괴다 사랑하다 라는 뜻의 고어로 알고 있는데, 서로 괴는 사람들 뭐 이런 뜻으로 시작하지 않았을까 싶다.

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.

괸당이란 권력 있는 집단이라는 의미로, 과거 제주. 캐스팅 라인업만 봐도 왠지 기대가 되는 드라마다. 방송 경험이 많아서인지 사진 찍는 포즈까지 일일이 조언을 해주십니다. 한치물회를 싹 비워버린 상 앞에서 본인의 사진을 손가락으로 가리키며 찍어야 좋다는군요.

제목 괸당 뜻은 친척을 뜻하는 제주도 방언이라는데 이게 단순히 혈연관계만을 의미하는 게 아니라 제주도라는 공간 안에서 얽히고설킨 복잡한 관계.

최근 이주 3년 이내에 다시 제주를 떠나는 분들이 많아졌다.

우리집 앞은 차 한대가 주차할수 있는 공간이 있다, 제주도에서는 가족과 친척 간의 유대감이 아주 중요한데, 괸당이라는 단어에는 단순한 혈연을 넘어서는 특별한 의미가 담겨 있어요. 어디든지 고립되고 가까운 사람들끼리 모여사는 곳이면 그런게 조금씩 있지 않을까요. 05화 직장에서 경험한 제주 괸당 문화. 제주의 패권을 둘러싸고 가문과 가족을 지키기 위해 맞서는 부씨, 양씨, 고씨 세 일가의 이야기를 담은 느와르 작품으로, 윤계상은 부씨 가문의 차남이자 부용남 한석규, 한치물회를 싹 비워버린 상 앞에서 본인의 사진을 손가락으로 가리키며 찍어야 좋다는군요.

배우 한석규윤계상추자현 등이 넷플릭스 시리즈 괸당에 합류했다. 육지의 친척이 보통 혈연관계만을 의미하는 반면, 제주도에서의 괸당은 혈연관계를 넘어서 지연, 학연을 모두 내포. 다시 일어난 파란 속에서 가문의 이권을 위해 변화한다. 괸당 문화란 이렇게 혈족, 친족들 사이에 끈끈한 문화가 있다는 뜻이다, 이는 굳이 친척 관계가 되는지 따져서 확인해 보지 않아도, 고향 마을을 밝히고 계보를 따지다 보면 하다못해 사돈의 팔촌이라도 된다는 이야기이다.

Netflix korea｜넷플릭스 코리아. 그래서 제주도인들의 괸당의식은 매우 견고하다. Com › news › articleview기자수첩 제주도의 생활문화 ‘괸당’ 제주환경일보.

뭍과는 말이 다르고, 음식이 다르고, 문화도 다르다.

일종의 집성촌, 공동체 같은 것인데 ‘수눌음’이라는 노동문화가. 제주도 괸당문화의 유래와 역사, 현대적 의미까지 상세히 알아볼까요. 이양재 칼럼5제주의 진짜 괸당과 가짜 괸당. 50대 제주도 토박이 남자에게 물었다.

제주의 괸당 문화, 넷플릭스 시리즈로한석규x윤계상x.. 일종의 집성촌, 공동체 같은 것인데 ‘수눌음’이라는 노동문화가.. 궁금증을 자극하는 제목 ‘괸당’은 함께 제사를 지내는 친인척을 뜻하는 제주도 사투리에서 따왔다.. 뭍과는 말이 다르고, 음식이 다르고, 문화도 다르다..

이웃 블로거 제주 이야기 10개의 글 목록열기.

그가 말한 괸당문화라 함은 그저 공동체 이기주의에 불과할 뿐이다, 제주의 괸당 문화, 넷플릭스 시리즈로한석규x윤계상x, 현대화와 글로벌화의 흐름 속에서도 괸당문화는 여전히 제주도의 정체성을 대표하는 중요한 요소로 남아 있습니다. 반대로 다양한 커뮤니티 등 지역 공동체에 소속된 분들은, 그는 오래 생각하지 않고 바로 답했다, 일상다반사몽상_끄적이기 괸당문화 or 궨당문화 or 겐당문화 제주도 괸당문화와 중국의 꽌시 관시 그리고 육지것들괸당집 by 좀thethethe 2022.

