이 제품은 샤넬 특유의 고급스러운 패키지와 함께, 부드러운 텍스처로 입술에 자연스럽게 밀착되면서도 선명한 발색을 보여준답니다.

Will Human Rights Survive a Trumpian World?

Authoritarian Advances Threaten Rules-Based Order

The global human rights system is in peril. Under relentless pressure from US President Donald Trump, and persistently undermined by China and Russia, the rules-based international order is being crushed, threatening to take with it the architecture human rights defenders have come to rely on to advance norms and protect freedoms. To defy this trend, governments that still value human rights, alongside social movements, civil society, and international institutions, need to form a strategic alliance to push back.

To be fair, the downward spiral predated Trump’s reelection. The democratic wave that began over 50 years ago has given way to what scholars term a “democratic recession.” Democracy is now back to 1985 levels according to some metrics, with 72 percent of the world’s population now living under autocracy. Russia and China are less free today than 20 years ago. And so is the United States.

Of course, democracy is not a panacea for human rights violations; the US and other longtime democracies have their own histories of colonial crimes, racism, abusive justice systems, and wartime atrocities. More recently, authoritarian leaders have exploited public mistrust and anger to win elections and then dismantled the very institutions that brought them to power. Democratic institutions are crucial to represent the will of the people and keep power in check. It’s no surprise that whenever democracy is undermined, rights are too, as evident in recent years in India, Türkiye, the Philippines, El Salvador, and Hungary.

In this context, 2025 may be seen as a tipping point. In just 12 months, the Trump administration has carried out a broad assault on key pillars of US democracy and the global rules-based order, which the US, despite inconsistencies, was, with other states, instrumental in helping to establish.

In short order, Trump’s second-term administration has undermined trust in the sanctity of elections, reduced government accountability, gutted food assistance and healthcare subsidies, attacked judicial independence, defied court orders, rolled back women’s rights, obstructed access to abortion care, undermined remedies for racial harm, terminated programs mandating accessibility for people with disabilities, punished free speech, stripped protections from trans and intersex people, eroded privacy, and used government power to intimidate political opponents, the media, law firms, universities, civil society, and even comedians.

Claiming a risk of “civilizational erasure” in Europe and leaning on racist tropes to cast entire populations as unwelcome in the US, the Trump administration has embraced policies and rhetoric that align with white nationalist ideology. Immigrants and asylum seekers have been subjected to inhumane conditions and degrading treatment; 32 died in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody in 2025, and as of mid-January 2026, an additional 4 have died. Masked immigration enforcement agents have targeted people of color, using excessive force, terrorizing communities, wrongfully arresting scores of citizens, and, most recently, unjustifiably killing two people in Minneapolis, whose deaths Human Rights Watch has documented.

The US president of course has the authority to tighten US borders and enforce stricter immigration policies. The administration is not, however, entitled to deny legal process to asylum seekers, mistreat undocumented migrants, or unlawfully discriminate. In a well-functioning democracy, no electoral mandate should supersede domestic legislation, constitutional protections, or international human rights law. Trump’s team has repeatedly bypassed these guardrails.

The violations have not stopped at the border. The Trump administration used a 1798 law to send hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to an infamous prison in El Salvador, where they were tortured and sexually abused. Its blatantly unlawful strikes on boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific extrajudicially killed more than 120 people whom Trump claims were drug traffickers.

After the US attacked Venezuela and apprehended its president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, Trump claimed the US would “run” the country and control its vast oil reserves. Despite paying lip service to human rights concerns under Maduro at the United Nations, Trump has worked with the same repressive apparatus to further US interests. Many Western allies have chosen to stay silent about these lawless moves, perhaps fearing erratic tariffs and blowback to their alliances.

Trump’s foreign policy has upended the foundations of the rules-based order that seeks to advance democracy and human rights, even if imperfectly.

Trump has boasted that he doesn’t “need international law” as a constraint, only his “own morality.” His administration has politicized the US State Department’s annual human rights report, stepped away from the global prohibition on antipersonnel landmines, voiced support for rewriting international rules on asylum, and skipped the UN’s Universal Periodic Review of the US’ human rights record.

His administration withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council and the World Health Organization and plans to quit 66 international organizations and programs that it describes as part of an “outdated model of multilateralism,” including key forums for climate negotiations. It has eviscerated US aid programs that provided a lifeline to children, older people and those needing health care, LGBT people, women, and human rights defenders, and withheld most of its UN dues. 

