Human rights
Last Modified:
1. outline2. history3. concept4. primary rights5. characteristic6. international human rights conventions7. reason
7.1. human rights7.2. social contract theory7.3. Immanuel Kant 's explanation7.4. Epicurus ' explanation
8. Human Rights of the Socially Underprivileged9. Protection of human rights of criminals9.1. Constitution and Universal Declaration of Human Rights9.2. Prevention of tyranny/dictatorship/torture/judicial murder9.3. It has nothing to do with the human rights of victims.9.4. Prevention of private sanctions9.5. keep the country face
10. human rights repression11. misconceptions and misconceptions12. digression12.1. Distinction between human rights and fundamental rights12.2. religion and human rights12.3. humanitarian intervention
13. related document14. related works15. derivative term1. outline
Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Human beings are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Human beings are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea
All citizens have dignity and value as human beings, and have the right to pursue happiness. States have the duty to confirm and guarantee the inviolable basic human rights of individuals.
All citizens have dignity and value as human beings, and have the right to pursue happiness. States have the duty to confirm and guarantee the inviolable basic human rights of individuals.
Human Rights ( Human Rights[1] ) Means the basic rights to be enjoyed as a human being .
2. history
Human rights are the biggest characteristic that distinguishes pre-modern times from modern times, and things that were completely natural in pre-modern times are often considered to be very contrary to human rights awareness in modern times.
The history of the concept of human rights first appeared in the writings of Cyrus the Great of ancient Persia and canonists in the 12th century, and dates back to the activities of Spanish theologians who raised questions about the treatment of South American natives in the 16th century. However, innate human rights in the modern sense were introduced more than 200 years ago, as early as the success of the American Revolution and the American Declaration of Independence , and at the latest through the success of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen written in 1789 through the French Revolution . It is considered to have been accomplished. The two revolutions were closely related, and it is also worth considering that the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, the first modern declaration on the European continent and dedicated solely to human rights, was influenced by the American Declaration of Independence . Although both women and slaves , colonial Although the human rights of indigenous people are not discussed, this human rights declaration and subsequent human rights-related events have had a significant impact on current human rights. The first time human rights were specified in the Constitution was in the Weimar Constitution of 1919 , and if you include the American Amendment to the Constitution, which is often considered a form of the Bill of Rights , it can be said that natural human rights began to be legally guaranteed in 1789. Meanwhile, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was announced in 1948 , and in Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights was signed in 1950 for member states of the Council of Europe . At the 'Vienna World Conference on Human Rights' held in Vienna in 1993, the 'Vienna Declaration', which declared the characteristics of human rights, was announced.
The history of the concept of human rights first appeared in the writings of Cyrus the Great of ancient Persia and canonists in the 12th century, and dates back to the activities of Spanish theologians who raised questions about the treatment of South American natives in the 16th century. However, innate human rights in the modern sense were introduced more than 200 years ago, as early as the success of the American Revolution and the American Declaration of Independence , and at the latest through the success of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen written in 1789 through the French Revolution . It is considered to have been accomplished. The two revolutions were closely related, and it is also worth considering that the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, the first modern declaration on the European continent and dedicated solely to human rights, was influenced by the American Declaration of Independence . Although both women and slaves , colonial Although the human rights of indigenous people are not discussed, this human rights declaration and subsequent human rights-related events have had a significant impact on current human rights. The first time human rights were specified in the Constitution was in the Weimar Constitution of 1919 , and if you include the American Amendment to the Constitution, which is often considered a form of the Bill of Rights , it can be said that natural human rights began to be legally guaranteed in 1789. Meanwhile, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was announced in 1948 , and in Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights was signed in 1950 for member states of the Council of Europe . At the 'Vienna World Conference on Human Rights' held in Vienna in 1993, the 'Vienna Declaration', which declared the characteristics of human rights, was announced.
3. concept
National Human Rights Commission Act Article 2 (Definition) The meanings of terms used in this Act are as follows.
1. “Human rights” refers to the dignity, value , freedom and rights as a human being guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and laws, or recognized by international human rights treaties and international customary law to which the Republic of Korea has joined and ratified.
1. “Human rights” refers to the dignity, value , freedom and rights as a human being guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and laws, or recognized by international human rights treaties and international customary law to which the Republic of Korea has joined and ratified.
There is no disagreement that human rights are rights that must be guaranteed as human beings. However, the opinion on whether that basis is granted naturally or by law is a matter of debate even today.
The concept of human rights as natural rights that are inherited and not governed by laws or constitutions corresponds to 'human rights in a broad sense'. However, this view is criticized for not being able to determine exactly what the scope of human rights is. Simply put, it is acknowledged that human rights are natural rights, but the question is to what extent they can be considered human rights. This means that when it comes to issues of constitutional trials related to human rights, it is difficult to simply claim that 'my human rights were violated.'
Therefore, today the concept of human rights is being sought based on international law . In particular, the concept of human rights is found in customary international law and generally accepted international legal rules rather than written law. This is called ‘human rights in a narrow sense’. In other words, the concept of human rights is not given naturally, but is given by international law (especially international customary law). When we think of human rights, the UN Declaration of Human Rights , which comes to mind, corresponds to human rights in this narrow sense. Human rights defined in the current Human Rights Commission Act also fall under human rights in this narrow sense, and the freedoms and rights recognized by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea , international human rights treaties, and international customary law are considered human rights.
The concept is similar to basic rights , but there are differences in details. Basic rights are what a state grants to an individual's status and rights. And while basic rights are constitutional rights, human rights (in a narrow sense) are defined not only in the Constitution but also in laws, international law, and international customary law. In other words, basic rights include some of numerous human rights. The reason why the distinction between basic rights and human rights is important is because of the status of basic rights given to foreigners. Basically, foreigners have human rights because they are human, but questions are raised as to whether they are subject to all basic rights guaranteed by the state . For more information, refer to the Fundamental Rights document.
4. primary rights
4.1. right to life
It is the right to respect the value of life, the most important right , and the right that is unconditionally granted the moment a human being is born. Therefore, murder is a representative crime that violates this right to life. In the same context, the death penalty is a punishment in which the state restricts an individual's right to life, and for this reason, it is a representative example of a human rights violation debate. There is still a lot of debate going on about whether the state can restrict the right to life, which is the most essential part of human rights.
4.2. right to liberty
Humans have the freedom to act freely without being interfered with by others. These include freedom of religion, freedom of the body, and freedom of the press.
However, it is not a right that can be guaranteed unlimitedly and uncritically. As an individual has the right to respect his or her freedom, the same right to freedom must also be guaranteed to others other than oneself. This is because the exercise of a specific person's right to freedom may cause harm to others. Therefore, this right to freedom may be restricted through criminal law, including imprisonment. Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "in exercising one's rights and freedoms, the rights and freedoms of others are recognized and respected, and the legitimate needs of morality, public order and general welfare in a democratic society are maintained." It is subject to restrictions established by law only for the purpose of complying with the provisions of the Act.”
However, it is not a right that can be guaranteed unlimitedly and uncritically. As an individual has the right to respect his or her freedom, the same right to freedom must also be guaranteed to others other than oneself. This is because the exercise of a specific person's right to freedom may cause harm to others. Therefore, this right to freedom may be restricted through criminal law, including imprisonment. Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "in exercising one's rights and freedoms, the rights and freedoms of others are recognized and respected, and the legitimate needs of morality, public order and general welfare in a democratic society are maintained." It is subject to restrictions established by law only for the purpose of complying with the provisions of the Act.”
4.3. civil rights
Everyone is equal. Political views, gender , race and ethnicity , age , religion , country and region of origin[2] , body, social status[3] , sexual orientation , physical condition, mental or physical disability, etc. are equal.
However, it is important to note that the right to equality does not refer to absolute equality, but relative equality that recognizes discrimination if there is a reasonable reason. It means treating like things the same and different things differently. This is not only because it is impossible to realize absolute equality, but also because the so-called principle of distribution of shares according to each person's contribution is also a part of justice and a reasonable basis for discrimination that limits equality.
In this case, the issue of equal rights boils down to the question of 'Is the reason for discriminatory treatment truly reasonable?' To take a simple example, charging different grades based on test scores is not discrimination. This is treating ‘different things differently’.[4] On the other hand, if you receive different grades even though you have the same test score, this is unreasonable discrimination. This is treating ‘the same thing differently’.
Some areas require stricter equality principles, while others allow more widespread discrimination. For example, political participation rights such as voting rights require strict equality. The one person, one vote principle is a representative example. On the other hand, property rights are granted wide legislative discretion. Therefore, it is permitted to set different tax rates and inheritance tax rates depending on income.
However, it is important to note that the right to equality does not refer to absolute equality, but relative equality that recognizes discrimination if there is a reasonable reason. It means treating like things the same and different things differently. This is not only because it is impossible to realize absolute equality, but also because the so-called principle of distribution of shares according to each person's contribution is also a part of justice and a reasonable basis for discrimination that limits equality.
In this case, the issue of equal rights boils down to the question of 'Is the reason for discriminatory treatment truly reasonable?' To take a simple example, charging different grades based on test scores is not discrimination. This is treating ‘different things differently’.[4] On the other hand, if you receive different grades even though you have the same test score, this is unreasonable discrimination. This is treating ‘the same thing differently’.
Some areas require stricter equality principles, while others allow more widespread discrimination. For example, political participation rights such as voting rights require strict equality. The one person, one vote principle is a representative example. On the other hand, property rights are granted wide legislative discretion. Therefore, it is permitted to set different tax rates and inheritance tax rates depending on income.
4.4.
Social rights are rights that guarantee that humans can live a humane life.[5] Social rights guarantee the right to a minimum level of food, clothing, housing, education, and the three labor rights . Usually, six articles, including Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are considered to support social rights. It is a right that is the foundation of the modern social security system , education system, and labor system. It is based on this right that one can receive support for hospital expenses or medicines through the basic livelihood security system, which is public assistance, or the National Health Insurance system, which is a social insurance system. In fact, many beneficiaries of basic livelihood security receive support for medical expenses and food expenses, and Korean citizens receive support for hospital and medicine expenses under the name of national health insurance. Workers were also able to unite and strike.[6]
Progressives and conservatives often engage in fierce debates over the extent to which social rights should be guaranteed . The debate over whether to expand or reduce the welfare system, or whether to give more weight to equality of opportunity, equality of process, or equality of results, also falls under the debate on social rights. For more information, see the Social Rights document.
Progressives and conservatives often engage in fierce debates over the extent to which social rights should be guaranteed . The debate over whether to expand or reduce the welfare system, or whether to give more weight to equality of opportunity, equality of process, or equality of results, also falls under the debate on social rights. For more information, see the Social Rights document.
5. characteristic
The characteristics of human rights identified in the Vienna Declaration are as follows.
5.1. catholicity
Human rights should be enjoyed by all, regardless of nationality or status . In other words, denying all or some of the human rights of a group is the same as denying that group is a (full) human being .
5.2. indivisibility
Human rights are recognized only when 'all rights' are guaranteed and cannot be artificially divided into freedom rights, social rights, individual rights and group rights.