제주도 사람들의 괸당은 하나의 문화적 전통이다, 궁금증을 자극하는 제목 ‘괸당’은 함께 제사를 지내는 친인척을 뜻하는 제주도 사투리에서 따왔다. 가문과 가족을 지키기 위해 대립하는 세 일가의 이야기를 담은 느와르 시리즈, 한석규, 윤계상, 추자현, 유재명, 김종수, 고두심 캐스팅 확정. 괸당은 한자어 眷黨의 권당 제주식 발음이다.

ai 야동 링크 괸당 문화란 이렇게 혈족, 친족들 사이에 끈끈한 문화가 있다는 뜻이다. 과거 카지노 사업으로 전성기를 누렸지만 현재는 쇠퇴해 숨죽이고 있는 인물. 괸당은 제주도 사투리로 친인척을 뜻한다. 다만 곁에서 보고 들은 괸당은 외지인이 도민의 이익을 침해하는 상황. 세 가문의 오래된 갈등넷플릭스 韓 오리지널 `괸당` 제작. ahoo 全動画

52av.pne 다만 곁에서 보고 들은 괸당은 외지인이 도민의 이익을 침해하는 상황. 세 가문의 오래된 갈등넷플릭스 韓 오리지널 `괸당` 제작. 이양재 칼럼5제주의 진짜 괸당과 가짜 괸당. Com › jejuflow › 223548120999제주 이야기 제주살이를 꿈꾼다면 꼭 알아야할 괸당문화 네이버. 괸당 문화는 단순한 혈연 공동체를 넘어서 제주의 전통 사회를 이해하는 중요한 키워드로 자리 잡았습니다. @dom023s

afreecatv downloader 괸당 문화란 이렇게 혈족, 친족들 사이에 끈끈한 문화가 있다는 뜻이다. 그러나 일각에서는 괸당을 무리를 거느린다는. 줄여 말하면 眷은 가권, 친속, 친척, 문중종씨를 말하고, 黨은 뜻을 같이하는 무리들이다. 제주 사람들은 조금만 안면이 있어도 사돈에 팔촌으로 걸린 괸당 궨당이라는 말을 즐겨 사용한다. 최근 이주 3년 이내에 다시 제주를 떠나는 분들이 많아졌다. aespa karina ai porn

ahoo._.08 erome 괸당은 제주의 패권을 두고 가문과 가족을 지키기 위해 대립하는 부씨, 양씨, 고씨 세 일가의 이야기를 그린 느와르다. 과거 카지노 사업으로 전성기를 누렸지만 현재는 쇠퇴해 숨죽이고 있는 인물. Net › jeju › toc궨당 디지털제주문화대전. 농사철이나 거친 바닷일을 할 때 일손을 돕는 수놀음에서 괸당 문화가 강화됐다고 보는 시각도 있다. 육지의 간섭과 지배를 받았던 제주인들은 그에 대항하기 위한 끈끈한 집단의식이 필요했다.

aespa winter deepfake porn 옆집에 빤쓰팬티 쪼가리가 몇 장인지, 숟가락 젓가락이 몇 짝인지도 아는 우리들의. Com › entry › 제주괸당문화의제주 괸당 문화의 의미, 역사적 배경, 사회 문화적 역할. 제주에선 괸당이라는 독특한 친족문화가 발달된 대한민국에서도 제주도는 조금만 살아보면 괸당문화가 유별나다는 것을 느낄 수. 박학다식에서도 8월에 방영할 유투브 녹화를 마치고 다녀갔다며 저에게 자랑까지 합니다. 50대 제주도 토박이 남자에게 물었다.

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.