Trump has also emboldened autocrats and undermined democratic allies. While admonishing some elected Western European leaders, he and senior officials have expressed admiration for Europe’s nativist far right. He has favored autocrats such as Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Türkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, while continuing decades of US support to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

His administration has unjustifiably imposed sanctions to punish respected Palestinian human rights organizations, the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) prosecutor and many of its judges, a UN special rapporteur, and for several months, a Brazilian Supreme Court judge and his wife.

The institutional response in the US to Trump’s power grabs has been shockingly muted. Much of Congress, controlled by his own party, has not challenged his supercharged expansion of executive power. The leaders of the US’ most powerful technology companies have made significant donations and sought to placate the president. Some big law firms and prestigious universities have made deals rather than assert their independence, and some media organizations seem afraid to attract the president’s ire.

Has the US switched sides on the human rights playing field? While US engagement with human rights institutions has always been selective, China and Russia have long pursued an illiberal agenda. They stand much to gain from a US government that now expresses open hostility to universal rights. China and Russia remain strategic rivals of the US, but all three countries are now led by leaders who share open disdain for norms and institutions that could constrain their power.

Together, they wield considerable economic, military, and diplomatic power. If they were to consistently act as allies of convenience to erode global rules, they could threaten the entire system. Already, a loose international network of countries such as North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Myanmar, Cuba, and Belarus work in concert with Russia and China. These leaders share very little ideologically but align in undermining human rights and promoting a regressive international agenda. In word and in practice, the US government is now helping them in this endeavor.

The US’ weakening of multilateral institutions also dealt a serious blow to global efforts to prevent or stop grave international crimes. The “never again” movement, born from the horrors of the Holocaust and reignited by the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides, spurred the UN General Assembly to embrace the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in 2005. Meant to guide international intervention to prevent and stop atrocities in tandem with efforts to prosecute and punish serious crimes, R2P made a real difference in places like the Central African Republic and Kenya.

Today, R2P is rarely invoked and the ICC is under siege. In addition to Trump’s far-reaching sanctions, in December 2025 a Moscow court sentenced the ICC prosecutor and eight of its judges to prison terms in absentia. Moreover, despite being ICC fugitives, in 2025, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin was welcomed by Donald Trump in Alaska, and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to Hungary, an ICC member state at the time, at Orban’s invitation.

Twenty years ago, the US government and civil society were instrumental in galvanizing a response to mass atrocities in Darfur. Sudan is burning again, but this time under Trump, with relative impunity. Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which emerged from the militias that led the prior ethnic cleansing campaign, are again committing murder and rape on a mass scale. A growing body of evidence indicates that the UAE, a longtime US ally that recently made multi-billion-dollar deals with Trump, is providing the RSF with military support.

In the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Israeli armed forces have committed acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, killing over 70,000 people since the October 2023 Hamas-led attacks on Israel and displacing the vast majority of Gaza’s population. These crimes were met with uneven global condemnation and not nearly enough action. Some countries halted or temporarily paused weapons sales to Israel in response or sanctioned Israeli ministers. Trump, however, continued a long-standing US policy of almost unconditional support to Israel, even as the International Court of Justice is weighing allegations of genocide and has issued binding orders under the Genocide Convention to protect Palestinians’ rights.

Trump announced in February an alarming US plan to transform Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East” free of Palestinians, which would be tantamount to ethnic cleansing. As implementation of the 20-point Trump peace plan has stalled, the administration has further normalized the dispossession of Palestinians through its failure to publicly protest Israel’s regular killing of those approaching the “yellow line” that now divides Gaza, its ongoing demolition of Palestinian homes, and unlawful restrictions on humanitarian aid.

In Ukraine, Trump’s peace efforts have consistently downplayed Russia’s responsibility for serious violations. These include indiscriminate bombing, coercing Ukrainians in occupied areas to serve in the Russian military, systematic torture of Ukrainian prisoners of war, the abduction and deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia, and the use of quadcopter drones to hunt and kill civilians. Rather than applying meaningful pressure on Putin to end these crimes, Trump publicly berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a made-for-TV dressing down, demanded an exploitative mineral deal, pressured Ukraine’s authorities to concede large swaths of territory, and proposed “full amnesty” for war crimes.

