흥미돋역대급 심사위원 의견 갈린 ＜저스트 메이크업＞ 푸른소 메이크업 대결 1.

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.

흥미돋역대급 심사위원 의견 갈린 ＜저스트 메이크업＞ 푸른소 메이크업 대결 1. 여기에 총 60인의 메이크업 아티스트들이 출연해, 그야말로 뷰티계의 올스타전 같은 분위기를 자아내고 있습니다. 근데 서옥은 대체할 당장 참가자 중 원장님 뽑아도. Ash island와 bobby가 게스트로 출연했다.

쿠팡플레이 새 예능 저스트 메이크업의 심사위원진이 전격 공개됐다.

Kr › News › 6401865mc 이효리 저스트 메이크업 심사위원은.

Ash island와 bobby가 게스트로 출연했다. 정샘물 이사배야 개취를 놓고봐도 나름의 업적이 있는 탑티어니까 ㅇㅈ. 오디션 프로듀서 및 심사위원으로도 활동하고 있는데, 2023년 하반기에 방송한 일본 현지화 k팝 걸그룹.

현재 메이크업계에서 가장 핫한 인물이라고 한다, 이슈 저스트 메이크업 심사위원 정샘물이 미국에서 유학하면서 한창 실험정신 불타올랐을때 했던 메이크업 8,539 25 무명의 더쿠 stheqoo. 저스트 메이크업 심사위원들의 특별한 비전과 역할 ‘저스트 메이크업’은 대한민국을 대표하는 네 명의 최고의 메이크업 아티스트들이 모여 경쟁하는 초대형 예능 프로그램입니다. 총 60명의 메이크업 아티스트가 무대에 올라, 자신만의 철학과 스타일을 작품처럼 선보이며 경쟁한다. 저스트메이크업 심사위원 4인의 절대 단종 방지템 알아.

무명의 더쿠 1127 조회 수 1587.. 저스트메이크업 심사위원 4인의 절대 단종 방지템 알아..

Net › square › 3954753370더쿠 저스트 메이크업 심사위원 정샘물이 미국에서 유학하면서 한창, 참가자명단, 심사위원, 우승후보까지 4화, 6화, 8화 내용 공개. 쿠팡플레이 저스트 메이크업 mc 심사위원 참가자 60인 브러쉬 정보 계급장 떼고 뷰티 대결. 쿠팡플레이 새 예능 저스트 메이크업의 심사위원진이 전격 공개됐다. 팻맥그라스, 바비브라운, 샬롯틸버리,로라메르시에, 프랑수아즈 나스.

쿠팡플레이 저스트 메이크업 Mc 심사위원 참가자 60인 브러쉬 정보 계급장 떼고 뷰티 대결.

저스트메이크업 시즌1 심사위원들 참가자로 나오고 시즌2, 저스트메이크업 심사위원 정샘물 원장, 서옥 원장이 각각, prologue blog 어바웃뷰티 guest 내가 읽은책들.

쿠팡플레이 예능 저스트 메이크업이 오는 10월 3일 첫 공개를 앞두고 mc심사위원참가자의 전체 라인업을 17일 공개했다. 현재 메이크업계에서 가장 핫한 인물이라고 한다. 사진주의 무쌍 코잘봄 데일리 살구메컵 보구.

요즘 Ott 쿠팡플레이에서 방영중인 K뷰티 뷰티서바이벌 프로그램으로 상당히 인기있는 프로가 있는데 바로 이효리의 저스트 메이크업이예요.

이사배는 거의 감탄만 하다 끝나는거같고 아모레 그 남자분은 심사 기준점이 뭔지도 모르겠어 기억에 남는게 없음 실력있는거랑 쑈예능에서 심사 잘하는거랑은 또 별갠가싶기도 하고 아직 3화밖에 안해서 더 보면 아쉽게 느껴진 부분들 좋아졌음 좋겠다. 특히 이번 프로그램은 이효리 mc 진행과 함께 정샘물이사배서옥이진수라는 ‘뷰티 심사위원 드림팀’이 합류해 시작 전부터 화제를 모았는데요. 회차를 거듭할 수록 시청량이 폭증하며 쿠팡플레이 1위 콘텐츠에 등극했다.

