The concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), developed by the UN, shows the growing importance of human rights by It is criticized for becoming a justification for intervention on behalf of state interests not related to protection of human rights.
<h3>The concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P)?</h3>
All Heads of State and Government endorsed the duty to safeguard populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity at the 2005 World Summit. Three equally important pillars support the responsibility to protect (commonly abbreviated as "R2P"): the obligation of each State to protect its citizens (pillar I); the obligation of the international community to support States in protecting their citizens (pillar II); and the obligation of the international community to act when a State is blatantly failing to protect its citizens (pillar III). When the concept was adopted in 2005, it was a solemn commitment with high hopes for a world free of these atrocities.
- There are several circumstances in today's world where populations are at risk of R2P crimes or where such crimes are already occurring. These crises are occurring in a climate of waning internationalism, declining adherence to international human rights and humanitarian law, political division in important decision-making bodies like the Security Council, and a degree of defeatism toward advancing ambitious agendas like protection.
- Alarming contempt for core principles of international law has been on display. We are witnessing widespread and egregious attacks on protected civilian sites, such as hospitals and schools, as well as on protected individuals, including humanitarian and health-care workers, in many of the armed conflicts that have broken out in recent years.
- The most severe transgressions of international humanitarian and human rights law, which may qualify as atrocity crimes, continue to be committed by the armed forces and auxiliary militia of States, which is a depressing reality given the rise of violent, non-state armed organizations.
- Similarly, governments do not hold those responsible for atrocity crimes accountable for their deeds. In order to prevent the investigation and prosecution of atrocity crimes, some States parties to the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court, are not collaborating with the Court or are even considering withdrawing from the Statute.
- The Security Council is becoming less willing to bring issues to the Court, and certain political figures obviously want to avoid being held accountable in court.
Learn more about Protect (R2P) here:
brainly.com/question/16179318
#SPJ4
Answer:
representative democracy
direct democracy
Explanation:
In simple terms, a representative democracy is indeed a democratic government under which all qualified voters participate on leaders to make legislation for them. A good example of that is the US, where we nominate a president and Congress leaders. We as well elect leaders from the state and local institutions.
Greek democracy generated at Athens had been direct, not representative: the certain adult male individual from over age of twenty could participate and that was a responsibility to do so. Democracy officials have been elected in part by the legislature and appointed largely by lottery in a procedure known sortion.
Answer:
This is an example of institutional discrimination.
Explanation:
Institutional discrimination refers to practices that can be seen as discriminatory which are embedded in society's institutions. In other words, the system favors some dominant groups to the detriment of the rest. The situation described in the question is an example of institutional prejudice, since it limits educational advancements of minorities. It is important to understand that institutional discrimination can be unintentional - harmful, nonetheless.
Social cognitive theory (social learning theory) proposes that we learn by watching others, while Piaget's theory of cognitive development proposes that there are distinct stages of development and cognitions change over time.
<h3>What are Social cognitive theory and Piaget's theory? </h3>
According to Social Cognitive Theory, personal experiences, the behaviour of others, and environmental circumstances all have an impact on individual health habits.
Social Cognitive Theory promotes social support through:
- Teaching expectations,
- Self-efficacy, and
- Employing observational learning and other rewards to modify behavior.
On the other hand, Piaget's stage theory outlines children's cognitive development and asserts that cognitive development is characterized by changes in cognitive processes and capacities.
According to Piaget, early cognitive development begins with action-based processes and continues to change in mental functions.
Learn more about Social cognitive theory here:
brainly.com/question/8893006
Functional information systems that operate independently of one another are becoming a thing of the past because they make sharing information across functional systems difficult.
<h3>What does it mean to share information?</h3>
This has to do with the dissemination of information to all that has the need for it. Information sharing would be the the sending of messages that contains ideas as well some other requests that would have to received by a person that is called the receiver.
Hence we can say that functional information systems that operate independently of one another are becoming a thing of the past because they make sharing information across functional systems difficult.
Read more about information here: brainly.com/question/4231278
#SPJ1
