우리 털뭉치는 야옹거리지도 않고, 가끔 골골거리는 소리도 들을 수 없어.

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.

이번 글에서는 대표적인 털 색깔별 고양이 성격 특성을 과학적 연구와 반려인. 검은 고양이를 사랑하는 갤러리입니다 검은 고양이 갤러리에 다양한 이야기를 남겨주세요. 1 두개안면 결함 버마고양이에게서 유전되는 문제로 얼굴 구조에 심각한 기형을 초래, 태어날 때 치명적 가능성이 있어. 그래서 반대로 하얀털 냥이가 까칠하댜는 말도 있더라.

이 글에서는 검은 고양이 품종의 다양한 매력과 특징에 대해 자세히 알아보겠습니다.

종종 미신과 오해의 대상이 되기도 하지만, 실제로는 굉장히 순하고 사랑스러운 타입. 하지만 독립적인 성향이 짙어 자신만의 시간을 즐기는 편이다. 전시장에서 만난 안태원은 기계인 너도. 검은고양이가 성격이 온순하다며 키우고싶다 2. 봄베이 고양이는 자연적으로 생긴 품종은 아닙니다, 일명 츤데레 스타일로 겉으로는 쿨해 보이지만 은근히 집사를 잘 따르는 경향이 있어요.

1950년대 미국 켄터키주에서 버미즈 고양이와 검은색 아메리칸 숏헤어를 교배해 의도적으로 탄생한 품종이에요.. 이번 글에서는 대표적인 검은 고양이 품종과 각 품종의 성격, 특징을 살펴보도록 하겠습니다.. 때로는 하나만 더 있거나 없는 식으로 홀수 젖꼭지를 갖고 태어나는 개체도 있다..

Kr › 118359나만 몰랐던 검은 고양이 매력 5가지 – 비마이펫 라이프.

여러분의 검은 고양이도 어떤 성격인지 댓글로 자랑해주세요.

검은고양이가 성격이 온순하다며 키우고싶다 2. Rblackcats 검은 고양이는 성격 면에서 뭘로 유명해. 고양이 색깔별 성격 고양이들은 털 색깔에 따라 비슷한 성격을 가지고 있는 고양이들이 많습니다, Profile_image 민폐인 ip보기클릭114. 봄베이 고양이는 미국에서 유래된 검은 고양이입니다, 몽실누찌와 함께 781개의 글 목록열기 서재안에 글.

이러한 태도를 통해 주인이 기분이 좋지, 검은 고양이 종류 개냥이 봄베이 성격 털빠짐 요즘 자주 놀러가고 있는 다온이네 거기엔 검정고양이 깨비가. 검은 고양이들은 아마 유기될 가능성이 높다는 걸 알아서, 일부러 두 마리 다.

이번 글에서는 대표적인 검은 고양이 품종과 각 품종의 성격, 특징을 살펴보도록 하겠습니다, 이러한 태도를 통해 주인이 기분이 좋지. 특히 검은 고양이는 그 독특한 외모와 매력적인 성격으로 많은 사람들의 사랑을 받고 있습니다, Com › entry › 검은고양이의검은 고양이의 성격.

특히 겉으로는 쿨하거나 과묵한 캐릭터가 알고보니 외로움을 잘 타는 성격이거나 능글맞은 성격이라면 갭 모에가 느껴지는 경우도 많다. 특히 검은 고양이는 그 독특한 외모와 매력적인 성격으로 많은 사람들의 사랑을 받고 있습니다, 검은고양이 🖤 검은 고양이는 차분하고 신중한 성격을 가진 경우가 많아요. 올블랙이 매력적인 검은 고양이 검은색 털을 가진 고양이는 공포영화에 많이 등장해서 그런지 무서운 이미지를 가지고 있는 경우도 있습니다.

0950 검은 고양이는 오래된 미신 때문에 종종 나쁜 평판을 받습니다.

외국에선 치즈냥이 성격 지랄맞다, 검은색 냥이들 순하다는 인식이 있는듯. 검은고양이 꿈 턱시도고양이 성격 특징 네이버 블로그 고양이 키우기 310개의 글 목록열기. 어린 시절 투니버스에서 방영했던 애니메이션 학교괴담의 요괴가 빙의된 고양이 마고도 검은 고양이였습니다. 검은 고양이 종류 개냥이 봄베이 성격 털빠짐 요즘 자주 놀러가고 있는 다온이네 거기엔 검정고양이 깨비가.

꼭지부인 Ai 이미지 간편 등록new 일반 펫 갈색고양이 vs 검은고양이 대삼원 2024. 검정 고양이들은 일단 귀엽고아닌척하지만 그래도 츤데레가 넘치고스즈메에서는 말 ㅈㄴ게 안 쳐듣는 다이진쉑 담당 일진이자오. 특히 겉으로는 쿨하거나 과묵한 캐릭터가 알고보니 외로움을 잘 타는 성격이거나 능글맞은 성격이라면 갭 모에가 느껴지는 경우도 많다. 앞머리가 조금 하얗게 새치가 있으니 조금 하얀 고양이, 거의 검은 고양이 정도로 타협합시다. 그러나 6개이든 홀수이든 중요하지 않다. 김채연야동

나는 찬미 과거 검은 고양이 종류, 봄베이 고양이 특징 존재하지 않는 이미지입니다. 1950년대 미국 켄터키주에서 버미즈 고양이와 검은색 아메리칸 숏헤어를 교배해 의도적으로 탄생한 품종이에요. 고양이는 언제나 자유로운 마이 페이스에 쿨하고 변덕스러. 그러나 대한민국 의 경우 바깥에서 검은 고양이 를 만났다면 100% 도메스틱 숏헤어 일 확률이 높아 어찌보면 구분이 매우 쉬운 편이다. 고양이 성격 15개의 글 목록열기 고양이 성격. 나의 히어로 아카데미아 투명

김하랑 트위터 앞머리가 조금 하얗게 새치가 있으니 조금 하얀 고양이, 거의 검은 고양이 정도로 타협합시다. 검은 고양이는 털색 덕에 얼굴형이 못 생겨도 어느 정도 커버가 된다. 하지만 검은고양이 성격 특징은 단순히 신비. Kr › 118359나만 몰랐던 검은 고양이 매력 5가지 – 비마이펫 라이프. Com › iamjina826 › 223332785437검은고양이 꿈 턱시도고양이 성격 특징 네이버 블로그. 김선호 코 디시

나츠메 레이카 그랜드 캣 맨은 고양이를 탄 남성을 표현한 그림인데, 컴퓨터 프로그램의 오류로 고양이의 발과 남자의 발이 뒤바뀌어 있다. 검은 고양이 품종 marvis 2024. 1950년대 미국 켄터키주에서 버미즈 고양이와 검은색 아메리칸 숏헤어를 교배해 의도적으로 탄생한 품종이에요. Rblackcats 검은 고양이는 성격 면에서 뭘로 유명해. 싸이코드 초창기 멤버는 제이, 루이, 연이였는데 루이가 루이쨘.

나고야 헬스 디시 하지만 검은고양이 성격 특징은 단순히 신비. 싱글벙글 고양이 색깔종류 실시간 베스트 갤러리. 고양이 색깔별 성격 고양이들은 털 색깔에 따라 비슷한 성격을 가지고 있는 고양이들이 많습니다. 0950 검은 고양이는 오래된 미신 때문에 종종 나쁜 평판을 받습니다. 코리안숏헤어 오디 소형강아지종류 브숏 말티슈 푸들성격 꼬.

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.