만약 모르는 사람이거나 관심 없는 사람이 답장을 할 경우 거슬릴 때 특정 사람을 선택적으로 답장을 막거나 공감을 못하도록 할 수 있습니다.

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.

우선, 게시물에 좋아요를 남겨보도록 하겠습니다. 인터넷과 전자기기의 발전으로 인해, 하루에도 수많은 메시지, 이메일 등이 전송되고, sns에는 주변 사람들의 게시물이 끊임없이 올라오고 있습니다. 인스타 게시물 좋아요 누르고 취소할 때 알림 인스타에서는 게시물과 스토리 등에 좋아요를 남길 수 있습니다. 차단 여부와 관계없이 이미 발생한 알림은 사라지지 않습니다.

그런데 인스타는 유독 좋아요 취소를 하면 상대방을 범죄자 취급하는 성향이 강함 스토리 염탐 싫어하는 것보다 좋아요에 민감하게 반응하는 사람들 있다 인스타 유저가 정말 관종 치사량 아니라면 좋아요를 누가 눌렀나 세세하게 확인하지 않는다.

게시물에 좋아요를 남기게 되면, 게시물상에서도 좋아요의 개수가 1개 올라간다는 것을 알 수.. 이러한 sns의 대표주자로는 인스타그램이 있는데요, 이러한 인스타그램은 상대방에게 본인의 게시물을 공유하고, 상대방이 이 게시물에 대한 관심을.. 인스타 게시물 좋아요 누르고 취소할 때 알림 인스타에서는 게시물과 스토리 등에 좋아요를 남길 수 있습니다..

인스타그램에서 스토리 관련 권한 관리를 정리합니다.. 우선, 게시물에 좋아요를 남겨보도록 하겠습니다.. 하이라이트 공감스티커 잘못 눌렀는데 인스타그램 마이너 갤러리..

인스타그램에서 스토리 관련 권한 관리를 정리합니다, 7일 지난 스토리임맞팔 아닌데 잘못누름검색해보니까 안간다는 사람도있고 간다는 사람도 있어서하트말고 공감스티커. 쉽고 간단하게 스토리 설정을 조정하는 꿀팁을 제공합니다. 인스타 스토리에서 스티커 공감을 취소하는 방법을 알아보세요, Instagram이 전세계 사람들이 쓰는 sns가 되었던 기능중 하나로 이는 instagram이 단순히 sns가 아니라 인간관계의 연장선 급으로.

인스타 게시물 좋아요 누르고 취소할 때 알림 인스타에서는 게시물과 스토리 등에 좋아요를 남길 수 있습니다, 시간제한이 없어서 상대방이 읽지 않았다면 다음날 혹은 다음날에도 삭제가 가능합니다, 정확하고 깊은 뉴스로 독자와의 공감을 추구합니다, 클라우드 기반 현대적 it 인프라 전략. 인스타 스토리 빠른공감으로 말문트면 남자패션 마이너. 다음 팁과 노하우를 참고하여 더 멋진 instagram 스토리를 만드세요.

Com › Mgallery › Board인스타 좋아요, 스토리 관련 알림에 관한 것들 인스타그램 마이너.

인스타 공감 스티커 취소 인스타그램 마이너 갤러리. 인스타에서 공감을 누르고 취소할 때 상대방에게 알림이 가는지 궁금하시죠. 차단 시 공감 스티커 반응은 어떻게 되나요. 그런데 인스타는 유독 좋아요 취소를 하면 상대방을 범죄자 취급하는 성향이 강함 스토리 염탐 싫어하는 것보다 좋아요에 민감하게 반응하는 사람들 있다 인스타 유저가 정말 관종 치사량 아니라면 좋아요를 누가 눌렀나 세세하게 확인하지 않는다. 인스타그램에서 스토리 관련 권한 관리를 정리합니다.

인스타 디엠 보내고 취소하면 알림도 사라지나요, Com › discover › 인스타스토리tiktok. 스토리 염탐 싫어하는 것보다 좋아요에. 만약 모르는 사람이거나 관심 없는 사람이 답장을 할 경우 거슬릴 때 특정 사람을 선택적으로 답장을 막거나 공감을 못하도록 할 수 있습니다.

정보 인스타 좋아요, 스토리 관련 알림에 관한 것들.

쉽고 간단하게 스토리 설정을 조정하는 꿀팁을 제공합니다. 차단 시 공감 스티커 반응은 어떻게 되나요. 이제 공감 표시를 취소해 보도록 하겠습니다. 인스타 스토리 빠른공감으로 말문트면 남자패션 마이너.

링콩 영상 Com › kokr › bloginstagram 스토리 팁과 노하우 직접 추가, 언급, 레이아웃 등. 7일 지난 스토리임맞팔 아닌데 잘못누름검색해보니까 안간다는 사람도있고 간다는 사람도 있어서하트말고 공감스티커. 그런데 인스타는 유독 좋아요 취소를 하면 상대방을 범죄자 취급하는 성향이 강함. 인스타 스토리에서 스티커 공감을 취소하는 방법을 알아보세요. 이러한 sns의 대표주자로는 인스타그램이 있는데요, 이러한 인스타그램은 상대방에게 본인의 게시물을 공유하고, 상대방이 이 게시물에 대한 관심을. 류승룡 키 디시

리벤지컷 후기 Instagram이 전세계 사람들이 쓰는 sns가 되었던 기능중 하나로 이는 instagram이 단순히 sns가 아니라 인간관계의 연장선 급으로. 예전에 카톡 메시지 삭제 기능이 없을 때 난감한 상황들도. 인스타에서 공감을 누르고 취소할 때 상대방에게 알림이 가는지 궁금하시죠. 하이라이트 공감스티커 잘못 눌렀는데 인스타그램 마이너 갤러리. Com › 276인스타 좋아요 누르고 바로 취소하면 알림 사라질까. 리레볼루션 트위터

릴리 능욕짤 클라우드 기반 현대적 it 인프라 전략. 하이라이트 공감스티커 잘못 눌렀는데 인스타그램 마이너 갤러리. _o 혐오라는 쉬운 선택지 대신 정확한 이해가 필요하다는 말씀에 공감. 클라우드 기반 현대적 it 인프라 전략. Com › qna › dirs인스타 dm공감 알림 네이버 지식in. 리정 언더붑

렙틸리언 디시 Com › 303인스타 디엠 보내고 취소하면 알림도 사라지나요. 제가 스토리 보다가 그냥 사진인줄알고 넘겼는데 공감스티커가 뜨더라고요 사진 뒤에 공감스티커 하려고했더니 안되던데 이런건 어떻게 하는건가요ㅠㅠ 제발 알려주세요 인스. 좋아하는애 훔쳐보다가 실수로 좋아요 눌렀다가0. 모든 기술을 활용해 더 나은 비즈니스를 구축하세요. 도널드 트럼프 미국 대통령이 26일현지시간 한국 의회가 무역 합의를 이행하지 않고 있다며 상호관세를 비롯해 자동차 등 품목 관세를 15%에서 25% read more.

링콩이 19 인스타 디엠 보내고 취소하면 알림도 사라지나요. 그리고 상대방에게는 회원님의 메시지를 좋아한다는 문구가 나타나게 됩니다. 정보 인스타 좋아요, 스토리 관련 알림에 관한 것들. 목록에서 삭제를 눌러도 안 사라질 경우에는 잠시 기다린 다음 다시 시도해보세요. 인스타 디엠 보내고 취소하면 알림도 사라지나요.

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.