Could you please read my essay and give me some feedback?
The prompt is:
Though most countries have signed the United Nations Universal Declarations of Human Rights, many human rights issues remain unaddressed and unresolved. Why is this the case?
Thank you very much
"Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité" (Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood"), which is the motto of the French Republic, is one of the many corollaries of the first American and European's attempts in the eighteenth century to draw founding documents for establishing the recognition of human rights. About two centuries later, in 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Despite the Universal Declarations has been a landmark in the history of human rights activism because most countries have signed it, many issues still remain at best unsettled and at worst not even addressed. The barriers hindering the progress of human rights may result from several cultural and political factors that hamper both the entire implementation of human rights treaties and the acceptance of abuse reports from the international community.
First, culture plays a predominant role in the setting of standards that define the limits of what is an abuse against human rights. Within the international community, which encompasses about two hundred states, separate cultures are so numerous and diverse that revealing common features of what are the fundamental human rights is not an unproblematic enterprise. Indeed, one state can sign a United Nations treaty regulating a particular form of criminal conduct and be charged with abuse for the interpretation of the terms of the treaty and their practical implementation is subject to biases caused by the culture of that country. Moreover, that state can also be blamed for misconduct, although its implementation respects the general consensus about a human rights concern, because a minority of countries does not consider that this convenient policy for the majority yields to its unique cultural values. Consequently, despite states can agree about a theoretical framework addressing the resolution of human rights divisive issues, the practical implementations, which are left to the free reading of each country, can raise other divisive issues due to the wide range of distinctive worldviews resulting from the cultural diversity of the nations asserting their affiliation with the United Nations.
Second, political scientists highlight the capacity of political leaders to utilize political selectivity when decisions or comments on human rights issues are to be addressed. This political leaders' ability lies in their aptitude to select two opposite treatments to deal with information. It depends on whether the alleged abuser belongs to the "ally" or "adversary" category at a particular moment. On the one hand, when a divisive issue about human rights is raised, a country can prefer to air official, and often off the record as well, remonstrance so as to stress its political divergence from a state defending other political views. On the other hand, a country can also prefer to completely ignore, or pretend to disregard, abuses against human rights that could happen at home or abroad. Such an attitude spotlights a will to dwindle the significance of human rights abuses to preserve strong, friendly political links with allied nations or create a climate of confidence with countries that are intended to be influenced in a foreseeable future. Consequently, political selectivity is not based on the gravity of unmoral acts but rather on the political consequences that a country should have to assume in case admonitions would be voiced.
Third, the so-called "standard of sovereignty", which is the aggregate of all the adamant endeavours to safeguard a state's sovereignty on the world stage, is frequently utilized as a shield to rebuff domestic or foreign interference with internal human rights abuses. For one thing, some states do not admit the fact that foreign nations can express their disagreement about their citizens' ill-treatment because such reactions are perceived as a foreign interference in the way to cope with domestic issues. Those countries fear that another state might take advantage of such a situation to impose a direct or indirect political domination over their nation, which would entail the loss of their sovereignty. For another thing, some countries entirely refute any act of human rights abuses that allegedly occur on their territory because they do not want to provide any foreign or domestic political opponent with the slightest reason to attack the ethical conduct of their political leaders or administrations. The complete ignorance of such behaviours aims at minimizing their extent in terms of both quantity and quality for the less significant those abuses appear the less opportunities to enhance the credibility of criticisms are given. The exploitation of the "standard of sovereignty" is one of the many political gimmicks that are employed to dampen the ardour of opponents' contestations and, in the end, to avoid settling a human rights issue.
In spite of candid attempts from various organizations such as the United Nations to draw treaties aiming at preventing abuses against human rights, this is not sufficient to completely bring to an end such behaviours. Indeed, human rights are a cultural construction from western worldviews that do not perfectly fit into the broad array of cultures all over the world. Such endeavours to eradicate human mistreatment prove to be a far more complicated task that their initiators have certainly underestimated. Furthermore, that effort to eliminate human ill-treatment to favour ideals of peace and democracy all over the world may fail to appreciate the authentic human nature. On what grounds are we sure that aggressive behaviours against our fellow creatures are contrary to the genuine human nature? As a matter of fact, hitherto, scholars have based their studies on the premise that humans are equals. However, evolutionary psychologists have been searching for the possibility that human aggressive behaviours could stem from an adaptation of the human species to its environment and the pressures exerted by selective agents. In case scientists could demonstrate such a theory, the human commitment to peace and democracy could appear as a chimera that does not take into account the actual nature of the human species.