5.3. interdependence
Each of the human rights rights are closely linked, so it is easy for violations of one to lead to violations of the other. For example, if a person is poor and does not receive an education, he does not know what rights he has (absence of social rights), so he cannot exercise his civil and political rights to gain freedom (thereby losing the right to freedom). .
5.4. etc
Meanwhile, Jack Donnelly has argued for the ‘paradox of rights holding’ regarding the characteristics of human rights. In situations where rights are not enjoyed, rights are necessary, but when rights are enjoyed, rights claims do not appear and there is no need for them to appear. In other words, the possession of rights and demands are inversely proportional, and when rights are (guaranteed), rights disappear, and when rights are not present, rights (demands regarding them) appear. In other words, the ultimate purpose of human rights is ‘to eliminate rights (which naturally means that there is no need to say ‘rights’),’ and therefore, ‘human rights aim for a state of self-annihilation.’
The modern human rights stipulated by the United Nations cannot be taken away, nor can they be transferred or given up on their own. However, it may be limited only in special circumstances.
The modern human rights stipulated by the United Nations cannot be taken away, nor can they be transferred or given up on their own. However, it may be limited only in special circumstances.
6. international human rights conventions
After announcing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN adopted various international conventions for the protection of human rights, and nine of them were designated as core conventions and recommended to all member states to join. However, there are still many countries that have not joined, and even if they have joined, there are countries that join with various reservations or do not make a declaration to prevent the UN committee from intervening.
Below is the list and whether South Korea has joined.
Below is the list and whether South Korea has joined.
- International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination [International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 1965. 12. 21.]
- Entered into force in Republic of Korea on January 4, 1979 and March 5, 1997.[7]
- International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966. 12. 16.]
- Korea came into effect on July 10, 1990.
- Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 2008. 12. 10.]
- Republic of Korea Not registered
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966. 12. 16.]
- Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966. 12. 16.]
- Korea came into effect on July 10, 1990.
- Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty 1989. 12. 15.]
- Republic of Korea Not registered
- Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women [Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 1979. 12. 18.]
- Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women 1999.12.10.
- Entered into force in Korea January 18, 2007
- Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment [December 10, 1984]
- Entered into force in Korea February 8, 1995, November 9, 2007[15]
- Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 2002. 12. 18.]
- Republic of Korea Not registered
- Convention on the Rights of the Child [Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989. 12. 18.]
- Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict [Optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict 2000. 5. 25.]
- Entered into force in Korea October 24, 2004
- Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography 2000. 5. 25.]
- Entered into force in Korea October 24, 2004
- Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure 2011. 12. 19.]
- Republic of Korea Not registered
- International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families 1990. 12. 18.]
- Republic of Korea Not registered
- Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006. 12. 13.]
- Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006. 12. 13.]
- Effective in Korea January 14, 2023
- International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance 2006. 12. 20.]
- Effective in Korea February 3, 2023
7. reason
7.1. human rights
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Accept the following facts as self-evident truths. All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
天賦人權 / natural rights of man or God-given rights
Innate human rights mean ‘rights granted from heaven,’ and this is the most intuitive explanation. In other words, human rights are the inalienable inherent rights that humans receive from the transcendent , and no matter what kind of person they are, whether they are a person with intellectual problems, a newborn baby, or a hospice patient about to die, they have human rights equally because they are human . It is a definition of human rights without any preconditions.
The concept of human rights originates from a Christian moral proposition, as modern philosophers inherited the discussions of theologians such as Jean Gerson and Thomas Aquinas to refute the divine right of kings based on the Bible .[22][23]
The following passages from Genesis are generally cited as Bible passages that are in line with the idea of natural human rights .
God said, " Let us make men in our likeness ! Let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the wild animals, and over all the creeping creatures that creep on the ground!" and made man in your image.Genesis 1:26-27 ( Joint Translation Bible )
When Yahweh created the heaven and earth, unlike other creations, humans were particularly built as you did . You can think of exactly what your appearance here means, but it is easy to understand that God has given human beings to give something different from other creations in the world. Something special includes 'human rights'. The human beings made here are Adam , and our descendants still have their rights.
Matthew 16:26 and 20:25-26, Mark 8:36-37, Psalm 8:4, and Hebrews 2:6 are also presented as biblical grounds for human rights and human dignity.
This definition is very religious in nature. Since it is an interpretation not preferred by modern human rights theory because it is defined based on the Abrahamic religion , or more strictly speaking, Christianity, other explanations have been attempted since modern times. Modern philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes , Jean-Jacques Rousseau , and most notably Kant are modern philosophers who developed the logic of human rights beyond these Christian discussions.
7.2.
The social contract theory explains that the reason why the state should guarantee individual rights is that 'the state itself is an existence created by individuals in a state of nature to protect their rights '.
Although Hobbes was a Christian, he did not assume a transcendent being when discussing natural law. According to Hobbes, in the state of nature, all humans have unlimited rights, and this right includes the 'right to kill others.' This causes a 'struggle of all against all', and in this situation, in order to prevent the risk of being killed by others and guarantee the right to survive, a state is created by entering into a contract with equal others. In other words, a contract that limits one's rights (such as the right to kill others) and delegates this to the state in order to protect one's rights (the right to survive) is 'natural law'. This was used as an argument to support strong royal authority, but the underlying premise is the idea that 'all humans have equal rights'. In reaction to this, thinkers such as John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed their own social contract theory. For more details, refer to the item
Although Hobbes was a Christian, he did not assume a transcendent being when discussing natural law. According to Hobbes, in the state of nature, all humans have unlimited rights, and this right includes the 'right to kill others.' This causes a 'struggle of all against all', and in this situation, in order to prevent the risk of being killed by others and guarantee the right to survive, a state is created by entering into a contract with equal others. In other words, a contract that limits one's rights (such as the right to kill others) and delegates this to the state in order to protect one's rights (the right to survive) is 'natural law'. This was used as an argument to support strong royal authority, but the underlying premise is the idea that 'all humans have equal rights'. In reaction to this, thinkers such as John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed their own social contract theory. For more details, refer to the item
7.3. Immanuel Kant 's explanation
The thinker who occupies the most important position in modern human rights theory is Kant . Kant acknowledged the existence of the transcendent, but when discussing good will and moral laws, he focused on human practical reason and explained that all humans have universal dignity because they are beings with free will .
Kant is a philosopher who emerged criticizing Hobbes. Hobbes argued that "the value of a person is his price, which is not absolute but is determined by the demand and evaluation of other people." Kant criticized this and argued that "each human being has 'unique value' and is treated only as an 'end in itself' rather than as a means for other humans." In other words, it is emphasized that human value is not determined by evaluation of whether a person is useful to others or to society.
These human values were named ‘absolute values’ and these values were named ‘dignity’ . The reason why all humans have dignity is because all humans possess ‘free will’, that is, practical reason that knows how to act morally.
The interesting fact is that Kant was not opposed to the death penalty, but was crazy about it. Kant argued that the death penalty should be imposed to protect the dignity of murderers , and even argued that the first thing to do if the state is disbanded is to execute the last murderer left in prison . This is because the death penalty imposes the responsibility of retaliation on the murderer for the 'autonomous act' of killing a person, and this recognizes human dignity and value.
Kant is a philosopher who emerged criticizing Hobbes. Hobbes argued that "the value of a person is his price, which is not absolute but is determined by the demand and evaluation of other people." Kant criticized this and argued that "each human being has 'unique value' and is treated only as an 'end in itself' rather than as a means for other humans." In other words, it is emphasized that human value is not determined by evaluation of whether a person is useful to others or to society.
These human values were named ‘absolute values’ and these values were named ‘dignity’ . The reason why all humans have dignity is because all humans possess ‘free will’, that is, practical reason that knows how to act morally.
The interesting fact is that Kant was not opposed to the death penalty, but was crazy about it. Kant argued that the death penalty should be imposed to protect the dignity of murderers , and even argued that the first thing to do if the state is disbanded is to execute the last murderer left in prison . This is because the death penalty imposes the responsibility of retaliation on the murderer for the 'autonomous act' of killing a person, and this recognizes human dignity and value.
7.4. Epicurus ' explanation
As an explanation given by Epicurus , an ancient Greek scholar , it is an explanation used to discuss human rights beyond the level of religion.
Natural justice is a mutually beneficial agreement between people to keep them from harming each other and from being harmed .
Nothing is just or unjust to beasts who cannot make a covenant not to harm each other and not to be harmed. Nor does the distinction of justice/injustice exist for the human race, which cannot, or has no intention of making, a contract not to harm and not be harmed.
Justice does not exist by itself, but it is a contract not to harm each other and not to be harmed, anytime and anywhere in human relations.- 'Important Teachings' 31 ~ 33
Since all living things, including humans, pursue survival and self-replication, their rights must be guaranteed unless they are seriously violated. So kill unnecessarily[24] It is said that the act of damaging the body is unethical. What differs from previous explanations is that rights are based on the nature of the creature itself, not on the fact that it was created by reason or God . Hence, it is relative rather than absolute.
There are also aspects that are connected with existentialism and Taoism . In particular, the above-mentioned 'paradox of rights retention' shows a similar appearance to Lao-tzu's 'great Taoism (the great Tao disappeared and benevolence and righteousness came to exist)'.
However, this explanation has the problem that human rights are explained as individual rights possessed by individuals who meet the qualifications rather than universal rights possessed by all human beings. For example, the human rights of intellectually disabled people who are ‘unable to enter into contracts’ become difficult to defend with this explanation. Of course, except in really extreme cases, human rights discussions at this level are also usually applied to socially disadvantaged people such as the disabled, based on a certain 'universality' of human beings.
However, problems still remain because materialism denies ‘universality’ in principle. Even without going as far as materialism, if you strengthen the basis of human rights by adding more universality to Epicurus' explanation to protect the human rights of people who cannot enter into contracts, it will inevitably end up being natural rights, making it an argument that is not much different from natural human rights. In other words, the more universality is emphasized, the more the argument becomes no different from 'natural human rights'. This is probably not the conclusion desired by those who reject the religious overtones of the theory of natural human rights and seek other theories. However, it is significant in that it attempts to explain human rights through logic outside of a specific religion.
8. Human Rights of the Socially Underprivileged
8.1. human rights of persons with disabilities
more detailshuman rights of persons with disabilities documentcastPlease note.8.2. student human rights
more detailsstudent human rights documentcastPlease note.9. Protection of human rights of criminals
9.1. Constitution and Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 10 All citizens have dignity and value as human beings and have the right to pursue happiness. States have the duty to confirm and guarantee the inviolable basic human rights of individuals.Article 37 The freedoms and rights of the people shall not be despised for reasons not enumerated in the Constitution. All freedoms and rights of citizens may be restricted by law only when necessary for national security, maintenance of order, or public welfare, and even in case of restriction, the essential content of freedoms and rights cannot be infringed.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a human being before the law.Article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
If you look at the news or comments on YouTube , Facebook , and Instagram that cover violent crimes, they say things like, "Don't treat someone who destroyed someone else's life like a human being," "A person who violates other people's human rights doesn't have to have human rights," "Why do you feed and sleep with a person who has given up on being a human being?", "Why does the Human Rights Commission only care about the human rights of criminals? It's not necessary, so just disband them," and "Why does the court even accept counterclaims from criminals?" There are a lot of claims like this.[25][26][27] They claim that 'criminals have given up being human, so they can ignore human rights,' but this is an extremely fragmentary idea and a very dangerous claim.
