Emergency law and Human Rights<br />DR. Asaad Ghali<br /><br />When talking about human rights in eastern societies, the picture becomes darker after independence, most of these countries kept the laws of oppression and oppression inherited from colonialism under the pretext of facing external challenges and conspiracies against their systems, so they tightened and imposed emergency laws, exceptional laws, and one-party system and spread corruption in government without popular control or accountability from anyone, the situation worsened in all economic, social, political and civil fields, the first victim was humanity and his rights, and with, Unfortunately, most rulers in the East still repeat the cylinder of the philosophers of the West, the impossibility of applying democracy in these countries to abolish the role of the people and assert their absolute authority over all fields of life.<br />Human rights are essentially respected for human dignity and value, and freedom is only (what the spirit is)), he asserts, and if a person gives up his freedom to the ruler, it means ceding his humanity in the sense that he renounces his rights and duties as a human being.<br />Following the massacres of the First and Second World War, the United Nations was established to alleviate injustice and tyranny of peoples, and a series of treaties and conventions were issued in this regard, starting with the Treaty on the Declaration of Human Rights to strike a balance between political and civil rights, economic, social and cultural rights and making them interrelated rights that do not accept fragmentation, as well as the right of peoples to self-determination and investment of their wealth and, last but not least, the Universal Declaration of the Right to Development (1986), which linked development as a right of The goal of development is to enable human beings to obtain their rights, i.e. to link development with human rights in all their political, economic, social and cultural dimensions, thereby making man the focus of development, as it is its purpose and means.<br />Although most Middle Eastern countries have entered the United Nations and ratified their treaties, they continue to violate the terms of these treaties.<br />When States resort to declaring a state of emergency and martial law, they know very well that they risk public freedoms and human rights in their country, but they justify resorting to this option with many arguments, mainly in the supreme national interest and the safety and stability of the country, but if we examine it well, we will find that these arguments are nothing more than a reduction in the interest of the ruling regime, particularly the interest of the president or the king, and there is no difference in dictatorial states between the supreme national interest and the interest of the president's longest survival. Even if this is by imposing the emergency law throughout the period of that president's stay in power, which, as we know from some examples, maybe more than half a century, and in other countries where the people live in a double emergency without the need to issue an emergency law, and here the problem is greater. In the literature on that system, it is at the top of the list of democratic states and in general, human rights are always the first and last victims of such regimes. The lesson in the victory of freedoms and rights is not what is announced or decided. in the Constitution but with what is already implemented and applied. <br />It is customary for the world's governance systems to be based on three main pillars: the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, the first enacting laws, the second implementing these laws, and the third adjudicating disputes in the light of those laws.<br />According to the French philosopher Montesquieu, the author of the theory of the division of powers, which to this day is the basis of democratic systems (i.e., bullying from one authority over another constitutes a veiled dictatorship, an imbalance in democracy, and an infringement on the individual and society, democracy can develop only if the three powers are separated, although the tyranny of power over another destabilizes the democratic system).<br />We conclude from this that the purpose of the separation of powers is to distribute state functions on their main pillars because the gathering of powers leads to monopoly and therefore abuse of them, as the German jurist Roberto Michel says: "History clearly shows that most political leaders of different times and places have begun their political life with the ideal tendency of sacrificing for principles for which they intend to live or annihilate without them if they ride the power and gather power. If it shows anything, it indicates human nature, which will not find a fence in front of it that prevents the continuation of only the principle of separation of powers, which greatly mitigates the disadvantages of this human nature. <br /><br />