Human rights in international law are a set of fundamental rights and ‎freedoms that every individual is entitled to simply by being a human ‎being, regardless of gender, race, religion, or nationality. International law ‎aims to guarantee these rights and protect them from violations, whether ‎by states or other actors.‎<br /> The international human rights movement was strengthened when ‎the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of ‎Human Rights on December 10, 1948. For the first time in human history, ‎the Declaration, formulated as "a common standard of achievement for all ‎peoples and all nations," enshrined the fundamental civil, political, ‎economic, social, and cultural rights to which all human beings should be ‎entitled. Over time, the Declaration has gained widespread acceptance as ‎the fundamental standard of human rights that everyone should respect ‎and protect. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, together with the ‎International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional ‎Protocols, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and ‎Cultural Rights, constitute the so-called International Bill of Human Rights. ‎A series of international human rights treaties and other instruments ‎adopted since 1945 have given legal form to inherent human rights and ‎established the international human rights body. Other instruments have ‎been adopted at the regional level, reflecting specific human rights ‎concerns in the region and providing specific protection mechanisms. Most ‎states have also adopted constitutions and other laws that formally protect ‎fundamental human rights. While international treaties and customary ‎international law form the backbone of international human rights law, ‎other instruments, such as internationally adopted declarations, guidelines, ‎and principles, contribute to its understanding, implementation, and ‎development. Respect for human rights requires the establishment of the ‎rule of law at the national and international levels. International human ‎rights law establishes obligations that states are bound to respect. By ‎becoming parties to international treaties, states assume obligations and ‎duties under international law to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights. ‎The obligation to respect human rights means that states must refrain from ‎interfering with or diminishing the enjoyment of those rights. The obligation ‎to protect human rights requires states to protect individuals and groups ‎from violations of those rights. The obligation to fulfill means that states ‎must take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights.‎<br /> By ratifying international human rights treaties, governments ‎undertake to implement domestic measures and legislation consistent with ‎their treaty obligations and duties. Where domestic legal measures fail to ‎address human rights violations, individual complaint mechanisms and ‎procedures are available at the regional and international levels to help ‎ensure that international human rights standards are effectively respected, ‎implemented, and enforced domestically.‎<br />International Human Rights Law<br /> International human rights law is a body of international law aimed ‎at promoting human rights at the social, regional, and local levels. ‎International human rights law consists primarily of a set of treaties and ‎conventions signed by sovereign states, which have binding legal effect on ‎the parties that have ratified them, as well as customary international law. ‎Although not legally binding, international human rights documents ‎contribute to the implementation, explanation, and development of ‎international human rights law. Many other international human rights ‎instruments have been recognized as a source of political commitment.‎<br />The Relationship Between International Human Rights Law and ‎International Humanitarian Law<br /> The relationship between international human rights law and ‎international humanitarian law is a matter of dispute among international ‎law scholars. Pluralist scholars view international human rights law as ‎distinct from international humanitarian law, while constitutionalists ‎consider international humanitarian law a branch of international human ‎rights law. In short, those who favor autonomous systems emphasize the ‎difference in the applicability of the two laws; according to their view, ‎international humanitarian law can only be applied in situations of armed ‎conflict.‎<br />Another, more systematic, view is that international humanitarian law ‎represents a function of international human rights law; It includes general ‎rules that apply to everyone at all times, as well as specialized rules that ‎apply only in specific situations, such as armed conflict between a state ‎and a military occupation (international humanitarian law), or to groups of ‎people, including refugees (such as the 1951 Refugee Convention), ‎children (the Convention on the Rights of the Child), and prisoners of war ‎‎(the Third Geneva Convention of 1949).‎<br />Legal Foundations<br />‎-‎ The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): This is the ‎cornerstone of international human rights law and has inspired more ‎than 80 international and regional treaties.‎<br />‎-‎ The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the ‎International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: ‎Both entered into force in 1976 and, together with the Universal ‎Declaration, form what is known as the "International Bill of Human ‎Rights."‎<br />‎-‎ The Geneva Conventions: These protect human rights during armed ‎conflict and are part of international humanitarian law.‎<br />International Mechanisms<br />‎-‎ The United Nations Human Rights Council: Established in 2006 to ‎replace the Commission on Human Rights, it periodically reviews the ‎situation of countries.‎<br />‎-‎ The International Criminal Court: Specialized in prosecuting ‎individuals accused of crimes against humanity.‎<br />‎-‎ Regional Mechanisms: Such as the European Court of Human ‎Rights and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights.‎<br />Contemporary Challenges<br /> Despite significant progress, challenges remain, such as:‎<br />‎-‎ Racial and religious discrimination.‎<br />‎-‎ Violations of the rights of minorities and migrants.‎<br />‎-‎ Restrictions on freedom of expression and the press.‎<br />‎-‎ Weak implementation of international rulings in some countries.‎<br />The American Inconsistency in Implementing Human Rights<br /> Here, we take two examples of countries that demonstrate the ‎United States' ambivalence in implementing international human rights law:‎<br />‎1- South Africa<br /> South Africa rejects the US human rights report, describing it as ‎‎"biased." The situation of white citizens in South Africa was one of the main ‎points of the US (European) human rights report.‎<br /> The South African government strongly rejected the contents of the ‎US State Department's 2024 human rights report, describing the document ‎as "biased, inaccurate, and lacking credibility." This is a new escalation of ‎tensions between the two countries, against the backdrop of what ‎Washington considered "systematic violations against ethnic minorities" in ‎the African country.‎<br /> The US report, released after months of delay, accused the South ‎African government of taking "alarming steps toward the expropriation of ‎Afrikaner land," noting "an escalation in violations against ethnic minorities."‎<br />The report also noted what it called a "significant deterioration" in the ‎human rights situation compared to last year's report, which recorded no ‎substantive changes.‎<br /> In a move that sparked widespread controversy, US President ‎Donald Trump signed an executive order this year calling for the ‎resettlement of Afrikaners in the United States, describing them as "victims ‎of systematic violence against minority landowners." The South African ‎government considered these statements "a reiteration of far-right ‎allegations."‎<br />Challenging Washington's Human Rights Eligibility<br /> In a strongly worded official statement, the South African ‎government said the US report "reflects double standards," adding, "It is ‎ironic that these accusations are made by a country that has withdrawn ‎from the UN Human Rights Council and no longer sees itself subject to the ‎international review system, and then claims to issue objective reports ‎without any mechanism for scrutiny or dialogue."‎<br /> Meanwhile, the US report faced criticism from human rights ‎organizations and former State Department experts, who argued that the ‎document "ignores violations committed by countries allied with ‎Washington," such as Israel and El Salvador, while escalating its rhetoric ‎toward countries with which it has political differences, such as South ‎Africa and Brazil.‎<br />‎2-Gaza<br /> The clearest example of this today is the actions of the Zionist entity ‎in Gaza, which has provoked angry reactions from some European ‎countries. Germany has taken steps to halt or restrict arms exports to ‎Israel, but it said this is not enough. "More must be done, and quickly," it ‎said. Last week, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced a partial ‎halt to German arms exports to Israel, justifying the move by citing Israel's ‎announced plans to expand its military operation in the Gaza Strip and ‎seize Gaza City. The situation in the coastal enclave has deteriorated ‎since the outbreak of war following an attack carried out by the Palestinian ‎Hamas movement and other groups in Israel on October 7, 2023. The ‎Council of Europe, headquartered in Strasbourg, France, was founded in ‎‎1949. It aims to protect democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in ‎Europe.‎<br />Mustaqbal University<br />The first university in Iraq