imported>Chunbum Park |
imported>John Stephenson |
| (86 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| == '''[[Human rights]]''' ==
| | {{:{{FeaturedArticleTitle}}}} |
| ----
| | <small> |
| | | ==Footnotes== |
| The concept of '''human rights''' as the innate entitlement of all human beings found early expression during the American and French revolutionary movements of the late 18th century, but received little further development until the conclusion of World War II. It then acquired the current connotation of a body of entitlements whose realisation is considered to be a universal obligation. This article is about the implementation of that concept of human rights. Doubts have been expressed about its ethical foundations, and about its philosophical consistency, but its emotional impact upon worldwide consciousness is beyond doubt. As a result, it has acquired considerable political importance, and has been embodied in a wide range of generally-accepted international treaty obligations. There have been numerous breaches of those undertakings, and there is widespread disagreement concerning the appropriate international response to such breaches.
| |
| | |
| ===The nature of the concept===
| |
| As an ethical concept, the term human rights is not susceptible to precise definition concerning either its content or its scope. The generally-held judgement that torture is wrong does not depend upon agreement concerning the degree of pain or discomfort that it involves; and the ethical purpose of banning it is served if the ban puts an end to what most people consider to be torture. There is widespread agreement concerning many of the practices that are considered to be breaches of human rights, but the disagreements that exist - concerning, for example, abortion, the death penalty and blasphemy - are not held to justify a wholesale rejection of the concept. And, although human rights are generally considered to be innate to their possessors, the fact they can be given effect only by the assent of others, makes them difficult to distinguish from community-granted rights.
| |
| | |
| ===The historical background===
| |
| The 1948 [[/Addendum#The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)|Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] is generally held to have been inspired by revulsion at the treatment or the victims of the [[holocaust]] and by wartime aspirations for a better post-war world. Although much of its content was new, there were precedents for its concept of universally innate human entitlements in the [[/Addendum#TheAmerican Declaration of Independence|American Declaration of Independence]] and the [[/Addendum#The French Declaration of the Rights of Man|French Declaration of the Rights of Man]]. Its unprecedented feature was its claim to be doubly universal - to invoke the universal acceptance of agreed obligations, as well as the recognition of what were agreed to be universal entitlements. It was an overstated claim, however, in view of the absence among it signatories of many of the countries that are now members of the United Nations, and the fact that many of its signatories were themselves in breach of its proposed obligations<ref>[http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/Ignatieff_01.pdf Ignatieff, Michael: '' Human Rights as Politics'' and '' Human Rights as Idolatry''] (lectures delivered at Princeton University April 4–7, 2000)</ref>. The actual content of the declaration was, as Justice Michael Kirby recalls
| |
| <ref>[http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/app/&id=1A826DB973993289CA2571A700012832 Michael Kirby: ''The Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Fifty Years On''] (Speech at an UNESCO dinner at Sydney on 5 December 1998)</ref> a political compromise, and rights were included that apparently stood little chance of unqualified implementation.
| |
| | |
| ''[[Acute coronary syndrome|.... (read more)]]''
| |
| | |
| {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" style="width: 90%; float: center; margin: 0.5em 1em 0.8em 0px;"
| |
| |-
| |
| ! style="text-align: center;" | [[Human ights#References|notes]]
| |
| |-
| |
| |
| |
| {{reflist|2}} | | {{reflist|2}} |
| |}
| | </small> |
Latest revision as of 10:19, 11 September 2020
Napoleon (Napoleon Bonaparte or, after 1804, Napoleon I, Emperor of the French) was a world historic figure and dictator of France from 1799 to 1814. He was the greatest general of his age--perhaps any age, with a sure command of battlefield tactics and campaign strategies, As a civil leader he played a major role in the French Revolution, then ended it when he became dictator in 1799 and Emperor of France in 1804 He modernized the French military, fiscal, political legal and religious systems. He fought an unending series of wars against Britain with a complex, ever-changing coalition of European nations on both sides. Refusing to compromise after his immense defeat in Russia in 1812, he was overwhelmed by a coalition of enemies and abdicated in 1814. In 1815 he returned from exile, took control of France, built a new army, and in 100 days almost succeeded--but was defeated at Waterloo and exiled to a remote island. His image and memory are central to French national identity, but he is despised by the British and Russians and is a controversial figure in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.
Rise to Power
Once the Revolution had begun, so many of the aristocratic officers turned against the Revolutionary government, or were exiled or executed, that a vacuum of senior leadership resulted. Promotions came very quickly now, and loyalty to the Revolution was as important as technical skill; Napoleon had both. His demerits were overlooked as he was twice reinstated, promoted, and allowed to collect his back pay. Paris knew him as an intellectual soldier deeply involved in politics. His first test of military genius came at Toulon in 1793, where the British had seized this key port. Napoleon, an acting Lieutenant-Colonel, used his artillery to force the British to abandon the city. He was immediately promoted by the Jacobin radicals under Robespierre to brigadier-general, joining the ranks of several brilliant young generals. He played a major role in defending Paris itself from counter-revolutionaries, and became the operational planner for the Army of Italy and planned two successful attacks in April 1794. He married Josephine (Rose de Beauharnais) in 1796, after falling violently in love with the older aristocratic widow.[1]
- ↑ Englund pp 63-73, 91-2, 97-8