If the human rights of criminals and their ancillary issues are completely ignored, they usually make an effort to say no, unless it turns out that the perpetrator is in fact an innocent victim. They don't even care about compensation. In fact, in a case like this, theoretically it would be enough to trample on the human rights of the person in charge of the case or the real culprit who was left out as a suspect, but of course no one is interested in this part either.[28] An example of trampling on the human rights of the real culprit who was left out as a suspect is the example of Park Ki-seo , who personally visited and assaulted Kim Yong-hwan, who was considered a suspect in the Jang Jun-ha mysterious death case . At the time of the incident, Kim Yong-Hwan was directly assaulted, but he denied it.
To prevent this, the Constitution of the Republic of Korea stipulates that Korean citizens are guaranteed basic rights and that essential parts cannot be violated under any circumstances. Additionally, Article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that the human rights of criminals must be respected.
The reason why the human rights of criminals are guaranteed at the constitutional level is described below.
9.2. Prevention of tyranny/dictatorship/torture/judicial murder
The most realistic reason why human rights should be respected even by criminals. As will be explained later, even if criminals do not have human rights, there are many cases where they are falsely accused or misjudged.
If we look at history, the oppressors have always used the guise of lawfulness to cleverly eliminate their political opponents. They would arrest people unexpectedly, bring them to court the next day as kidnappings , and if not guilty, even torture them and execute them on suspicion. Even if they were really innocent people without the slightest fault, they were falsely accused of covering up their sins or forcibly inventing them and getting rid of them.[29] Even if there are laws prohibiting torture and extrajudicial killings, it is easy for those in power to ignore them. Such legal judicial killings were frequently used by tyrants to eliminate political opponents, and were frequently carried out even in republics during the period of the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell in England, the French Revolution , and the Great Purge of the Soviet Union.[30] There were very few leaders who were bad enough to be killed outright, and even if there were, they fell miserably.[31] This is because even if a person is truly guilty of a deadly crime, if he or she is put on death row, he or she will feel fear and pain, and there is no way that an innocent person would die peacefully. Rather, it is easy to arouse the fighting spirit by saying, 'Let's fight and die if we are going to die!', and quite a few of the rebellions recorded in history occurred in this way.
The justification given by tyrants and dictators to maintain their power has always been ‘to protect the people from violent criminals.’ Heinous criminals can always be found regardless of time and place, and it is a simple yet effective method to frame the heinous criminals even on those who do not listen. Methods such as digging into the background of a political enemy and arresting the number of cases, accusing him of being unscrupulous and having him executed, or if there is no number of cases, manipulating the evidence and executing him are used. There are even cases where, in order to increase approval ratings, they capture innocent people or petty criminals, disguise them as violent criminals who threaten national security and the safety of the people, and then execute them. In criminal proceedings where human rights are not guaranteed, it is all too easy for investigative agencies to manipulate evidence.[32] In reality, tyrants and dictators are the worst criminals who extort the people and their property and take the lives of hundreds of people .
Because of this, people suffered from 'legitimate tyranny' at the hands of tyrants and dictators for hundreds and thousands of years, and after experiencing all kinds of terrible tragedies, wars, civil wars, and massacres dozens and hundreds of times, they realized that if they unconditionally imprison people or cut off their heads just because they are guilty, the judicial system turns into the exclusive domain of the powerful. That is how the suspect protection system was born. Investigative agencies must make arrests through arrest warrants issued by a neutral third party, a court, must not commit torture, assault, or abuse as part of an investigation, must not judge someone based solely on a confession without evidence, and must guarantee the right to defense to the suspect.
In particular, since those in power will rationalize the tyranny they commit by saying, "These bad guys are not human, so they don't deserve such rights," they nailed it down to make sure there are no logical loopholes as a sacrosanct right called "a right guaranteed to all human beings without exception, regardless of what they've done . " The reason why contemporary thinkers and jurists condemned human rights as an absolutely inviolable value was not because they were thoughtless idealists, but rather for extremely practical reasons. This is because the human rights of violent criminals cannot be guaranteed because they do well, but only when their human rights are guaranteed as well. When those in power make exceptions to the guarantee of human rights or basic rights on the grounds that they are criminals (for whom there is solid evidence or whose guilt has been clearly revealed as an active criminal) and gradually expand the scope in the name of 'prevention of potential crimes', we have experienced the terrible reality that the human rights of all citizens are ultimately destroyed.[33] , This is because it became necessary to regard the value of human rights as an absolute value for democracy. Therefore, there should be no or very narrow exceptions to restrictions on human and fundamental rights. In particular, the logic that 'there is no need to give human rights to criminals' is that 'socialist human rights are limited to 'hostile elements who oppose socialism and impure elements who infringe on the interests of the people'.[34] There is nothing wrong with the logic claimed by North Korea , the worst dictatorship on earth, that it is not a supra-class human right that gives freedom and rights to all .
Moreover, the logic that 'criminals do not have to have human rights' is very easy to abuse in a dictatorship, where opposition and resistance to the dictator, who is treated as sacrosanct and no different from the state itself , is classified as treason and blasphemy against the fatherland and is regarded as the worst crime, more serious than murder .[35] Naturally, false accusations, torture, executions, and massacres are rationalized under the logic that 'traitors to their country' who tried to defy the leader who is the nation itself are no longer human, so they do not have human rights.'
In addition to rule by a minority, such as monarchy or oligarchy, state violence is a big problem even in democracy, which is rule by the people. This is because ‘human rights’ are the minimum safeguard to limit ‘ violence against minorities by the majority ’ inherent in democracy . We have seen the prejudice that people who are overly immersed in comics have poor social skills and people who are overly immersed in games have violent tendencies, leading to regulations or shutdown systems for various comics . If we assume that more than 90% of people think that it is justified to 'admit' people who enjoy comics and games to 'educational centers' for 'education or treatment' because comics and games are usually found in the homes of violent criminals. Let's do it. How can we stop this without the concept of human rights?[36]
Especially in South Korea, before democratization had fully progressed, there were frequent cases of legal judicial killings, such as the Progressive Party incident , the Revolutionary Volunteer Army incident , and the People's Revolutionary Party incident . If human rights are not respected because a crime has been committed, it is only a matter of time before democracy will inevitably collapse.
Of course, forces that commit repetitive actions for the purpose of infringing human rights, they must infringe on human rights, but this must be used very carefully for those who shield human rights as a repetitive and malicious use.
In addition, the disclosure of criminals in Korea was cautious because the 8th case of Lee Chun -jae's serial murder case and the Samrye Nara Super robbery case, as the police were framed and threatened and tortured, and false -tortured. In addition, Japan , which is not hesitant to disclose criminals, is also suffering from measles due to the problem.[37]
In the vice versa, human rights violations of investigators can be established. One of the opposition to the state's oppression is to trample the human rights of investigators who deal with political and socially sensitive events. This type of human rights violation is difficult to occur, but if it happens once, the impact is beyond imagination.[38] . This is why investigators who deal with political and socially sensitive events are reluctant to expose their personal identity.
If we look at history, the oppressors have always used the guise of lawfulness to cleverly eliminate their political opponents. They would arrest people unexpectedly, bring them to court the next day as kidnappings , and if not guilty, even torture them and execute them on suspicion. Even if they were really innocent people without the slightest fault, they were falsely accused of covering up their sins or forcibly inventing them and getting rid of them.[29] Even if there are laws prohibiting torture and extrajudicial killings, it is easy for those in power to ignore them. Such legal judicial killings were frequently used by tyrants to eliminate political opponents, and were frequently carried out even in republics during the period of the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell in England, the French Revolution , and the Great Purge of the Soviet Union.[30] There were very few leaders who were bad enough to be killed outright, and even if there were, they fell miserably.[31] This is because even if a person is truly guilty of a deadly crime, if he or she is put on death row, he or she will feel fear and pain, and there is no way that an innocent person would die peacefully. Rather, it is easy to arouse the fighting spirit by saying, 'Let's fight and die if we are going to die!', and quite a few of the rebellions recorded in history occurred in this way.
The justification given by tyrants and dictators to maintain their power has always been ‘to protect the people from violent criminals.’ Heinous criminals can always be found regardless of time and place, and it is a simple yet effective method to frame the heinous criminals even on those who do not listen. Methods such as digging into the background of a political enemy and arresting the number of cases, accusing him of being unscrupulous and having him executed, or if there is no number of cases, manipulating the evidence and executing him are used. There are even cases where, in order to increase approval ratings, they capture innocent people or petty criminals, disguise them as violent criminals who threaten national security and the safety of the people, and then execute them. In criminal proceedings where human rights are not guaranteed, it is all too easy for investigative agencies to manipulate evidence.[32] In reality, tyrants and dictators are the worst criminals who extort the people and their property and take the lives of hundreds of people .
Because of this, people suffered from 'legitimate tyranny' at the hands of tyrants and dictators for hundreds and thousands of years, and after experiencing all kinds of terrible tragedies, wars, civil wars, and massacres dozens and hundreds of times, they realized that if they unconditionally imprison people or cut off their heads just because they are guilty, the judicial system turns into the exclusive domain of the powerful. That is how the suspect protection system was born. Investigative agencies must make arrests through arrest warrants issued by a neutral third party, a court, must not commit torture, assault, or abuse as part of an investigation, must not judge someone based solely on a confession without evidence, and must guarantee the right to defense to the suspect.
In particular, since those in power will rationalize the tyranny they commit by saying, "These bad guys are not human, so they don't deserve such rights," they nailed it down to make sure there are no logical loopholes as a sacrosanct right called "a right guaranteed to all human beings without exception, regardless of what they've done . " The reason why contemporary thinkers and jurists condemned human rights as an absolutely inviolable value was not because they were thoughtless idealists, but rather for extremely practical reasons. This is because the human rights of violent criminals cannot be guaranteed because they do well, but only when their human rights are guaranteed as well. When those in power make exceptions to the guarantee of human rights or basic rights on the grounds that they are criminals (for whom there is solid evidence or whose guilt has been clearly revealed as an active criminal) and gradually expand the scope in the name of 'prevention of potential crimes', we have experienced the terrible reality that the human rights of all citizens are ultimately destroyed.[33] , This is because it became necessary to regard the value of human rights as an absolute value for democracy. Therefore, there should be no or very narrow exceptions to restrictions on human and fundamental rights. In particular, the logic that 'there is no need to give human rights to criminals' is that 'socialist human rights are limited to 'hostile elements who oppose socialism and impure elements who infringe on the interests of the people'.[34] There is nothing wrong with the logic claimed by North Korea , the worst dictatorship on earth, that it is not a supra-class human right that gives freedom and rights to all .
