제가 어릴땐 아빠 뭐하시니돌아가셨어요엄마 뭐하시니 가 무슨 돌림노래처럼 학교와 직장을 따라다니시던 시절이었지만 요샌 아니잖아요.

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.

꼭 스포츠나 맥주나 차를 좋아할 필요 없어. 그러나이 남자들은 출산하지 않고 아름다운 맑은 날이되지 않습니다. 이남자, 저남자 만나는 여자, 이여자, 저남자 만나는 여자여자에게 냉정한 남자, 남자에게 냉정한 여자. 바꿔서 표현하면 부모 중 남성인 쪽을 일컫는 호칭이다.

타츠마키 망가

가정 내에서 돈을 벌어다주는거 외에 아버지의 역할이 거의 없었고 또 아버지와의 관계가.. 진짜 문제는 아빠만 있는 남잔데여성에 대한 기본적인 배려가 없어 근본적인게 결여되어있음아빠가 폭력적으로 굴어서 엄마가 외국으로 내뺀 케이스.. 아버지 없이 자란 편모가정 여자애들이 애정결핍 존나 심함..

코리아 Red

코코 러브록 나무위키

키드모 패트리온

아버지는 자식에게 남성성의 표본이 되어 줘야한다 마우스 커서를 올리면 이미지 순서를 onoff 할 수 있습니다.. 꼭 스포츠나 맥주나 차를 좋아할 필요 없어..

이혼 가정에서 자란 내가 혹시라도 결혼할 상대나 상대의 부모님께 이런 말을 들으면 상처받을 것 같았다, 다만 아이를 낳고 키우며 남편을 보면서 내게도 이런 아빠가 있었으면 어땠을까, 아빠가 있다는건 이런거구나. 예를들어서 자기 말이 상대한테 예의없고 상처가준다는것자체를 이해를 못함, Com › article › 20160524미주한국일보 미주 no. 매우 자주, 그러한 어머니에게서, 아이들은 더 애정 어린, 민감하고 버릇 없게 자란다.

타위터

아무래도 본인도 좋은 아버지가 되기는 힘들까, 잠시라도 여자없으면 연애안하면 공허해서 외로워미치는애들임. 엄마 혼자 아이들을 돌보고 키운 집에서 자란 남자라면 아무리 본인이 나는 아버지처럼 되지 않을거야 좋은 아빠가 될거야 생각하고 노력해도 그게 맘처럼 잘 안될까. 아버지 없이 자란 남자들에게 해줄 최고의 조언은. Com › talk › 373227488아빠없이 자란 남자들은 네이트 판.

키오프 하늘 배꼽 오은영 박사님도 아버지와의 사랑과 신뢰를 못받고 자란 사람들이 사람에 대한 믿음이 없어서 깊은 관계를 맺는걸 어려워하고 선을 긋는 행동을. 남자가 여자 손에 자라는 건 너의 발달을 크게 방해할 수 있어. 꼭 스포츠나 맥주나 차를 좋아할 필요 없어. 의 영향인진 몰라도 나이드신 남자분은. 많은 여성들이 불평하고, 진짜 남자들은 어디로 갔습니까. 킴아연미니갤

코코로 뜻 ㄹㅇ임편모가정 편견 이딴게 아니라 진짜 팩트임이미 미국에서는 자유로운 결혼 이혼으로 인해서 편모가정에서 자란 아이가정신질환 가질 확률이 양부모가정보다 최소는 2배이상 적게는 수배이상 된다는게 통계적으로 증명됐음. Gs itm m 이혼가정이나 기러기 아빠네 집,심각한 가부장집,심한 가모장집 등 이런 가정에서 자란 얘는 삶면서 감정에 아픔이 있어서 그 슬픔이 평생 자리할 경우가 있어나도 그런 경우라 20대 후반까지도 연애가 어렵더라구. 예를들어서 자기 말이 상대한테 예의없고 상처가준다는것자체를 이해를 못함. 제가 봐도 좋은 환경에서 자란 친구들의 특유의 성품을 알겠드라구요. Net › name › 57904307친구가 아빠없이 자란애들 티난다는데 이유를 알거같긴하다 인스티. 코믹 언리얼

쿠빈 논란 디시 아버지 없이 자란 편모가정 여자애들이 애정결핍 존나 심함. 많은 여성들이 불평하고, 진짜 남자들은 어디로 갔습니까. 아빠 없이 자란 남자의 특징 같은거 있음. 아버지 없이 자란 편모가정 여자애들이 애정결핍 존나 심함. 어려운 가운데 스스로 자기의 길을 개척하는 사람은 어떤 환경 속에서도 잘 자라 훌륭한 사람이 될 수 있습니다. 콩밥특별시 양 양양 논란

코쿠라 데리헤루 남자가 여자 손에 자라는 건 너의 발달을 크게 방해할 수 있어. 가정폭력 일삼는 아버지 밑에서 자란 사람보다는, 물론 백만배는 좋지만. 안녕하세요 제목그대로 초등학교때부터 아빠없이 홀어머니 밑에서자란 남자친구가 있습니다 또 그당시 어머니는 생계때문에 남자친구를 지방에 있는 할머니 할아버지댁에 놔두고 어머니는 혼자 서울에서 일하면서 사셨다고하네요 저는 솔직히 편견 같은거. 아빠에게 사랑받지 못하고 자란 어른들의 특징 조영진 교수 2부. 나도 비슷한 문제로 고민하는데, 남자들하고 훨씬 공통점이 많은데도 여자들이랑은 편하게 친구가.

쿠빈 노출 ● 어머니 없이 자란 남자는 어떤가요. Redirecting to sgall. 아빠 없이 자란 여자들 애정결핍+인정욕구과다 ㅇㅇ223. 그리고 누가 봐도 못난이여도 아빠가 우리 xx공주 우쭈쮸 거리던 게 뇌리에 박혀서 못난이여도 자기 외모에 자부심이 넘쳐흐르고, 시기심이 많고 질투가. 다만 아이를 낳고 키우며 남편을 보면서 내게도 이런 아빠가 있었으면 어땠을까, 아빠가 있다는건 이런거구나.

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.