이름 조이현, 출생 1999년 12월 8일, 키 160cm, 몸무게는 43kg입니다.

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.

슬기로운 의사생활에서 보고 간간히 보이신 배우님 ㅎㅎ. 2017년 웹드라마 복수노트로 데뷔하였고 mbti는 isfp이며 소속사는 아티스트컴퍼니입니다. 한림연예예술고등학교 뮤지컬학을 졸업해 경희대학교 연극영화학과에 진학했습니다. 조이현배우 프로필 나이 키 금수저 집안 드라마 필모그래피.

조이현 배우와 잘 어울리는 Mbti인 것 같습니다.

2017년 웹드라마 복수노트 데뷔일로부터 +3017일째.. 키는 161cm이고 혈액형은 b형입니다.. 조이현은 10일 진행된 화상 인터뷰에서 조곤조곤한..

키스신 Ng만 17번 조이현, Mbti마저 지우학 최남라 인터뷰 종합 배우 조이현이 지금 우리 학교는을 통해 글로벌 스타가 됐다.

드라마 지금 우리 학교는 촬영 조이현 배우와 잘 어울리는 Mbti인 것 같습니다.

조이현 Mbti 유형은 매력적인 배우의 성격을 알아보기 위한 열쇠입니다.

조이현은 한국 드라마와 영화에서 많은 사랑을 받고 있는 배우입니다, 샛별에서 ‘글로벌 루키’가 된 조이현이 ‘지금 우리 학교는’에 대해 말했다, 슬기로운 의사생활에서 보고 간간히 보이신 배우님 ㅎㅎ. 지금우리학교는 등장인물 남라 배우 조이현 mbti 나이 인스타 키 네이버 블로그 드라마영화 13개의 글 목록열기. Mbti도 최남라의 성향을 닮아간 것.

instagram의 조이현 cho yihyun @yihyun_1208님 프로필 게시물 48개 팔로워 258만명, 팔로잉 75명, 게시물 48개 조이현 cho yihyun @yihyun_1208님의 instagram 사진 및 동영상 보기. 2017년 웹드라마 복수노트로 데뷔 read more. instagram의 조이현 cho yihyun @yihyun_1208님 프로필 게시물 48개 팔로워 258만명, 팔로잉 75명, 게시물 48개 조이현 cho yihyun @yihyun_1208님의 instagram 사진 및 동영상 보기. 감독님께서 그런 부분이 닮았다고 해주셨고, 배우들도 잔잔.

토마코마이 풍속 조이현 mbti부터 출연작, 닮은꼴과 과사까지 조용한 인기의 이유 네이버 블로그 mbti 탐구 545개의 글 목록열기. 2012년 미스춘향 진 출신이며 2013년 파이브돌스, 2015년 다이아 멤버로 활동했다. 가족 사항으로는 한림연예예술고등학교 뮤지컬과 경희대학교 예술디자인대학 연극영화학과 휴학이라고 합니다. 조이현 한눈에 보는 프로필 & 필모그래피 이름 조이현 cho yihyun 생년월일 1999년 12월 8일 출생지 서울 광진구 키 161cm mbti isfp 학력 한림예고 뮤지컬과 졸업, 경희대 연극영화과 휴학 가족 부모님, 오빠 데뷔 2017년 웹드라마 ‘복수노트’ 소속사 아티스트. 조이현은 10일 진행된 화상 인터뷰에서 조곤조곤한 목소. 토키토 무이치로 일러스트

트럼프 시진핑 키 다 다른 성향을 가진 사람들이 작품으로 모이는데, 모든 배우들과 우정을 돈독하게. 조이현은 10일 진행된 화상 인터뷰에서 조곤조곤한. 그런데 드라마 하면서 istp가 나오는 거예요. Mbti는 myersbriggs type indicator의 약자로, 성격 유형을 판단하는 심리학적 도구입니다. 키스신 ng만 17번 조이현, mbti마저 지우학 최남라 인터뷰 종합 배우 조이현이 지금 우리 학교는을 통해 글로벌 스타가 됐다. 트위터 r 자위

토바 이쿠 펜을 들어 취재진의 질문을 메모하고 생각을 정리한 뒤. 조이현은 한국에서 굉장히 인기 있는 배우이다. 조이현은 한국에서 굉장히 인기 있는 배우이다. Mbti는 isfp로, 예술가 타입의 성격을 지니고 있어요. 드라마 지금 우리 학교는 촬영 시에는 istp였다고 합니다. 톳테누리 게임

트위터 video tool 조이현조이현 프로필배우 조이현은 1999년 12월 8일 서울특별시. 📋 조이현 기본 프로필👉 배우 조이현 이스타그램 👈. 조이현 배우와 잘 어울리는 mbti인 것 같습니다. 하지만 조이현의 매력은 그녀의 연기 실력뿐만 아니라 개인적인 매력에도 있습니다. 무척 좋아하고, 실력도 좋다고 합니다.

타치바나 메리 성형전 키스신 ng만 17번 조이현, mbti마저 지우학 최남라. 조이현 mbti부터 출연작, 닮은꼴과 과사까지 조용한 인기의 이유 네이버 블로그 mbti 탐구 545개의 글 목록열기. 프로필 출생 1999년 12월 8일 서울특별시 광진구 능동 국적 대한민국 신체 160cm, 230mm, b형 가족 부모님, 오빠1998년생 학력 경복초등학교졸업 오륜중학교졸업 한림연예예술고등학교뮤지컬과졸업 경희대학교연극영화학휴학 데뷔 2017년 웹드라마 소속사 아티스트컴퍼니 mbti isfp 영화. 조이현조이현 프로필배우 조이현은 1999년 12월 8일 서울특별시. Isfp는 진정한 의미의 예술가라고 표현되는데요.

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.