Moreover, the logic that 'criminals do not have to have human rights' is very easy to abuse in a dictatorship, where opposition and resistance to the dictator, who is treated as sacrosanct and no different from the state itself , is classified as treason and blasphemy against the fatherland and is regarded as the worst crime, more serious than murder .[35] Naturally, false accusations, torture, executions, and massacres are rationalized under the logic that 'traitors to their country' who tried to defy the leader who is the nation itself are no longer human, so they do not have human rights.'
In addition to rule by a minority, such as monarchy or oligarchy, state violence is a big problem even in democracy, which is rule by the people. This is because ‘human rights’ are the minimum safeguard to limit ‘ violence against minorities by the majority ’ inherent in democracy . We have seen the prejudice that people who are overly immersed in comics have poor social skills and people who are overly immersed in games have violent tendencies, leading to regulations or shutdown systems for various comics . If we assume that more than 90% of people think that it is justified to 'admit' people who enjoy comics and games to 'educational centers' for 'education or treatment' because comics and games are usually found in the homes of violent criminals. Let's do it. How can we stop this without the concept of human rights?[36]
Especially in South Korea, before democratization had fully progressed, there were frequent cases of legal judicial killings, such as the Progressive Party incident , the Revolutionary Volunteer Army incident , and the People's Revolutionary Party incident . If human rights are not respected because a crime has been committed, it is only a matter of time before democracy will inevitably collapse.
Of course, forces that commit repetitive actions for the purpose of infringing human rights, they must infringe on human rights, but this must be used very carefully for those who shield human rights as a repetitive and malicious use.
In addition, the disclosure of criminals in Korea was cautious because the 8th case of Lee Chun -jae's serial murder case and the Samrye Nara Super robbery case, as the police were framed and threatened and tortured, and false -tortured. In addition, Japan , which is not hesitant to disclose criminals, is also suffering from measles due to the problem.[37]
In the vice versa, human rights violations of investigators can be established. One of the opposition to the state's oppression is to trample the human rights of investigators who deal with political and socially sensitive events. This type of human rights violation is difficult to occur, but if it happens once, the impact is beyond imagination.[38] . This is why investigators who deal with political and socially sensitive events are reluctant to expose their personal identity.
9.3. It has nothing to do with the human rights of victims.
more detailsStrict punishment/South Korea documentcastPlease note.When I say that the human rights of criminals must be respected, there are many people who always say things like, “Then don’t you respect the victims’ human rights?” According to victim-centrism, the human rights of criminals must be ignored and punished harshly for the sake of the victims' human rights. However, strictly speaking, this argument commits an error that deviates from the point .
For example, let's assume that in the military , private soldiers are treated better than non-commissioned officers . If the extreme difference is a mistake, improving the rights and interests of non-commissioned officers would be a desirable solution. On the other hand, it would be an undesirable solution to deprive enlisted soldiers of various benefits in order to quell the complaints of non-commissioned officers. In this way, the rights and interests of the two groups appear to be in conflict, but in reality they are not.
The same is true of the human rights of victims and criminals. Human rights are not zero -sum games . The human rights of the victims and the human rights of criminals seem to be confronted, but are separate problems. If the punishment is related to the human rights of criminals, the victim's human rights is related to the victims and protection of the victim .[39]
This does not mean that 'criminals should be severely punished' is a wrong claim, but that regardless of whether 'criminals should be severely punished' is right or wrong, 'the level of punishment for criminals and the human rights of victims' are separate dimensions.
Improving human rights on one side does not mean that human rights on the other side retreat, and violating human rights on one side does not guarantee human rights on the other side.[40] There is a possibility that the victim's human rights may be violated during the judicial process, but this only requires institutional improvement, and violating the criminal's human rights does not solve the problem of protecting the victim's human rights. The human rights of victims must be protected through the support and assistance they need, and the Crime Victims Protection Act was enacted in this context.
Of course, it is legitimate for the public to feel that 'it is unfair to protect the human rights of perpetrators while the relief measures for victims are insufficient,' but the measure is an institutional supplement to the relief measures for victims. Rather, if cruel punishment for the perpetrator becomes the main focus, relief for the victim is often further removed. This is because the public's interest is distant due to the cruel punishment of criminals, and the power to move forward with institutional compensation for victims is lost.
This is not a problem that can be solved simply by severely punishing the perpetrator. If you only choose strict punishment and do not pay attention to proper socialization, the recidivism rate will increase and you will become vulnerable to other crimes. What is important here is to impose severe punishment while also accompanying systematic rehabilitation, parole, and judicial justice. In other words, a rational judicial system is needed.
If the perpetrator cannot make money, he cannot compensate the victim. Let us reconsider whether cruel punishment is effective in relieving victims. One might ask whether it would be okay for the state to punish criminals and provide support to victims. However, in that case, the question arises, 'Why should the damage caused by criminals be restored with taxes paid by the people?' Of course, some say that this is also contradictory, but in a democratic country, the primary responsibility for crimes lies with the people and the state, not the criminals.[41] It is the people and the state that create the procedures, but they created them incorrectly and allowed them to fall into crime. In other words, in the case of crime damage recovery, it is correct to use taxes to some extent. First of all, in the case of the Republic of Korea, if a criminal cannot compensate for fines, fines, fines, etc. due to lack of economic ability, there is a law that allows criminals to compensate with labor by working in a labor camp in a correctional facility .
It is not the human rights of the victims that are restored by punishing crimes like this.
For example, let's assume that in the military , private soldiers are treated better than non-commissioned officers . If the extreme difference is a mistake, improving the rights and interests of non-commissioned officers would be a desirable solution. On the other hand, it would be an undesirable solution to deprive enlisted soldiers of various benefits in order to quell the complaints of non-commissioned officers. In this way, the rights and interests of the two groups appear to be in conflict, but in reality they are not.
The same is true of the human rights of victims and criminals. Human rights are not zero -sum games . The human rights of the victims and the human rights of criminals seem to be confronted, but are separate problems. If the punishment is related to the human rights of criminals, the victim's human rights is related to the victims and protection of the victim .[39]
This does not mean that 'criminals should be severely punished' is a wrong claim, but that regardless of whether 'criminals should be severely punished' is right or wrong, 'the level of punishment for criminals and the human rights of victims' are separate dimensions.
Improving human rights on one side does not mean that human rights on the other side retreat, and violating human rights on one side does not guarantee human rights on the other side.[40] There is a possibility that the victim's human rights may be violated during the judicial process, but this only requires institutional improvement, and violating the criminal's human rights does not solve the problem of protecting the victim's human rights. The human rights of victims must be protected through the support and assistance they need, and the Crime Victims Protection Act was enacted in this context.
Of course, it is legitimate for the public to feel that 'it is unfair to protect the human rights of perpetrators while the relief measures for victims are insufficient,' but the measure is an institutional supplement to the relief measures for victims. Rather, if cruel punishment for the perpetrator becomes the main focus, relief for the victim is often further removed. This is because the public's interest is distant due to the cruel punishment of criminals, and the power to move forward with institutional compensation for victims is lost.
This is not a problem that can be solved simply by severely punishing the perpetrator. If you only choose strict punishment and do not pay attention to proper socialization, the recidivism rate will increase and you will become vulnerable to other crimes. What is important here is to impose severe punishment while also accompanying systematic rehabilitation, parole, and judicial justice. In other words, a rational judicial system is needed.
If the perpetrator cannot make money, he cannot compensate the victim. Let us reconsider whether cruel punishment is effective in relieving victims. One might ask whether it would be okay for the state to punish criminals and provide support to victims. However, in that case, the question arises, 'Why should the damage caused by criminals be restored with taxes paid by the people?' Of course, some say that this is also contradictory, but in a democratic country, the primary responsibility for crimes lies with the people and the state, not the criminals.[41] It is the people and the state that create the procedures, but they created them incorrectly and allowed them to fall into crime. In other words, in the case of crime damage recovery, it is correct to use taxes to some extent. First of all, in the case of the Republic of Korea, if a criminal cannot compensate for fines, fines, fines, etc. due to lack of economic ability, there is a law that allows criminals to compensate with labor by working in a labor camp in a correctional facility .
It is not the human rights of the victims that are restored by punishing crimes like this.
9.4. Prevention of private sanctions
Protecting the human rights of criminals is also necessary to prevent private sanctions . If human rights are deprived for the reason that the other person is a criminal, especially a heinous criminal, people accept that private sanctions are allowed, and heinous crimes increase, and innocent people can be victims of crime, causing serious social chaos.[42]
During the Goryeo Dynasty, there was a revenge law , an evil law where crime victims took revenge on their perpetrators , but it was soon abolished. Additionally, this law is so bad that it is considered the worst law in the history of the Korean Peninsula.
In the case of Park Ki -seo , who was killed by Kim -gu's assassin with a stick called Jung Bong , he was sentenced to death to establish a legal order.
In fact, at least 71 people were killed. Brazilian serial killer Pedro Filho justified his serial killings by saying that he only killed violent criminals. In addition, in France , after the liberation of Paris, civilians massacred as many as 10,000 people who had only been friendly with German soldiers , and prostitutes who slept with German soldiers were shaved and punished, justifying this as 'punishment for traitors to their country who collaborated with the Nazis. '[43]
In some cases, the government has been damaged by the government's abuse of the logic that 'the violent criminal can deprive human rights'. Uganda 's devil Idiamine also suspected that there was a person suspected of armed robbery, giving soldiers to dispose of the person, and in Uganda, Uganda, the innocent citizens who had nothing to do with the armed robbers were shot, and Rodrigo Duterte committed a ruthless suppression in the name of the war with the drug . It was abused for assassination and was criticized international.[44] In Korea alone, Samcheong Education College made the criminal oppression in the name of the criminal, and the majority of the victims were absolute or innocent people, and the proper criminals failed to correct the security because they did not enter very much. As you can see in these examples, if you deprive all criminals' human rights because you are a violent criminal, you will be able to kill your crimes, even though you have committed murder as above, and in the worst case, in the worst case, it will spread to the outlaws where there is no security such as Yemen , Haiti , South Sudan , Somalia , and Venezuela . there is.
There are similar cases in today's Korea, and Jang Dae -ho , the culprit of the body of the Han River body, justified his murder, saying, 'The violent criminal killed the Yang Achi.' Jang Dae -ho described it in the memoir that 'the victim was a former and five Korean -Chinese Yang -Achi,' and accordingly, advocates made the logic that Jang Dae -ho's crime was a party defense . However, as Jang Dae -ho is terminated by the CCTV, the grounds are rare, and most of all, even if they have made a truth and committed crimes, they must be punished by the law. If this sentiment spreads greatly, there is a risk of lack of security .
During the Goryeo Dynasty, there was a revenge law , an evil law where crime victims took revenge on their perpetrators , but it was soon abolished. Additionally, this law is so bad that it is considered the worst law in the history of the Korean Peninsula.
In the case of Park Ki -seo , who was killed by Kim -gu's assassin with a stick called Jung Bong , he was sentenced to death to establish a legal order.
