight control. On closer look, this legal framework proves to be unable to deal with state involvement in human-rights violations perpetrated by powerful non-state actors, such as terrorist groups or transnational corporations. These wrongs, indeed, are often put in place with the fundamental contribution of – but not on behalf of (or under the control of) – a state, with the consequence that, under the traditional paradigm, they could not be attributed to the latter. Against this backdrop, the present paper argues that a new secondary norm has been developing that provides that private wrongs are to be imputed to a state if the latter knowingly facilitated (or otherwise co-operated in) their commission. Although international practice will be duly taken into account, the analysis will be focused mainly on US case law concerning corporate liability for international human-rights violations.

Insult of Public Officials

2021 ◽  
pp. 388-409
Author(s):  
Christoph Bezemek
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Structural Differences

This chapter assesses public insult, looking at the closely related question of ‘fighting words’ and the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. While Chaplinsky’s ‘fighting words’ exception has withered in the United States, it had found a home in Europe where insult laws are widely accepted both by the European Court of Human Rights and in domestic jurisdictions. However, the approach of the European Court is structurally different, turning not on a narrowly defined categorical exception but upon case-by-case proportionality analysis of a kind that the US Supreme Court would eschew. Considering the question of insult to public officials, the chapter focuses again on structural differences in doctrine. Expanding the focus to include the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR), it shows that each proceeds on a rather different conception of ‘public figure’.

scholarly journals US and EU politics «eastern partnership»

2016 ◽  
pp. 33-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olena Skrypnyk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Situation ◽  
Eastern Partnership ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Eu

In this article to analyzes the policy of the European Union’s «Eastern Partnership». Determined US relation to the initiative of the EU. Characterized four summits the EU «Eastern Partnership» and followed the US response to these summits. The attention to Ukraine’s participation in the summit of the EU and the US position on this issue. Determined that the United States strongly supports the EU initiative «Eastern Partnership», especially in order to spread in the countries of the «Eastern Partnership» democracy, ensure human rights and freedoms, and to improve the socio-economic situation of these countries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document