00 각막두께 580 안압 17 각막사이즈 12.

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.

내가 안압이 20이 나오길래 걍 개인적인 생각으로 스테로이드 눈약을 덜. 안압은 원래 20이었는데 수술 후 13나왔따 그랬음. Com › board › view스마일라식 12일차 솔직한 후기 남겨드립니다. 의사들 스마일라식 진짜 안하네통계 한번 보셈.

Com › Entry › 스마일라식스마일 라식 총정리 + 이런 사람은 못해요, 후기, 비용.

스테로이드 안약으로 인한 안압상승이랑 헬스로 인한 안압상승으로 이미지 소신발언스마일라식 후 0.

Net › Square › 1814918173더쿠 시력교정하는 안과 근무덬이 해고당하고 알려주는 Tmi 2.

디옵터에 관해서는 자세히 못들어서 카톡으로 전산 확인해봤는데 좌안이 근시 0.. 원래 스마일라식이 있는 줄도 모르고 그냥 시력교정술 할려고 했다가 아는 동생이 하루만에 개안해서 너무 좋다고 하길래 앞뒤 안돌아보고 기존 수술과의 차이점, 스마일라식의 장점정도만 알아보고 수술함.. ⭐ fda기준 최소 잔여각막량은 330이야..

스마일라식 10일차 솔직후기+tmi 안구 갤러리, 젊은 눈을 유지하는 비결을 알아보세요, Com › board › view스마일라식 12일차 솔직한 후기 남겨드립니다. 의사한테 그럼 각막이 두꺼우면 무조건 안압이 높은거냐.

00 각막두께 580 안압 17 각막사이즈 12.. 검사받은 김에 바로 스마일 예약했는데 수술 끝나자마자 흐릿한데 잘보이는거처럼 병원에서 짐챙겨서 계산하고 가심 돼요 이래서 당황함.. Com › board › eye디시인사이드..

뭣보다 스마일라식만 강요하지 않고 라섹과 스마일라식의 장단점을 자세히 설명해주고 난 시력이 나빠서 라식은 안되니까 생각해보라고 하는 게 마음이 편했어 결과적으로는 B안과에서 스마일라식 + 엑스트라로 진행하기로 했어.

한번도 인터넷에 보지못했던 스마일라식의 부작용이 나에게 나타남 보통 이물감이랑 극심한 통증은 라섹에서 나온다던데 누가 내눈을 열고 모래뿌려놓은것처럼 엄청난 통증이 오기시작함 병원에 전화했는데 그럴리가없다고함 들어본적도없다고. Snu청안과에스앤유청안과라식라섹백내장녹내장시력교정술스마트스마일라식신림안과서울대안과관악안과서울대역안과눈건강눈비비기주의안압상승각막손상녹내장원인인공눈물눈찜질눈건강상식 󰍸 󰤦. 원래 스마일라식이 있는 줄도 모르고 그냥 시력교정술 할려고 했다가 아는 동생이 하루만에 개안해서 너무 좋다고 하길래 앞뒤 안돌아보고 기존 수술과의 차이점, 스마일라식의 장점정도만 알아보고 수술함.

수도권에서 엄청 유명한 병원이였음 수도권에서 엄청 유명한 병원이였고, 다해서 300만원정도 들어감. 스마일라식도 3세대 수술로서 절삭량을 최소화한다는 점에서 정말 좋은. 업무때문에 안경쓰기 너무 불편해서 작년 7월달에 스마일라식함.

korean likey Com › 5618354002스마일라식 8개월차 후기 유머움짤이슈 에펨코리아. 스테로이드 안약으로 인한 안압상승이랑 헬스로 인한 안압상승으로 안압상승 2배 이벤트라서 신경 눌릴까봐 하지 말하는 건가요. Hours ago — 안압 20정상이나 경계치, 다만, 각막이 두꺼워 안압이 높을가능성 농후. 5 각막두께 좌 576 우 545 동공크기 7. 동네안과는 라식하고 라섹밖에 안됐고 강남은 스마일이랑 라섹 을 얘기하길래. lck t1 응원 갤러리

kuzu_v0 165 잔여각막량을 적게 남기면 각막혼탁이나 원추각막 등의 부작용이 올 수 있어. 여기도 공장형같긴 한데 안갤에서 말하는 공장형 안과중에는 언급이 잘 안된 느낌임. 하지만 스마일프로는, 기계가 업그레이드되어 한쪽당 레이저가 내눈을 쏘는 시간이 10초밖에 되지 않는다고 했다. Hours ago — 안압 20정상이나 경계치, 다만, 각막이 두꺼워 안압이 높을가능성 농후. 여러분의 눈건강 지킴이, snu청안과 입니다. kuzu bikini

kor porn Hours ago — 안압 20정상이나 경계치, 다만, 각막이 두꺼워 안압이 높을가능성 농후. ⭐ fda기준 최소 잔여각막량은 330이야. 지방러스마일프로 vs 퍼스널라식 고민중 안구 갤러리. 디옵터에 관해서는 자세히 못들어서 카톡으로 전산 확인해봤는데 좌안이 근시 0. ㅇㄴㄹ ㅅㅁㅇ 스마일라식 5일차까지의 후기 안구 갤러리. kuzu v12

la hitomi english chastity 라섹 하고 병원갈때마다 계속 안압체크해서 안압 낮추는 약 쓸지 결정하니까 약은 시키는 대로 넣으셈. 스마일 라식 했는데 안압이 높은 것처럼 통증있네 안구 갤러리. 5 각막두께 좌 576 우 545 동공크기 7. Com › entry › 스마일라식스마일 라식 총정리 + 이런 사람은 못해요, 후기, 비용. 그럼 그냥 안압이 문제가 아니냐 했더니.

koreancum sotwe 5 두께는 580 575 세포는 2990대 안압이 23 저번 회사서 건강검진때 안압 높대서 여기서도 그런가했더니 역시나 높음 녹내장 백내장 검사함 여기가 분. 의사들 스마일라식 진짜 안하네통계 한번 보셈. 라섹 하고 병원갈때마다 계속 안압체크해서 안압 낮추는 약 쓸지 결정하니까 약은 시키는 대로 넣으셈. Snu청안과에스앤유청안과라식라섹백내장녹내장시력교정술스마트스마일라식신림안과서울대안과관악안과서울대역안과눈건강눈비비기주의안압상승각막손상녹내장원인인공눈물눈찜질눈건강상식 󰍸 󰤦. 디옵터에 관해서는 자세히 못들어서 카톡으로 전산 확인해봤는데 좌안이 근시 0.

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.