In fact, at least 71 people were killed. Brazilian serial killer Pedro Filho justified his serial killings by saying that he only killed violent criminals. In addition, in France , after the liberation of Paris, civilians massacred as many as 10,000 people who had only been friendly with German soldiers , and prostitutes who slept with German soldiers were shaved and punished, justifying this as 'punishment for traitors to their country who collaborated with the Nazis. '[43]
In some cases, the government has been damaged by the government's abuse of the logic that 'the violent criminal can deprive human rights'. Uganda 's devil Idiamine also suspected that there was a person suspected of armed robbery, giving soldiers to dispose of the person, and in Uganda, Uganda, the innocent citizens who had nothing to do with the armed robbers were shot, and Rodrigo Duterte committed a ruthless suppression in the name of the war with the drug . It was abused for assassination and was criticized international.[44] In Korea alone, Samcheong Education College made the criminal oppression in the name of the criminal, and the majority of the victims were absolute or innocent people, and the proper criminals failed to correct the security because they did not enter very much. As you can see in these examples, if you deprive all criminals' human rights because you are a violent criminal, you will be able to kill your crimes, even though you have committed murder as above, and in the worst case, in the worst case, it will spread to the outlaws where there is no security such as Yemen , Haiti , South Sudan , Somalia , and Venezuela . there is.
There are similar cases in today's Korea, and Jang Dae -ho , the culprit of the body of the Han River body, justified his murder, saying, 'The violent criminal killed the Yang Achi.' Jang Dae -ho described it in the memoir that 'the victim was a former and five Korean -Chinese Yang -Achi,' and accordingly, advocates made the logic that Jang Dae -ho's crime was a party defense . However, as Jang Dae -ho is terminated by the CCTV, the grounds are rare, and most of all, even if they have made a truth and committed crimes, they must be punished by the law. If this sentiment spreads greatly, there is a risk of lack of security .
9.5. keep the country face
If we want to truly know the level of a country, we must visit its prisons.December 20, 2023 Somang Prison[45] Pastor Samhwan Kim’s congratulatory speech during the 13th anniversary thanksgiving service. Next, an explanation is given that the reason for mentioning the quote is "because the level of a country is evaluated not by the upper class, but by the standards of the people suffering in the most marginalized places." source
There is a saying that you can only really get to know a country by going to prison. The standard for judging a country should not be its upper class citizens, but the way it treats its citizens at the lowest level.
Let’s look at the documents on North Korea’s human rights violations and Xinjiang re-education camps . As netizens claim, the countries that punish criminals cruelly and ruthlessly, excluding Singapore , are North Korea , China , Russia , Belarus , Eritrea , Turkmenistan, Equatorial Guinea , Vietnam , Myanmar , Laos , Tajikistan , Afghanistan , Iran , Saudi Arabia , Brunei , and Syria .[46] These are developing countries and dictatorial countries . Even Singapore, despite being an economically wealthy country, cannot escape the perception that it is a dictatorship due to harsh punishments and human rights abuses.
There is a saying that the minimum human rights that can be guaranteed to members of a country's society is the treatment of criminals.[47] As can be seen in the case of Andrés Behring Breivik, the treatment of serious criminals in the world's top democratic countries, such as Northern and Central European countries, is very good , to the point of being undeserved compared to the price of the crime.[48] Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea[49] , the treatment of serious criminals in the world's lowest-ranking authoritarian countries, such as Turkmenistan, goes beyond China, Russia, and Belarus to North Korea.[50] , it is very harsh, comparable to Afghanistan and Iran. To this extent, if inhumane punishment is imposed in South Korea, its external image will be greatly damaged.
Except for Belarus , there is a strong public opinion that the world should protect the human rights of criminals in the present world, just as there is no country that exists in Europe.[51] Thus, if they do not respect the human rights of criminals, they can be pressure from international organizations, which leads to diplomatic and trade issues.
Later, the extradition treaty is broken and criminals who have fled abroad may suffer losses, such as not being able to be prosecuted because foreign countries refuse to hand them over. For example, Europe has not signed extradition treaties with the United States, Japan, and Taiwan, which among developed countries maintain the death penalty.
Occasionally, there is a controversy over criminals to benefit basic beneficiaries . If you take such a benefit, if you do not receive the help of the welfare system if your livelihood will be taken in this situation, it will be easy to wait for the crime again, and therefore, it is controversial because other people can see the damage again.
Strict pundits claim that El Salvador 's prisons and arrests under Nayib Bukele are exemplary examples and that these examples should be introduced in Korea. However, since El Salvador was a country where public security was so terrible that it was virtually at the level of a war before Bukele, they had no choice but to take ultra-strict measures, so it is absurd to compare them with Korea, which boasts excellent public security around the world.
10. human rights repression
Human rights abuses still occur in many authoritarian political systems. In fact, in Korea , human rights oppression in schools , the military , and the workplace was serious not only before democratization but also relatively recently in the early 2010s .[52] Communist countries, including the Soviet Union and China , many police states , and other dictatorial and monarchical countries ignore human rights and do not hesitate to send people to prisons or concentration camps, torture them, or shoot them if they show even the slightest sign of going against the community. In fact, even now, it is difficult to say that we are completely free from such human rights oppression issues. In China , it is still serious, and cases such as Xinjiang re-education camps receive the most criticism internationally because there are great concerns about the international situation due to China's national power . In addition , North Korea and Myanmar[53] , Afghanistan[54] , Eritrea[55] , Turkmenistan[56] , Syria , Brunei , Iran , and Saudi Arabia have serious human rights violations, and Russia is one of the former Soviet Union countries that is still a dictatorship.[57] Although it is not at the same level, the human rights situation has become very poor.
Among the countries that still adhere to that trend in the 21st century, the worst cases are Afghanistan , Myanmar , Eritrea , Turkmenistan , and North Korea . Although it receives attention due to the nature of the international situation, with the exception of North Korea, interest is usually less than that of Syria , let alone China . This is because, in the case of China and Syria, the situation in countries with a high interest in human rights means that deteriorating human rights in these countries has a more negative impact on national interests, and North Korea is very closed. The suppression of human rights against Uyghurs is famous for being difficult for citizens of a democratic society to believe . There is great concern that this is China's act of independently discussing the world situation. However, North Korean residents suffer everything that happens to Uyghurs. A person like the leader of the inminban must know the number of spoons of his neighbors, report even their activities to the higher-ups, and of course, cell phone calls are wiretapped. Instead of technical surveillance, there may be false accusations. In addition to the People's Unit leader, there is also a spy from the Ministry of State Security who does not reveal his identity. Lately, he doesn't even listen to what the government says, but Kim Jong-un knows the principle , even "the sound of a needle falling on Samsu Gap Mountain ." Forced labor without resources, such as forced abortions, forced marriages, and group assignments for reactionary or Chinese children , and especially Christians were already taken to completely controlled areas where the purpose was to kill people painfully through labor exploitation and humiliation. In North Korea, art, even songs like “Nice to Meet You,” must contain regime propaganda content. All artists belong to and are managed by government agencies.
In addition, there are several other things that North Koreans suffer. All North Koreans, starting from the age of 7, join the Chosun Boys and are required to belong to an organization until they become elderly or die, and are required to engage in mutual criticism at daily life reviews . The same goes for children, and they sometimes fight with each other. It is said that the sight of people who maintained Uyghur traditional culture being taken away is reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution , but North Korea is said to have already surpassed the Cultural Revolution in its book clearance project , and due to the Reactionary Ideology and Culture Rejection Act , if you are caught watching just one Korean movie, your chances of survival are less than half. This is because the environment in a correctional center, which is likened to a prison, is so poor that even if you survive only five years, which is the minimum sentence, your chance of survival is less than half. The Pyongyang Cultural Language Protection Act shocked North Korean experts by making it possible for even the use of the word 'oppa' to be used as a 'puppet address' and subject to forced labor and even public execution for teaching people around you how to speak South Korean. Xinjiang re-education camps acknowledged the existence of Western countries for the first time in several years and allowed media coverage, but even though the existence of North Korean political prison camps was first made known to the international community in 1979, the North Korean government still grits its teeth and denies the existence, calling it a fabrication. This is despite the fact that there are several villages-shaped camps that are larger than a single re-education camp. North Korea has never allowed coverage of general correctional facilities.
Here, portraits of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il are still required to be hung unconditionally on the walls of houses, and during the 2016 flood in Hamgyong Province, the Rodong Sinmun praised the man who saved the portraits even though his wife and daughter were washed away. It's hard to believe, but Yonhap News quoted this as a report. If a person is judged to be politically impure, the National Security Agency comes in in the middle of the night, kidnaps the family, and places them in a concentration camp.[58] This act of ignoring human rights not only applies to civilians, but even in cases where the person accused of wrongdoing was actually innocent, such as the Park Nam-ki incident in 2010, it was deemed politically necessary, and numerous people were taken to the complete control zone, including the person involved, their family members, and even their seventh and eighth relatives. Prisoners here have had their civil rights completely revoked, are treated as 'inhumans' in official documents, and after being forcibly transferred, they are slowly dying without release, and shocking acts are still being committed. Moreover, in 2013, even Kim Jong-un's uncle Jang Song-taek was executed and executed by creating fear, and in 2015, Hyon Yong-cheol was publicly shot to death with an anti-aircraft gun for falling asleep in front of Kim Jong-un . According to Canadian cartoonist Gidlele , who was visiting Pyongyang , when he asked a guide, "Why don't I see any disabled people in this country ?" the guide said, "Because our people are an excellent people, such enthusiasts do not exist!"
The family of criminal offenders is often overwhelmed by human rights, which is called a tighter system, especially North Korea, China and Russia. Some Asia and African countries have a sophistication that justifies human rights oppression, claiming that Western democracy and human rights concepts are not suitable for their environment or culture.The representative country that seriously pushes it is North Korea , China , Russia , Singapore , Eritrea , Iran , Turkmenistan , Brunei , It is Saudi Arabia .[59]
Conversely, there are cases in which crime victims or their families become targets of crime again. It is especially frequently seen in crimes involving various intimidation, such as school violence or island slavery .
Human rights violations occur even in democratic countries , and the United States is a particularly representative example. Here, public power is as strong as in dictatorial countries, and state violence is applied as a default.
Among the older generations , there are people who have a way of thinking that there is no reason to treat people .[60] Of course, as they are minors , human rights can be restricted in the areas that cannot be responsible for, but it is unfair to be infringed.
The Constitution of the Republic of Korea clearly stipulates that the essential rights of citizens cannot be violated even if they are criminals or in a war situation. These older generations have no idea that beatings and human rights violations are serious, and in an era when awareness of the situation was low, there is a tendency to blame what they received on the weak. For more information , see Compensation Hearing and Student Human Rights documents.
If human rights are violated only by public power, it can be resolved through regime change , but it goes further than that in private groups . A closed society is an example that shows how far private power can destroy individuals.
Because it is a fiercely competitive society, it may be that people distance themselves from human rights and focus on interests. No matter how much you put human rights first, if you cannot make money due to the market order, you will be ruined. This may be why there is a poor response to measures to improve life, such as a five-day work week, and because human rights violations are severe in communist countries.[61][62] It is also worth referring to the ‘Intensifying sense of discomfort and hostility’ in the ‘ Polarization ’ document.
