양민혁 19세레알 마드리드 공식 입장 재확인→감독이 yang 잔류 원해, 후반기도 포츠머스 선수 용환주 기자 dndhkr159@kyunghyang.

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.

그래서 오늘은 ️ 이적설이 왜 나왔는지 ️ 진짜 가능성은 어느 정도인지. ㅠ새로나운 축 독거미 찾아보다가 풍령축이라는 축도 있길래 소리 들어보려고 찾아보니유튜브에 안나오더라구여 퀘이사존, qpr로 임대된 양민혁 레알 마드리드. 양민혁이 레알 마드리드의 관심을 받고 있다는 소식이 큰 관심을 받고 있다. 양민혁 레알 가면 망합니다→베일모드리치 따를까.

양민혁 얘는 2부리그 강등권에서도 벤치로 출전도 잘 못하고.

Com › Best › 9283217440fichajes 레알 마드리드, 양민혁 영입 관심.

Com › hypvnom › 224114032038양민혁 레알 마드리드행. 현 소속팀인 포츠머스도 지역지도 이 소식을 비중 있게 보도했다. 미래를 겨냥한 레알의 선택, 19세 특급 유망주 양민혁에 쏠린 시선 백현기 기자 입력 20251217 0636. 일부 축구 팬들은 해당 소식을 접하고 부정적인 반응을 보였다, 이번 영입으로 레알 마드리드는 내부 육성과 지속 가능한 모델에 대한 의지를 더욱 강화한다.

2425 해외 축구 147개의 글 목록열기. 스포츠조선 김가을 기자존 모우진요 포츠머스 감독이 양민혁 이적설을 일축했다. Com › best › 9283217440fichajes 레알 마드리드, 양민혁 영입 관심. 영국 현지도 선수 이적설에 같은 반응을 보였다.

속보 양민혁 19, 레알 마드리드 해외축구 갤러리.

12월 26일 오전 9시 30분 기준, 양민혁이 1,211표로 선두를 달리고 있다, 한국 축구의 차세대 측면 자원 양민혁19, 포츠머스fc이 메가클럽 레알 마드리드의 레이더에 포착됐다, 언론은 레알 마드리드는 양민혁이 1군에 즉시 영향을 미칠 것으로 기대하지 않는다고 강조했다라며 목표는 양민혁이 주목받지 않는 환경에서 성장하고, 꾸준히 출전 시간을 확보하며, 카스티야의 플레이 스타일에 적응하는 것이라고 강조했다. ’ 인기투표가 12월 23일부터 시작되어 12월 29일까지 진행되고 있다, 그는 성장 가능성이 큰 젊은 선수에게 투자하는 구단의. 디 애슬레틱 캡처 포츠머스 감독이 양민혁의 레알 마드리드 이적설을 전면 부인했다.

가나 국적의 토트넘 홋스퍼 fc 소속 축구선수.. Com › football › 20251220英 관심 폭발.. 양민혁이 레알 마드리드의 관심을 받고 있다..

토트넘 핫스퍼 양민혁 레알마드리드 이적설 이거 뭐냐.

앞서 스페인 언론 피차헤스는 레알 마드리드가 양민혁을 눈여겨 보고 있다. 토트넘의 소식을 주로 전하는 스퍼스웹은 19일이하 한국시각. 스페인 매체 ‘피차헤스’는 16일한국시간 ‘레알 마드리드가 유망주 양민혁의 영입에 진지하게 관심을 보인다.

스포츠서울 박준범기자 양민혁19포츠머스이 뜬금없이 레알 마드리드스페인 이적설에 휩싸였다. 미래를 겨냥한 레알의 선택, 19세 특급 유망주 양민혁에 쏠린 시선 백현기 기자 입력 20251217 0636. 스포츠조선 김가을 기자존 모우진요 포츠머스 감독이 양민혁 이적설을 일축했다.

허수아비 들의 땅 디시 Osen우충원 기자 양민혁을 둘러싸고 불거졌던 레알 마드리드 이적설은 결국 사실무근으로 정리됐다. 레알은 양민혁의 이적료로 약 700만 유로 약 121억원를 고려하는 것으로 전해졌다. 포츠머스에서 인상적인 임대 생활을 보내면서 레알 관심을 받는 중이다. 현 소속팀인 포츠머스도 지역지도 이 소식을 비중 있게 보도했다. 양민혁의 레알 마드리드행 가능성을 포츠머스 감독이 일축했다. 합덕대빵 라이브

허벅지 안쪽 스킨십 그는 토트넘이나 레알 마드리드로부터 양민혁과 관련해 전달받은 내용은 아무것도 없다고 밝혔다. 포츠머스 양민혁 극장골gif 해외축구 갤러리. 한국 축구의 차세대 측면 자원 양민혁 19, 포츠머스fc이 ‘메가 클럽’ 레알 마드리드의 레이더에 포착됐다. Redirecting to sgall. 디 애슬레틱 캡처포츠머스 감독이 양민혁의 레알 마드리드 이적설을 전면 부인했다. 햇냥 나이

해마갤 그는 성장 가능성이 큰 젊은 선수에게 투자하는 구단의. 영국 현지도 선수 이적설에 같은 반응을 보였다. 충격 英 황당 반응양민혁 레알 마드리드 이적설 관심. 아직은 ‘가능성’의 영역이지만, 레알이 직접 이름을 올렸다는 사실만으로도 상징성은 충분하다. Com › football › 20251220그럼 그렇지 양민혁19레알 마드리드은 결국 사실무근무시뉴. 향아치 전생

허벅딸 디시 포츠머스 지역지 더 뉴스는 24일한국시각 1월 이적시장을 앞두고 주목 받는 포츠머스 소식 8개를 보도했다. 양민혁은 대한민국 국가대표이면서 현재 토트넘 홋스퍼 소속이다. 양민혁의 레알 마드리드행 가능성을 포츠머스 감독이 일축했다. 양민혁 레알설은 진짜 어떤세기가 만든거지 피독pdogg. 박찬준 기자 vanbasten@sportschosun.

핸콕 tv 나무 위키 ’ 인기투표가 12월 23일부터 시작되어 12월 29일까지 진행되고 있다. 오피셜양민혁 잉글랜드 2부리그 1위팀 코벤트리 시티로 임대 이적. 12월 26일 오전 9시 30분 기준, 양민혁이 1,211표로 선두를 달리고 있다. 고등윙어 양민혁포츠머스의 레알 마드리드행 가능성이 점점 높아지는. ‘손차박’도 못한 한국인 레알 마드리드 탄생하나.

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.