야옹이 작가와 전선욱 작가는 각자 인기웹툰 여신강림과 프리드로우로 많은 사랑을 받고 있다.

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.

여신강림 여자주인공 외모와 쏙 빼닮은 예쁜 얼굴에 큰 키와 완벽한 s라인 몸매로 화제가 되었습니다. 그리고 2022년 기준으로 야옹이 작가의 나이는 32살입니다. 야옹이 작가 전남편 이혼, 현 남친 전선욱. 야옹이 작가와 전선욱 작가는 각자 인기웹툰 여신강림과 프리드로우로 많은 사랑을 받고 있다.

그리고 2022년 기준으로 야옹이 작가의 나이는 32살입니다.

최근 인스타를 통해서 거의 대놓고 연애 분위기를 내고 있습니다.. 그만큼 인기가 있는 네이버 웹툰이고, 국내 뿐 아니라 중국에까지 수출이 되는 웹툰입니다 게다가 여신강림이라는 웹툰이 더 화제가 된 이유중 하나는 여신강림이라는 웹툰의 작가인 야옹이 작가 분이..

실물 2019년 여신강림 연재 1주년을 맞아 야옹이 작가의 인터뷰와 함께 실물이 공개되었는 데요.

이미 럽스타그램으로 널리 알려져 있었죠. 야옹이 작가 탈세의혹 그리고 전남편 및 이혼이. 야옹이 작가 나이 1991년 4월 24일 29세, 이혼 후 비혼 선언했던 여신강림 야옹이, 프리드로우 전선. 야옹이 작가와 전선욱 작가는 각자 인기웹툰 여신강림과 프리드로우로 많은 사랑을 받고 있다.

과거 야옹이 작가는 솔직하게 이혼 사실을 고백했다.

여신강림 야옹이작가 인스타그램에 들어가보면, 최근 지내고 있는 근황들을 소개하고 있는데요. 앞으로 안 할 예정이고 혼자가 좋다라고 답하면서 이혼 이력을 간접적으로 언급한 바 있습니다. 작가 야옹이가 여전한 미모로 근황을 전했다, 야옹이 작가는 현재 부모님과 함께 지내는 것으로 알려져 있으며 비혼할 계획이라고 말했다, 야옹이 작가 전남편 이혼, 현 남친 전선욱, 선욱 오빠 너무 고맙다고 털어놓았기 때문.

야옹이 작가 탈세의혹 그리고 전남편 및 이혼이.

전선욱 연봉과 야옹이 작가 이혼사유 소송 네이버 블로그. Com › b5152 › 222307774981전선욱 연봉과 야옹이 작가 이혼사유 소송 네이버 블로그, 앞서 이미 결혼한 적이 있었던 야옹이 작가의 결혼과 남편에 대해 알려진 바는 없지만, 야옹이 작가가 직접 결혼은 했었다.

그녀의 남편은 바로 전선욱 작가인데요. 얼마전에 세상에서 제일 예쁜 신부로서 결혼을 올린 야옹이 작가님, 제 목숨 보다 소중히 여기며 지켰고 여전히 지키고 있는 존재라며 아들이 있다며 싱글맘을 밝혔습니다. 야옹이 작가 학력 대학교 한국애니메이션고등학교 애니메이션과 졸업 계원. 13 오후 0313 야옹이작가 인스타그램 갈무리 ⓒ 뉴스1 야옹이작가 인스타그램 갈무리 ⓒ 뉴스1.

이혼 후 비혼 선언을 했던 그의 마음을 흔든 주인공은 프리드로우의 전선욱 작가, 이혼 후 비혼 선언했던 여신강림 야옹이, 프리드로우 전선. 야옹이 이혼 야옹이 작가는 2020년 7월 이혼 사실을 알렸고, 아이는 2013년 23살 때 전남편 사이에서 낳은 아이인 것으로 알려졌습니다, 남친 전선욱 야옹이 작가 나이 차이는. 여기에 전선욱 작가가 오늘 너무 재밌었다면서 하트 이모티콘을 댓글로 달았다. 2018년에 여신강림으로 데뷔했고 여신강림 외에 단편 2편을 연재하였다.

야옹이 @meow91__ Instagram 사진 및 동영상 팔로워 1.

아름다운 그녀의 결혼 당연히 남편은 남친인 진선욱 웹툰 여신강. 출처sns야옹이 작가의 연인 프리드로우 작가 전선욱이 화두에 올랐다. 야옹이 작가 직업 네이버의 웹툰 작가.

jaega_jay tits 야옹이 작가는 현재 남자친구 전선욱까지 언급했죠. 야옹이 작가 탈세의혹 그리고 전남편 및 이혼이. 야옹이, 싱글맘→재혼 완료♥전선욱과 3년 만에 혼인신고. 여기에 전선욱 작가가 오늘 너무 재밌었다면서 하트 이모티콘을 댓글로 달았다. 과거 3억원대 페라리 구입과 수십억원 수익 창출로 화제를 모았던 그의 현재 모습과 함께, 전선욱 작가와의 결혼생활, 아들과의 일상, 그리고. iqos 3 duo 重置

javrank.com 야옹이 작가 학력 대학교 한국애니메이션고등학교 애니메이션과 졸업 계원. 한편 지난해 7월 야옹이 작가는 이혼한 상태임을 밝혔다. 공개된 사진에는 같은 크리스마스트리 앞에서 포즈를 취한 전선욱, 야옹이 작가의 모습이 담겼다. 2일 유 퀴즈에 야옹이 작가가 출연해 화제에요. Com › salgoo921212 › 223835126049버틸 수 있을까. i_cup_bbw

informhack 사실 야옹이 작가는 이혼 사실을 고백한 돌싱이랍니다. 야옹이 작가와 전선욱 작가는 2019년 12월 17일부터 교제를 시작하여 2020년 10월 7일 열애설이 제기되었는데요. 야옹이 작가 이혼, 열애 전선욱 나이차이,포르쉐,학력,몸매,본명,여신강림,인생존망,프리드로우 네이버 블로그 on tv 2,531개의 글 목록열기. 웹툰 작가 전선욱이 야옹이 작가본명 김나영와의 결혼 3주년을 자축하며 아내의 탈세 논란에 대한 심경을 전했다. 그리고 2022년 기준으로 야옹이 작가의 나이는 32살입니다. inkyung fantrie

ja.thisvid.com 그러나 야옹이 작가의 열애에 대해 부정적인 시선으로 보는 누리꾼들은 그녀의 지난해 이혼 사실을 꼬집기도 했는데 이에 대해 그녀는 결혼을했었다. 작가 야옹이가 여전한 미모로 근황을 전했다. 2019년 한 네티즌을 통해 야옹이가 전 남편과 이혼. 이번에는 네이버 웹툰 여신강림을 연재하고 있는 여신강림 작가, 닉네임 야옹이 작가에 대해서 소개하겠습니다. 야옹이 작가 이혼 이유​ 여기에 대해서는 야옹이 작가는 말을 아꼈습니다.

javranko 야옹이 작가 전선욱 만남전 수억대 이혼 위자료 사건 정체. 야옹이 작가는 2020년 7월 이혼 사실을 알렸고, 아이는 2013년 23살 때 전남편 사이에서 낳은 아이인 것으로 알려졌습니다. 야옹이 작가 나이 1991년 4월 24일 29세. 한편 야옹이 작가는 지난해 결혼에 대한 누리꾼의 질문에 했었어요. 야옹이 작가와 전선욱 작가는 2019년 12월 17일부터 교제를 시작하여 2020년 10월 7일 열애설이 제기되었는데요.

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.