Among the countries that still adhere to that trend in the 21st century, the worst cases are Afghanistan , Myanmar , Eritrea , Turkmenistan , and North Korea . Although it receives attention due to the nature of the international situation, with the exception of North Korea, interest is usually less than that of Syria , let alone China . This is because, in the case of China and Syria, the situation in countries with a high interest in human rights means that deteriorating human rights in these countries has a more negative impact on national interests, and North Korea is very closed. The suppression of human rights against Uyghurs is famous for being difficult for citizens of a democratic society to believe . There is great concern that this is China's act of independently discussing the world situation. However, North Korean residents suffer everything that happens to Uyghurs. A person like the leader of the inminban must know the number of spoons of his neighbors, report even their activities to the higher-ups, and of course, cell phone calls are wiretapped. Instead of technical surveillance, there may be false accusations. In addition to the People's Unit leader, there is also a spy from the Ministry of State Security who does not reveal his identity. Lately, he doesn't even listen to what the government says, but Kim Jong-un knows the principle , even "the sound of a needle falling on Samsu Gap Mountain ." Forced labor without resources, such as forced abortions, forced marriages, and group assignments for reactionary or Chinese children , and especially Christians were already taken to completely controlled areas where the purpose was to kill people painfully through labor exploitation and humiliation. In North Korea, art, even songs like “Nice to Meet You,” must contain regime propaganda content. All artists belong to and are managed by government agencies.
In addition, there are several other things that North Koreans suffer. All North Koreans, starting from the age of 7, join the Chosun Boys and are required to belong to an organization until they become elderly or die, and are required to engage in mutual criticism at daily life reviews . The same goes for children, and they sometimes fight with each other. It is said that the sight of people who maintained Uyghur traditional culture being taken away is reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution , but North Korea is said to have already surpassed the Cultural Revolution in its book clearance project , and due to the Reactionary Ideology and Culture Rejection Act , if you are caught watching just one Korean movie, your chances of survival are less than half. This is because the environment in a correctional center, which is likened to a prison, is so poor that even if you survive only five years, which is the minimum sentence, your chance of survival is less than half. The Pyongyang Cultural Language Protection Act shocked North Korean experts by making it possible for even the use of the word 'oppa' to be used as a 'puppet address' and subject to forced labor and even public execution for teaching people around you how to speak South Korean. Xinjiang re-education camps acknowledged the existence of Western countries for the first time in several years and allowed media coverage, but even though the existence of North Korean political prison camps was first made known to the international community in 1979, the North Korean government still grits its teeth and denies the existence, calling it a fabrication. This is despite the fact that there are several villages-shaped camps that are larger than a single re-education camp. North Korea has never allowed coverage of general correctional facilities.
Here, portraits of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il are still required to be hung unconditionally on the walls of houses, and during the 2016 flood in Hamgyong Province, the Rodong Sinmun praised the man who saved the portraits even though his wife and daughter were washed away. It's hard to believe, but Yonhap News quoted this as a report. If a person is judged to be politically impure, the National Security Agency comes in in the middle of the night, kidnaps the family, and places them in a concentration camp.[58] This act of ignoring human rights not only applies to civilians, but even in cases where the person accused of wrongdoing was actually innocent, such as the Park Nam-ki incident in 2010, it was deemed politically necessary, and numerous people were taken to the complete control zone, including the person involved, their family members, and even their seventh and eighth relatives. Prisoners here have had their civil rights completely revoked, are treated as 'inhumans' in official documents, and after being forcibly transferred, they are slowly dying without release, and shocking acts are still being committed. Moreover, in 2013, even Kim Jong-un's uncle Jang Song-taek was executed and executed by creating fear, and in 2015, Hyon Yong-cheol was publicly shot to death with an anti-aircraft gun for falling asleep in front of Kim Jong-un . According to Canadian cartoonist Gidlele , who was visiting Pyongyang , when he asked a guide, "Why don't I see any disabled people in this country ?" the guide said, "Because our people are an excellent people, such enthusiasts do not exist!"
The family of criminal offenders is often overwhelmed by human rights, which is called a tighter system, especially North Korea, China and Russia. Some Asia and African countries have a sophistication that justifies human rights oppression, claiming that Western democracy and human rights concepts are not suitable for their environment or culture.The representative country that seriously pushes it is North Korea , China , Russia , Singapore , Eritrea , Iran , Turkmenistan , Brunei , It is Saudi Arabia .[59]
Conversely, there are cases in which crime victims or their families become targets of crime again. It is especially frequently seen in crimes involving various intimidation, such as school violence or island slavery .
Human rights violations occur even in democratic countries , and the United States is a particularly representative example. Here, public power is as strong as in dictatorial countries, and state violence is applied as a default.
Among the older generations , there are people who have a way of thinking that there is no reason to treat people .[60] Of course, as they are minors , human rights can be restricted in the areas that cannot be responsible for, but it is unfair to be infringed.
The Constitution of the Republic of Korea clearly stipulates that the essential rights of citizens cannot be violated even if they are criminals or in a war situation. These older generations have no idea that beatings and human rights violations are serious, and in an era when awareness of the situation was low, there is a tendency to blame what they received on the weak. For more information , see Compensation Hearing and Student Human Rights documents.
If human rights are violated only by public power, it can be resolved through regime change , but it goes further than that in private groups . A closed society is an example that shows how far private power can destroy individuals.
Because it is a fiercely competitive society, it may be that people distance themselves from human rights and focus on interests. No matter how much you put human rights first, if you cannot make money due to the market order, you will be ruined. This may be why there is a poor response to measures to improve life, such as a five-day work week, and because human rights violations are severe in communist countries.[61][62] It is also worth referring to the ‘Intensifying sense of discomfort and hostility’ in the ‘ Polarization ’ document.
11. misconceptions and misconceptions
this document through discussionMoving and deleting contributions from bias and stereotypes/society articles to related articles at the discretion of the management has been agreed upon. If the agreed upon part is modified without discussion, it may be considered as abuse of editing rights and may be subject to sanctions.
- Related articles: Fallacy of Hasty Generalizations , Prejudice and Stereotypes
- Because you do the right thing , you get hit.
- Even if you just think about the crime of don't ask questions, it's nonsense that makes no sense at all. Becoming a victim of a perpetrator even though you do not know who the perpetrator is, how you know them, or are even related to them can be interpreted through a causal analysis approach rather than a consequentialist approach without an answer.
- Even in the military, which places great importance on solidarity and responsibility with very closed and conservative groups, of course, crimes without asking are strictly prohibited. If the seniors do this, of course they go to the military discipline training center .
- The criterion for doing the right thing is subjective. If you just put it on, the crime of assault is no longer a crime.
- People with disabilities are unable to live in society because they are incompetent .
- For more details and other disability-related information, see the Disability/Misconceptions document.
- A person who is obese will not be able to handle everything properly because of a lack of self-management. So he has to lose weight.
- There are cases in which you do not truly realize the seriousness of obesity, or you do not care about it, so there is nothing you can do about obesity. This criterion is considered to be wrong. Conversely, if the person who makes this point doesn't have a bodybuilder's body, it's probably not because he's lazy. In the end, whether you are obese or normal weight, you do not feel the need for it, so you do not lose it or there are circumstances where it is difficult to do so. Never judge a person's abilities by their weight.
- The exception is that it is difficult to easily determine whether someone is obese based on their appearance. There may be people like Kang Ho-dong who are big and have surprisingly high muscle mass, or there may be people who are of normal weight but have little muscle and a high body fat percentage, so-called “ skinny obesity .”[63] People who used to exercise a lot in the past may suddenly look like they have gained weight if they suddenly stop exercising. Individual constitutional factors such as problems with the endocrine glands or differences in basal metabolic rate must also be considered.
- Obesity may also be due to pathological reasons, such as Prader-Willi syndrome . We cannot guarantee that these people will not be able to take care of themselves, unless they have severe disabilities that make normal social life impossible. Of course, there is no guarantee that you won't get the job done right.
- Even without considering whether or not they are obese, there are some people who do not ‘do everything properly because they are unable to manage themselves.’ Let’s think about why the term “lazy genius” exists. A representative example is Yoshihiro Togashi .[64]
- A person who has done a lot of volunteer work will not have prejudice against people.
- It's a kebab. Rather, there is a possibility that prejudice is further strengthened due to limited experience. When you go to a grandparent's family to do volunteer work and see a child with an old-fashioned way of speaking or vocabulary unlike his or her peers, you may think that those who have a peculiar way of speaking were raised by their grandmothers and grandfathers when they were young. However, children who live with large families as a child, children who have encountered many old words in books, and children who are born late can also show these characteristics.
- There are cases where people who studied social welfare say that all kids who get bullied are special . However, this is an issue where the successive relationship cannot be determined. Of course, there are cases where people are bullied because they have an eccentric personality, but on the other hand, there is also a possibility that their personality became eccentric after experiencing bullying. When you do volunteer work, you often experience stress from people, so in some cases, negative prejudices may be strengthened.
- If a successful person emerges from among the socially underprivileged, the gaze and treatment of that class will improve.
- In reality, it is only the success of the individual, not the success of the group. For example, even if a successful disabled person comes out, it is only 'successful disabled', not 'success of disabled'.
- For other minority-related misconceptions, go to the corresponding paragraph under Socially Disadvantaged .
- Human rights have nothing to do with our daily lives.
- Due to the nature of human rights, it is difficult to know how closely related they are to one's life when enjoying them, and the media's distorted view of human rights and insufficient human rights education further strengthen this perception.
- Human rights belong to those who speak loudly. Or human rights are selfish.
- There is a need to distinguish between human rights and individual rights and interests. In the past, during the dictatorship, human rights as well as the rights and interests of the majority were suppressed, so there was no need to distinguish between the two. In other words, even if you fight for individual rights, you can ultimately contribute to the development of human rights. However, as democracy progresses, it becomes necessary to distinguish between fights that consider personal interests and fights that pursue universal human rights.
- Human rights are rolling in by itself even if you stay still.[65]
- As history has proven, human rights are never given for free. In other words, it is human rights that people enjoy in proportion to the effort they put in. Democracy is often said to be ‘achieved with blood,’ and the basic element of democracy is guaranteed human rights.
- Human rights are a legal concept.
- Human rights are right in themselves, and are given legitimacy regardless of law. However, in many cases this is realized through the law. Human rights are a larger concept than legal rights, and although they are not stipulated in the law, they are morally right, and there are human rights that people must protect, and conversely, even if they are legally guaranteed, they may not be human rights.
- It is a criticism of seeing the world in two ways through the conflict between 'rights and duties, human rights and anti-human rights, good and evil', and this is because human rights are interpreted too rigidly. Human rights themselves are not perfect, and rather, human rights constantly change their concept and scope according to social changes.
- Human rights are the privilege of the elite .
- Human rights are only demanded and guaranteed by those who know them, but it is criticized that human rights are just 'pie in the picture' for those who are in no situation to complain about their situation. This is an area that requires more effort to be institutionalized.