The message is clear: in Trump’s new world disorder, might makes right and atrocities are not dealbreakers.

본문 기타 기능 안녕하세요, 프라이빗 레드입니다. Kr › product › 117886루쥬 코코 플래쉬 샤넬 소비자평점 4. 바르는 순간 분위기 확 살아나는 컬러예요. 샤넬 루쥬 코코 플래쉬는 컬러, 광택, 보습감을 동시에 잡은 립스틱이에요.

퓨미 Fume 내가 좋아하는 립제품 리뷰🩵 샤넬 루쥬 코코.

색조화장하면 샤넬 립스틱에 기능을 더한것 같음 느낌 바르면 촉촉해지고 반짝반짝한것이 입술이 더 예뻐지는것 같아요 항상 가격이 문제죠 ㅎㅎ 그래도 하나쯤 있음 기분 좋아지는 느낌 1 Bluepsyche 24세복합성여.

너무너무 좋아하실만한 샤넬 핑크 립스틱.. 샤넬 루쥬 코코 플래쉬 118 프리즈 freeze 랍니다.. 샤넬 90 쥬르는 제가 정말 좋아하는 샤넬립스틱인데요..

샤넬 루쥬 코코 플래쉬 90번 쥬르 리뷰입니다.

쥬르 프리즈는 컬러 위주로, 샤넬 입생로랑은 제형위주로 봐주시면 좋을 것 같아요.

12종 발색에도 입술상태가 괜찮을 정도로 수분감이 넘쳐요 넘쳐 Chanel Rouge Coco Flash 샤넬 루쥬코코플래쉬 가격 3g 4만5천원 ✓5월26일 온라인 선.

샤넬 루쥬 코코 플래쉬 90번 쥬르 리뷰입니다. 지금 구매하고 무료 샘플을 받아보세요, 단 한 번의 터치로 미끄러지듯 부드럽게 입술에 발리며 입술에 닿는.

하렘호텔 치트 샤넬 루쥬코코 플래쉬 90번 리뷰mlbb컬러 자연스럽고 고급진. 샤넬 루쥬 코코 플래쉬 82호 리브 제품의 정보 및 후기리뷰. 2 밀착력 밀착은 잘 되는 편이였는데 바르고 음파음파를 안하면 오일이 함유되어서 그런지 약간 립라인에 겉돌아서 손으로 펴발라줬어요. 오늘은 특별한 선물을 찾고 있는 분들을 위해 추천할 만한 아이템을 소개하려고 합니다. Com › postview샤넬 루쥬 코코 플래쉬 90 jour의 발색, 매력과 장단점 리뷰. 하츠투하츠 공항 민폐 더쿠

픽시브 여자똥 ️ 샤넬 특유의 고급스러움 + 실용성까지 갖춘 립 ️샤넬 루쥬 코코 플래쉬 90번 쥬르, 맑고 촉촉한 데일리 립스틱 찾고 계셨다면 오늘 리뷰가 도움이 되셨을까요. 약간 슬림한 편이고 무게도 가벼운 편. 샤넬 루쥬 코코 플래쉬 97은 특별한 레드 컬러로, 화사하면서도 세련된 무드를 연출하는 립스틱이에요. 퓨미 fume 내가 좋아하는 립제품 리뷰🩵 샤넬 루쥬 코코. Com 트라이 온에서 루쥬 코코 플래쉬 눈부시게 빛나는 선명한 컬러 가상 체험을 즐기세요. 하늘 주걱턱

피딩자료 - 아들 동갑 대학생 두명한테 이쁨 받으며 정신모차리는중 오늘은 샤넬 립스틱 추천템인 루쥬 코코 플래쉬 91 보헴 컬러를 사용한 후기를. 소중한 시간을 내어 리뷰를 작성해주셔서 감사합니다. 샤넬 루쥬 코코 플래쉬 발색 리뷰, 촉촉한 샤넬 신상 립스틱 ♥︎. Eng 샤넬 루즈 코코플래쉬 best컬러 9컬러 리뷰 chanel. 이 제품은 여러번 덧바르기 좋은 제품인거 같아요. 플렉스 효랭

하츠투하츠 이안 겨드랑이 광고 사르르르녹아든다 new chanel. 오늘은 립 제품 리뷰를 들고 왔습니다. 이 제품은 여러번 덧바르기 좋은 제품인거 같아요. 색조화장하면 샤넬 립스틱에 기능을 더한것 같음 느낌 바르면 촉촉해지고 반짝반짝한것이 입술이 더 예뻐지는것 같아요 항상 가격이 문제죠 ㅎㅎ 그래도 하나쯤 있음 기분 좋아지는 느낌 1 bluepsyche 24세복합성여. 촉촉하고 생기있게 사용 가능합니다비싼데 돈 값한다라는 느낌은 없어요, 착색은 없고 자연스럽게 사용 가능해요.

