Search results

section 1. Indian concept or rights : ideals and realities -- section 2. Rights of dalits and minorities -- section 3. Rights of marginalized groups in India : women and children -- section 4. Protecting socio-economic rights in India -- section 5. Implementing third generation human rights -- section 6. Human rights in the third world : some studies

The United Nations is the only truly universal and global intergovernmental organization created to date. Established 74 years ago, it continues to be the only global international organization and actor that has an agenda encompassing the broadest range of governance issues. As the world's only truly global organization, it has become the foremost forum to address issues that transcend national boundaries and cannot be resolved by any one country acting alone. It is a complex system that serves as the central site for multilateral diplomacy, with the UN's General Assembly as center stage. Since the end of Cold War, the UN is not only addressing global problems like a democratic supranational body (not exactly emerging as a global government) adopting policies to reduce illiteracy, poverty, gender inequality, protecting environment. The MDGs and SDGs are aimed at the welfare of "We the Peoples of the United Nations". While the UN is promoting democracy at global level, there are serious demands aired for democratizing the world body itself. This paper aims to discuss (i) the objectives/ purposes, principles and the principal organs of the UN, (ii) the role of the UN in democratizing international relations, and (iii) the democratization of UN System through reforms to better its future prospects.

One important area of UN activity, where innumerable claims to and denials of the applicability of domestic jurisdiction clause have been made, is the question of promotion and protection of human rights. The lack of a clear definition and the ambiguity of these 'terms' had a major impact on the functioning of the UN organs, especially with respect to promoting and protecting human rights. Whenever a state is accused of violating the human rights of its citizens, it generally resorts to Article 2(7) claiming that the matter was not subject to UN jurisdiction. Although both scholars and the government representatives in UN debates have differed on the question of primacy of international over domestic jurisdiction, the overwhelming opinion has shifted in favour of acknowledging the weight of international jurisdiction as evolved through the functioning of various legal instruments and regimes of the UN. This does not imply that the UN's expanded jurisdiction has replaced state jurisdiction. Indeed, the incorporation of many principles/provisions in UN human rights treaties is aimed at protecting the sovereignty of states. The institutionalized monitoring process of international human rights norms shows that virtually all states at present are subject to some international legal obligations as regards the human rights of their citizens.

The twentieth century began, well after the First World War, to focus on the rights of minorities and their linkages with general peace and welfare. The record of the League of Nations, however, was not very encouraging. This is perhaps why, in the post-Second World War period, the international community adopted a more cautious approach to minority rights than before. This is manifested in the reluctance to agree on a definition of minorities, and also a clear preference for perceiving minority rights as being inseparable from human rights. The growing body of international legal instruments for the protection of human rights has, nevertheless, a discernible bearing on minority rights. The international covenants on human rights best exemplify this. Further, the monitoring mechanisms of the UN have also contributed to minority rights through progressive interpretations and rulings. Alongside, regional initiatives, as in Europe, have also helped the cause of minority rights after the end of the Cold War. Shortcomings in the international protection of minority rights are due to the apprehensions of state actors. They fear the abuse of the right to self-determination and the rights of indigenous peoples—as part of minority/human rights—will endanger the existing socio-political order.