- Human rights are paternalism .[66]
- The idea that protecting the human rights of criminals is wrong is typical, considering human rights as debauchery and disorder. However, this argument ignores the fact that punishment alone cannot reduce crime without resolving the cause. Furthermore, the Constitution and laws have the right to remain silent even for heinous criminals, and the principle of presumption of innocence that a person should be presumed innocent until proven not guilty . In other words, human rights do not claim that people who commit wrongdoings should be forgiven, but that those who have caused serious harm to the community should be legally punished and subjected to just sanctions, and that the law and procedures should be observed in the process. In addition, as mentioned above, if we begin to restrict human rights because they are criminals, the scope of the restrictions will eventually expand, eventually leading to violations of the human rights of all citizens . It is not that jurists or thinkers who value human rights are lost in idealism, but rather that they have decided after looking back on the history of ' legal tyranny '.
- In order to satisfy the human rights of opposing groups, it is inevitable that one of them will be sacrificed. Otherwise, both may end up dissatisfied.
- As already mentioned in the criminal rights section above, human rights are not a zero-sum game . It is absurd to discuss the distribution of human rights in the first place .
- Human rights have obligations .
- This stems from the misunderstanding that human rights and personal obligations must exist simultaneously. Human rights are the most basic rights, and there is no obligation on the individual to guarantee them. Human rights are in themselves the purpose of the existence of modern society. If it is an obligation, the state, not the individual, has the obligation to guarantee it. However, if it is a basic right , things are different. Unlike human rights, basic rights are 'rights granted to citizens by the state', and therefore, basic rights stipulate both rights and obligations to prevent mutual rights violations such as crimes and nuisances. Of course, human rights are basically included in fundamental rights.
12. digression
In an Internet neologism, it refers to a character with overwhelming performance or a character essential to progress in a game, especially a collection game called gacha .
In War Thunder, if you don't have a premium account, the rewards are so low that you will inevitably end up at a loss unless you do very well in a high-ranked room, and the repair costs are high, so a premium account is called a human right.
In War Thunder, if you don't have a premium account, the rewards are so low that you will inevitably end up at a loss unless you do very well in a high-ranked room, and the repair costs are high, so a premium account is called a human right.
12.1. Distinction between human rights and fundamental rights
Human rights are a broader concept than fundamental rights. Human rights are ' rights that all human beings have', and basic rights are ' rights granted to citizens by the state'[67] am. Therefore, in principle, a foreigner who resides or resides in a country but is not a citizen of that country has no fundamental rights as a citizen of that country. However, there is a trend in modern countries to equalize basic rights to foreigners by making various laws for foreigners based on diplomatic reciprocity.
12.2. religion and human rights
Although many famous theologians such as Jean Gerson and Thomas Aquinas participated in discussions on human rights and developed the logic of human rights, Catholics were cautious about officially recognizing 'human rights'. This is because the discussion of human rights also involved discussions of enlightenment , pantheism , and deism , and human rights themselves also clashed to some extent with the theory of original sin, the ‘ fall of man.’ However, even in the past when Christianity did not mention human rights as a doctrine, there were quite a few cases where it advocated a concept similar to the current concept of human rights. The case of Friar Antonio de Montesinos, who criticized the exploitation of indigenous people by Europeans, and the Japanese Catholic Church's strong response by excommunicating the Korean slave trade at the Nagasaki Bishops' Conference on September 4, 1598, etc. It was through the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s that human rights were included in Catholic teachings as an authoritative teaching for each clergy and for the entire church . It did not suddenly occur at the initiative of the leaders, but occurred naturally as believers had previously accepted human rights to some extent outside the church.
Protestantism , including the Presbyterian Association , was one step faster. Protestant doctrine was to emphasize the conscience and beliefs of individuals compared to the doctrine that emphasizes the community -centered and universality of the Catholic Church. Through the Reformation , Catholic and Protestantism were separated from Christianity, and the interest of human rights in Protestantism increased. In particular, based on Jean Calvin 's thoughts, which led the Reformation, the Calvinists were active in discussing natural human rights.[68] God loved his own mankind and sent his begotten Son Jesus to save them, which interpreted that God gave human rights and human rights to be dignified to man.[69]
Basically, Christian doctrine says that grace is given to whoever wants it and that all Christians are equal before God. Since equality is thus presupposed in doctrine, Christians should not treat others unequally. However, if the being subject to inequality is not subject to the doctrine of 'the equality of all', in other words, if it is not a being corresponding to a human being, which means 'everyone', existing inequality and doctrine do not conflict. So, there is also a problem that they justified the discrimination by overcoming the conflict of doctrine by defining the discriminated people as non-human.[70]
Confucianism saw that there was something holy in a person, and Neo-Confucianism especially emphasized this. For example, the concept of 'Seongjeulri', which can be said to be the identity of Neo-Confucianism, that is, '(human) nature is Li'. And this teaching is connected to the concept of Inaecheon of Donghak , and because of this, there is a view that Donghak is regarded as 'popular Confucianism'.[71] This is because Inaecheon can be seen as understanding Ri as a personal divine element in Seongjeukri. Although there may not be a one-on-one correspondence, in that respect, it can be said that Seong Jee-ri has a side with the human rights theory of the theism, and Inae-cheon has a side with the human rights theory of imago Dei (image of God), which is said in Christianity.
Protestantism , including the Presbyterian Association , was one step faster. Protestant doctrine was to emphasize the conscience and beliefs of individuals compared to the doctrine that emphasizes the community -centered and universality of the Catholic Church. Through the Reformation , Catholic and Protestantism were separated from Christianity, and the interest of human rights in Protestantism increased. In particular, based on Jean Calvin 's thoughts, which led the Reformation, the Calvinists were active in discussing natural human rights.[68] God loved his own mankind and sent his begotten Son Jesus to save them, which interpreted that God gave human rights and human rights to be dignified to man.[69]
Basically, Christian doctrine says that grace is given to whoever wants it and that all Christians are equal before God. Since equality is thus presupposed in doctrine, Christians should not treat others unequally. However, if the being subject to inequality is not subject to the doctrine of 'the equality of all', in other words, if it is not a being corresponding to a human being, which means 'everyone', existing inequality and doctrine do not conflict. So, there is also a problem that they justified the discrimination by overcoming the conflict of doctrine by defining the discriminated people as non-human.[70]
Confucianism saw that there was something holy in a person, and Neo-Confucianism especially emphasized this. For example, the concept of 'Seongjeulri', which can be said to be the identity of Neo-Confucianism, that is, '(human) nature is Li'. And this teaching is connected to the concept of Inaecheon of Donghak , and because of this, there is a view that Donghak is regarded as 'popular Confucianism'.[71] This is because Inaecheon can be seen as understanding Ri as a personal divine element in Seongjeukri. Although there may not be a one-on-one correspondence, in that respect, it can be said that Seong Jee-ri has a side with the human rights theory of the theism, and Inae-cheon has a side with the human rights theory of imago Dei (image of God), which is said in Christianity.
12.3. humanitarian intervention
If the human rights of the people in question are violated on a large scale and to a serious level by a country , humanitarian intervention is when a third country intervenes in the violating country through force to remove the human rights violation.
Humanitarian intervention is being discussed under international law , but even in modern international law, sovereignty is close to a sacrosanct area, so it is a theoretical concept with little room for realization. It also has limitations in that the use of force by individual states (i.e. without a Security Council resolution) is comprehensively prohibited under Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter. To put it another way, within the framework of the UN, a collective security system to prevent World War III, coercive measures according to Security Council resolutions are theoretically possible. However, since the late 20th century, the trend in international law circles has been shifting towards ‘Responsibility to Protect (R2P)’ rather than ‘humanitarian intervention’.[72] , This has the significance of shifting the international community's perception of human rights violations from the 'right to (humanitarian intervention)' aspect to the 'responsibility (to protect human rights)' aspect.
Former Prime Minister Lee Hae-chan was criticized in 2012 for expressing the opinion that the North Korean Human Rights Act has the potential to interfere with internal affairs and that it is wrong to arbitrarily intervene in the internal affairs of other countries . Of course, it is nonsense. If you look at it that way, it was wrong for the West to interfere with the Chun Doo-hwan government during the June Uprising in 1987 by saying it would boycott the Olympics . People in the Democratic Party right now criticized the U.S. for aiding and abetting the Chun Doo-hwan administration's massacre during the May 18 Democratization Movement. According to Lee Hae-chan's logic, it would be right for the U.S. not to interfere.
Humanitarian intervention is being discussed under international law , but even in modern international law, sovereignty is close to a sacrosanct area, so it is a theoretical concept with little room for realization. It also has limitations in that the use of force by individual states (i.e. without a Security Council resolution) is comprehensively prohibited under Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter. To put it another way, within the framework of the UN, a collective security system to prevent World War III, coercive measures according to Security Council resolutions are theoretically possible. However, since the late 20th century, the trend in international law circles has been shifting towards ‘Responsibility to Protect (R2P)’ rather than ‘humanitarian intervention’.[72] , This has the significance of shifting the international community's perception of human rights violations from the 'right to (humanitarian intervention)' aspect to the 'responsibility (to protect human rights)' aspect.
Former Prime Minister Lee Hae-chan was criticized in 2012 for expressing the opinion that the North Korean Human Rights Act has the potential to interfere with internal affairs and that it is wrong to arbitrarily intervene in the internal affairs of other countries . Of course, it is nonsense. If you look at it that way, it was wrong for the West to interfere with the Chun Doo-hwan government during the June Uprising in 1987 by saying it would boycott the Olympics . People in the Democratic Party right now criticized the U.S. for aiding and abetting the Chun Doo-hwan administration's massacre during the May 18 Democratization Movement. According to Lee Hae-chan's logic, it would be right for the U.S. not to interfere.
13.
14.
15. derivative term
- Human Rights Character - One of the terms of collectible games.