Com › qmffnrhdwn › 224072674353저스트 메이크업 심사위원 이진수 아모레퍼시픽스토리로 만난 아름다. 난 저스트메이크업 볼수록 심사위원이랑 참가자 기준이 뭔지 의문임ㅋㅋ 공지가 길다면 한번씩 눌러서 읽어주시면 됩니다. 무명의 더쿠 1102 조회 수 630.

픽시브 작품 추천 여기에 총 60인의 메이크업 아티스트들이 출연해, 그야말로 뷰티계의 올스타전 같은 분위기를 자아내고 있습니다. 현재 메이크업계에서 가장 핫한 인물이라고 한다. 이사배는 거의 감탄만 하다 끝나는거같고 아모레 그 남자분은 심사 기준점이 뭔지도 모르겠어 기억에 남는게 없음 실력있는거랑 쑈예능에서 심사 잘하는거랑은 또 별갠가싶기도 하고 아직 3화밖에 안해서 더 보면 아쉽게 느껴진 부분들 좋아졌음 좋겠다. 심사위원부터 팬까지 한 팀이 몰표받아. 저스트 메이크업 심사위원은 누구일까요. 하지원 꼭지

하마다 가요제 심지어 머리카락으로 만든 의상까지 입힘 2. 정샘물 이사배야 개취를 놓고봐도 나름의 업적이 있는 탑티어니까 ㅇㅈ. Com › qmffnrhdwn › 224072674353저스트 메이크업 심사위원 이진수 아모레퍼시픽스토리로 만난 아름다. 저스트메이크업 시즌1 심사위원들 참가자로 나오고 시즌2. 흑백요리사와 저스트 메이크업의 가장 큰 차이점은 심사위원의 수가 둘에서 넷으로 늘었다는 점. 핑퐁쇼 디시

하지원 닮은 배우 정샘물 이사배야 개취를 놓고봐도 나름의 업적이 있는 탑티어니까 ㅇㅈ. 이슈 저스트 메이크업 심사위원 정샘물이 미국에서 유학하면서 한창 실험정신 불타올랐을때 했던 메이크업 8,539 25 무명의 더쿠 stheqoo. 흥미돋역대급 심사위원 의견 갈린 ＜저스트 메이크업＞ 푸른소 메이크업 대결 1. 저스트 메이크업 심사위원 정샘물이 미국에서 유학하면서 한창 실험정신 불타올랐을때 했던 메이크업 1. 여기에 총 60인의 메이크업 아티스트들이 출연해, 그야말로 뷰티계의 올스타전 같은 분위기를 자아내고 있습니다. 피폐 순애 디시

한국 온리팬스 저스트메이크업 심사위원중에 서옥 심사평이 대체로 가장. 손테일 진짜 소가 움직이는 것 같다는 평을 들음 심지어 머리카락으로. 저스트메이크업 보는데 심사위원이 제일 잉스러워. 근데 서옥은 대체할 당장 참가자 중 원장님 뽑아도. Com › yacho1225 › 224037699080저스트 메이크업 공개일 몇부작.

하연이 질싸데이 정샘물 이사배야 개취를 놓고봐도 나름의 업적이 있는 탑티어니까 ㅇㅈ. 저스트 메이크업, 심사위원부터 60인 출연진까지 총정리 ft. 쿠팡플레이추천 쿠팡플레이가 야심차게 선보인 뷰티 서바이벌 예능. 무명의 더쿠 586덬 20251108. 참가자명단, 심사위원, 우승후보까지 4화, 6화, 8화 내용 공개.

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.