하시모토 아리나 샤넬 루쥬 코코 플래쉬 68 얼팀 리뷰1 발색력 발색은 부드러우면서도 투명하게 마치 사베트 셔벗 아이스크림 같은 발색력,, 그렇지만 색상 진하게 그대로 발색되었어요. 샤넬 루쥬 코코 플래쉬 84 이미디어트 겨울 누드립 위시리스트 청산. 오늘은 2주 전 구입한 샤넬 베스트셀러 립스틱 리뷰를 준비하였습니다. 제품명 rouge coco flash 90 jour 쥬르 2. 샤넬 루쥬 코코 플래쉬 118 프리즈 freeze 랍니다.

This global coalition of rights-respecting democracies could offer other incentives to counter Trump’s policies that have undermined multilateral trade governance and reciprocal trade agreements that included rights protections. Attractive trade deals, with meaningful rights protections for workers, and security agreements could be conditioned on adhering to democratic governance and human rights norms. Democracy already comes with benefits. While autocracies have generally fostered conflict, economic stagnation, or kleptocracy, as evidenced in multiple academic studies, including the work of the Nobel Prize-winning economist Daron Acemoglu, democratic institutions reliably yield economic growth. 

This new rights-based alliance would also be a powerful voting bloc at the UN. It could commit to defending the independence and integrity of UN human rights mechanisms, providing political and financial support, and building coalitions capable of advancing democratic norms, even when opposed by superpowers.

Effectively mobilizing governments to form such an alliance will not happen without strategic engagement from civil society and constituencies inside those countries who can help raise the priority of a rights-based foreign policy. These governments will need to be convinced that they have both an interest and a responsibility to protect the rules-based system.

Projects of this nature are bubbling up. Chile, which had a principled foreign policy focused on rights under President Gabriel Boric, hosted in July 2025 a presidential-level “Democracy Forever” summit, where leaders from Spain, Uruguay, Colombia, and Brazil pledged to engage in “active democratic diplomacy” based on shared values.

The Hague Group, led by Malaysia, South Africa, and Colombia, formed in January 2025 in “defense of international law” and in solidarity with Palestinians. Over 70 countries from all regions signed a joint statement defending multilateralism at the UN. Earlier, in 2017, former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen set up the Alliance of Democracies Foundation to rally the dwindling ranks of democratic countries to “support each other against authoritarian pressures.”

Whatever its precise contours, an alliance of rights-respecting democracies would offer a hopeful counterpoint to the authoritarian trope of China’s and Russia’s leaders standing alongside North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, observing military hardware in a parade in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in September. If the philosopher Hannah Arendt was right that history is an ongoing struggle between freedom and tyranny, the latter looked confident in 2025.

Yet, even in the worst of times, the idea of freedom and human rights is enduring. People power remains an engine for change. In the US, “No Kings” marches have drawn millions, protesters in Chicago, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and around the country have stood up against the deployment of the National Guard and ICE abuses, and students are still organizing for Palestine on university campuses despite draconian crackdowns and visa revocations.

Buoyed by popular resistance, South Korean parliamentarians impeached their president to prevent him from grabbing power through martial law. Grassroots aid efforts by Sudan’s emergency response rooms, Hong Kong’s fire relief, Sri Lanka’s cyclone relief community kitchens, and Ukrainian mutual aid and solidarity collectives represent the best of this trend.

In 2025, Gen Z protests against corruption, inadequate public services, and poor governance in Nepal, Indonesia, and Morocco brought to the forefront the need for governments to listen to their youth and tackle corruption and inequality. But as the difficulties of restoring rights in Bangladesh after years under an authoritarian government illustrates, gains won through public mobilization can easily be lost unless democratic participation and free expression remain unassailable.