[1] In English, if you use the singular expression and write 'human right', it becomes 'individual right'. However, human rights are indivisible, so to emphasize this, we write 'human rights' using a plural form.[2] According to the Human Rights Commission, the grounds for prohibiting discrimination are not 'nationality' or 'region of residence' but 'country of origin' and 'region of origin'. This means that nationality or region of residence can be changed at any time, so even if naturalized, country of origin This is because there may be discrimination for this reason. Therefore, ‘country of origin’ here conceptually also includes nationality .[3] A long-term position in society that accompanies a certain social evaluation (93heonba43). It is not limited to exclusive marks related to a specific personality, such as nationality or religion. Therefore, occupations such as employers, workers , civil servants , farmers, and fishermen are also included in social status.[4] Of course, if you set the target as being in the same class, you can explain that the same thing was treated differently but there was a reasonable reason.[5] The words “right to life” and “basic social right” are also used a lot. In the past, the Constitutional Court used the word "right to live" a lot to refer to social rights, but over time, the word "right to live" gradually came to be used as a subcategory of social rights. Use the words "fundamental rights" and "social rights" more.[6] Currently, workers cannot strike in China because the right to collective action is not recognized among the three labor rights.[7] Article 14 Declaration[8] Article 14 Paragraph 5 , Article 14 Paragraph 7 , Article 22, Article 23 Paragraph 4 Reservation[9] Article 23 Paragraph 4[10] Article 14 Paragraph 7[11] Article 14 Paragraph 5[12] Article 9 , Article 16, Paragraph 1, (c), (d), (f), and (g) reservations[13] Article 16 Paragraph 1 (c), (d), (f), (g)[14] Article 9[15] Article 21 and 22 Declaration[16] Article 9 (3) , Article 21 (a) , Article 40 (2) (b) (5) Reservation[17] Article 9 Paragraph 3[18] Article 21 (a)[19] Article 25 Reservation[20] Article 25 (e)[21] However, this declaration is a story in principle, and it was long after the United States became independent from Britain that the human rights of women and people of color were actually respected in American society.[22] We live without recognizing it well, but many concepts that are the basis of modern society as well as 'human rights' are derived from Abrahamic religions. 'Equality' was originally the concept that all human beings are equal before God.[23] In fact, it is not strange, but many of the concepts and ideas that form the basis of modern society were established and brought over from the West, and the religion that forms the basis of Western philosophy, ideas, culture, and values is Christianity. Therefore, it is not easy to exclude discussions related to Christianity from social and political concepts.[24] If you don't eat to avoid dying of starvation, you will die, so it's an exception.[25] There are many people who sincerely believe that “Korea is the only country in the world that cares about the human rights of criminals,” but it is safe to say that they are people who have no idea about the reality of prisons for violent criminals in Northern and Central Europe.[26] And Japan, a neighboring country, has as many parolees as the United States and Taiwan, so unlike Korean prisons, which are oversaturated, the prison capacity is 60 to 70%, so there is room for occupancy rate. Therefore, not only are they cleaner than Korean prisons, but the food cost per person is so high that the cost of food per person is higher than that of elementary schools or Self-Defense Forces, so there is a lot of talk even in Japan. Of course, prison rules are said to be stricter than in Korea because it is easy to control inmates due to spacious gardens and sufficient budget.[27] In particular, those who make such claims say that they should learn from the American method, but in the United States, except for supermax prisons that house high-risk criminals and are closely monitored by the government, such as ADX Florence Prison, which is directly managed by the Federal Bureau of Corrections, all prisons have been privatized, so parole is not only common, not to mention the poor environment. It is basic to be released from prison after serving less than 10 years, and the current sentences in South Korea are not much different from those in the UK.[28] This is why investigators who deal with political and socially sensitive events are reluctant to expose personal personal exposure.[29] This is also related to subordinates being framed under indirect pressure from the dictator.[30] However, dictators who took office after World War II did not enjoy the murder of the judicial murder because of the procedural hassle (?) To make the manipulated evidence and formally go through trial in order to kill the judicial murder. Except for the Communist countries in Eastern Europe , some Islamic countries, and Park Chung -hee , the fourth Republic of Korea , there are few dictatorships that oppressed silence on the judicial murder, and almost all dictators have no formal trials. If you die or drag it to a camp, you will be missing and handled as a question.[31] Representative examples include Xiang Yu and Pol Pot .[32] In addition to torturing the person involved, you can simply capture anyone, make them make a false confession through threats or torture, and frame them as an accomplice. Of course, if it is burdensome to just kill a political opponent, instead of judicial murder, assassination or disappearance without the rat's knowledge is used.[33] Examples: Nazi Germany , North Korea , Eritrea[34] Let’s change this to ‘criminal’ and then read it.[35] Just looking at the Supreme Dignity document, the dictator is treated like a god. It is easy to see just by looking at how opposition and resistance to the dictator are treated in North Korea . Immediately in Korea, the victims of the People's Cheong Academic Alliance case , the People's Revolutionary Party Reconstruction Committee case , and the Kim Dae-jung rebellion conspiracy case were sentenced to death.[36] There was a similar organization in Korea called Samcheong Education Corps , and as you know, a terrible tragedy occurred there.[37] Representative examples are Sagawa Issey , Miyazaki Tsutomu and Kato Tomohiro 's family.[38] A case of human rights violations against judges, not investigators, is a judge's crossbow terrorist case . This incident is a human rights violation committed against individual judges in charge of general administrative trials. However, due to the characteristics of the case of direct human rights violations against the judge, the ripple was so great that it could be treated as a film.[39] The problem is that online platforms generally have a very strong sense of strict punishment, and because they only focus on the brutality of the crime , emotional anger takes precedence over understanding the details of the crime and interpretation of the law. There are many cases where even a legal expert's explanation is not accepted.[40] Rather, due to the interdependent nature of human rights, if human rights on one side improve, human rights on the other side will also improve, and if human rights on the other side are violated, there is a high possibility that human rights on this side will also be violated.[41] At the same time, he is also a victim in all crimes.[42] When we think about why the language of preventing private sanctions was coined in ancient countries thousands of years ago, we can say that this is not an ideal but a realistic judgment. The harmful effects of such private sanctions were revealed to an extreme extent in Albania 's Kanun .[43] After the madness of private sanctions subsided, Charles de Gaulle , who led Free France , somehow took measures to severely punish real Nazi collaborators, sending 90,000 of them to prison and deprivation of their civil rights, and executing 791 of them. Looking at this conversely, it can be seen as meaning that in the previous private sanctions process, only innocent people died in droves, while real Nazi collaborators escaped with ease. In fact, Maurice Papon , a civil servant in Vichy France who was involved in the deportation of Jews (the majority of the deported Jews were taken to Nazi concentration camps) , escaped leisurely and served as Paris police chief ( who led the Paris massacre in 1961 ) and budget minister until his true identity was revealed. He served until then and did well. This is an example showing that private sanctions are of no help in actually preventing crime or punishing criminals.[44] During the six years of the war on drugs, a whopping 6,252 people died. According to official figures. Criticism grew stronger as the cartel leaders, who were the real culprits behind the increase in crime, were spared while powerless criminals were executed.[45] It is a privately run Protestant- affiliated prison.[46] Although it corresponds to the Assad government during the Syrian civil war , the current government that came into power in 2025 is also unable to properly resolve various problems, such as the Israeli invasion, Turkic intervention, severance of diplomatic relations with Iran, and the Middle East war, as well as conflicts between pro-Assad rebels (remnants of the former government army) and forces within the transitional government (former Syrian rebels).[47] Reference materials . Examples include Ernesto Miranda, the origin of the Miranda principle , and George Floyd, the catalyst for the BLM movement. Even in Korea, the victim of the 2002 Seoul District Prosecutors' Office torture-to-death case, which had such a big impact that it forced the then Minister of Justice and the Prosecutor General to resign , was the leader of an organized crime group that was being investigated for two murders.[48] Reference materials : So much so that even in Norway , there are criticisms that this is too much.[49] Only the actual conditions of political prison camps are known, but as the treatment of political prisoners is very harsh, the treatment of serious criminals is likely to be more, not less.[50] As shown in the Rodong Kyohwaso document, the treatment of prisoners in North Korea is also very harsh.[51] The main reason is in the paragraph immediately above .[52] Even as of 2025, the last generation who grew up experiencing corporal punishment and punishment at school and in the military are still in their late 20s (born between 1997 and 1999). As a result, awareness of human rights is still low compared to other developed countries. The world freedom index also ranks at the bottom among developed countries, along with the United States (tied with Korea), whose score dropped significantly during the Donald Trump era, Israel , which is controversial for racial discrimination and war crimes , and Singapore , an illiberal democratic system .[53] Its democracy index is lower than that of North Korea.[54] The 2023 democracy index is 0.26 points. For reference, North Korea also has over 1 point.[55] The media freedom index is lower than that North Korea .[56] North Korea has a lower world freedom index than Eritrea.[57] The Central Asian countries that Stan includes, Azerbaijan, and Belarus are included.[58] China also did not require that the portrait of the President be hung on the wall, even though it was reported as such . It is said that the infamous Party Secretary Chen Quanguo asked Tibetans and Uyghurs to hang portraits, but this is not a form of sublimating it to a 'sincere project' and hanging it in a frame to check for dust. # Even during the days of Ddaengbak News or Ddaengjeon News in Korea , we didn’t do anything like this. During Kim Il-sung's time, he went even further and even sprayed perfume on the portrait of the 'leader' to ensure that the portrait always had a fragrant smell.[59] Still, it is better than a disorder like Somalia . It's a place where you only need to follow the rules of the country.[60] For this reason, even in the younger generation, the chicks who are fifty are the answers to die quietly .[61] Competition, Chance, Guillotine Match Related Articles , Labor Related Articles 1 · Article 2 ( Melting Labor ), Food Related Articles 1 · Article 2 , Graphics Card Mining Crisis Related articles , Bokdol related article .[62] On the one hand, this may be a reason to replace human jobs with machines. Humans are generally less sensitive to shock than machines and need to eat and sleep, but if a machine is well made, it supplies electricity and cools it to a certain degree, and machine costs tend to be cheaper than labor costs.[63] For reference, skinny obesity is just as bad for your health as obesity, but it can be detected later than general obesity, so it is a good idea to check your body fat percentage even if you are of normal weight. In particular, you may be suspicious if your weight is low but your stomach is bloated, or if only certain body parts are enlarged.[64] However, this person is not overweight . However, even if you listen to obese people, there can be lazy geniuses .[65] Lee Sang (Human rights impede economic development ~ it rolls in automatically) 『Humanities Respond to Human Rights』, 「There is no distinction between conservatives and progressives in the practice of human rights」 (Park Kyung-seo). Cheolsu and Younghee. 31-34 p.[66] Lee Sang (a legal concept ~ paternalism) 『Humanities Respond to Human Rights』, 「President's Honor or Freedom of Expression?」 (Cho Hyo-je) . 123-126 p.[67] There is also an opinion that it is not appropriate to understand basic rights as rights granted to citizens by the state. To be precise, it is accurate to see that the people, who are sovereign, gave the state the authority to represent sovereignty through the Constitution and the mission to protect the basic rights of the people as the purpose that the state should aim for, and for that purpose it was specified in the Constitution. In other words, fundamental rights are not rights granted to the people by the state, but existed in the form of human rights even before the state existed. This ideology is clarified in Article 37, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, "The fundamental rights of the people shall not be neglected for reasons not enumerated in the Constitution." This clearly shows that the people are the subjects who enjoy basic rights even if the constitution or laws do not recognize them.[68] The Reformation of Rights by John Witte Jr explains this in detail.[69] If you want to study more deeply at the academic level, it comes from Thomas Aquinas ' <The Theological Daejeon>, Part 1, Question 6.[70] Park Gyeong-tae, “Human rights and minority stories: People who cannot be ‘us’”, Book World, 2007. p. 132.[71] It appears in Sangjun Kim, <Sweat of Mencius, Blood of King Seong>.[72] It was officially declared at the 2005 World Summit.
This document is available under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 KR. (except for some documents and illustrations where licenses are specified)
The copyright of the contributed document belongs to each contributor, and each contributor owns the copyright of the part they contribute.