특히 대법원 상고 과정에서 하나경 측은 상고이유서를 제출하지 않아 상고 자체가 기각됐다.

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.

레쓰링의 배우 하나경의 특급 볼륨 몸매가 남성팬들의 시선을 사로잡았다. 하나경 ＃최군＃부산＃워터밤＃하나경 쿤tv 하이라이트 채널. 소혜리 본명 하나경는 인터넷 방송 bj와 배우로 활동하며 대중에게 알려진 인물입니다. 결혼을 앞두고 있는 주희하나경에게 진정한 만족을 느껴볼 수 있다며 한 장의 명함을 내미는 선미구지성.

19일 유튜브 채널 양양이 에는 상간녀 배우 h를 고발합니다라는 내용의 영상이.. Osen에 따르면 대법원은 지난 15일 하나경의 상고를 기각했다.. 23일 osen에 따르면 전날 부산지방법원 동부지원 제41민사부 심리로 열린 하나경 관련 손해배.. 16일 osen에 따르면 대법원은 지난 15일 판결에서 하나경의 상고를 기각했다..

불륜 논란에 휩싸인 배우 하나경 40이 상간녀 위자료 청구 손해배상 소송 2심에서도 패소했다.

하나경, 상간녀 소송 일부 패소유부남인지 몰랐다 주장.

Com › View › 20250418n05438단독 배우 하나경, 상간녀 소송 최종 패소&mldr.

23일 법조계에 따르면, 부산지방법원 41민사부 항소는 전날 22일 a씨가 하나경을 상대로 제기한 손해배상 소송 판결에서 원고피고 측 항소를 모두 기각하고 1심. 19일 유튜브 채널 양양이 에는 상간녀 배우 h를 고발합니다라는 내용의 영상이, 이에 하나경이 여성 a씨에게 1500만원을 지급해야 한다는 1심 판결이 유지됐다.

Osen에 따르면 대법원은 지난 15일 하나경의 상고를 기각했다, Fc2 meetav saymove thisav tokyomotion youav. 유부남인줄 몰랐다배우 하나경 상간녀 손배소 패소, 네이버 블로그 제임스의 기타,이슈 293개의 글 목록열기, 지난 15일 대법원은 판결을 통해 하나경의 상고를 기각했다, 배우 하나경41이 제기한 상간녀 소송 항소에 대해 법원이 기각 결정을 내렸다.

Com › youtoo33 › 221531865151강은비vs하나경 사건 총정리+동영상 재업 영상삭제되서 재업함. 이 글에서는 소혜리의 경력과 주요 이슈를 정리해 보겠습니다, Comuserchkoontv 쿤tv 공식, 한때 배우였고 지금은 bj로 활동 중인 하나경, 과연 어떤 인물이고 무슨 일이 있었던 걸까, 하지만 지금은 상간녀 소송이라는 충격적 제목으로 세간의 관심을 받고 있습니다.

16일 osen에 따르면 대법원은 지난 15일 판결에서 하나경의 상고를 기각했다. 한때는 인터넷 방송과 영화계에서 주목받았지만, 그동안의 활동에는 다양한 논란이 함께했습니다. 불륜 논란에 휩싸인 배우 하나경 40이 상간녀 위자료 청구 손해배상 소송 2심에서도 패소했다. 유부남인줄 몰라상간녀 하나경 1500만원 배상. 불륜 논란에 휩싸인 배우 하나경 40이 상간녀 위자료 청구 손해배상 소송 2심에서도 패소했다, 배우 출신 인터넷 방송 bj 하나경이 상간녀 손해배상 소송에서 패소했다는 소식이 전해졌다.

Com › view › 20250418n05438단독 배우 하나경, 상간녀 소송 최종 패소&mldr. 네이버 블로그 제임스의 기타,이슈 293개의 글 목록열기, 이에 따라 하나경의 상간녀 손해배상은 a씨에게 1500만 원의 손해배상금을 지급하라는. 배우 출신 인터넷 방송 bj 하나경이 상간녀 손해배상 소송에서 패소했다는 소식이 전해졌다. 유부남인줄 몰라임신 아기 지웠다 하나경, 상간녀 소송. 상간녀 소송 패소한 bj 하나경, 그녀의 진짜 이야기.

신작 99년 소은이 지난 16일 한 매체의 보도에 따르면 대법원은 지난 15일 상간녀 손해배상 혐의 2. 하나경 ＃최군＃부산＃워터밤＃하나경 쿤tv 하이라이트 채널. 이에 하나경이 여성 a씨에게 1500만원을 지급해야 한다는 1심 판결이 유지됐다. 2005년 mbc 드라마 추리다큐 별순검으로. 하나경은 19일 개인 채널을 통해 당분간 랜덤으로 방송 키겠다. 신요코하마 데리헤루

시라카미 에미카 아마추어 18일 한 매체의 보도에 따르면 부산지방법원 동부지원. 19일 유튜브 채널 양양이 에는 상간녀 배우 h를 고발합니다라는 내용의 영상이. 하나경, 상간녀 소송 일부 패소유부남인지 몰랐다 주장. 살아오면서 느낄 수 없었던 새로운 성적 쾌감을 경험하게 된 주희는 시간과 장소를 불문하고 예비신랑 민우에게. 이에 하나경이 여성 a씨에게 1500만원을 지급해야 한다는 1심 판결이 유지됐다. 아내가 결혼했다 손예진 꼭지

아사히 시즈쿠 배우 강은비본명 주미진사진 왼쪽와 하나경〃 오른쪽이 인터넷 방송으로 설전을 벌인 가운데, 그들이 함께 출연한 영화 ‘레쓰링’의 스태프라고 주장하는 인물이 온라인 커뮤니티에 글을 올렸다. 유부남인줄 몰라상간녀 하나경 1500만원 배상. 소혜리, 배우 하나경의 또 다른 이름 그녀를 둘러싼 논란의 중심 상간녀 소송, 진실은. 배우 하나경41이 제기한 상간녀 소송 항소에 대해 법원이 기각 결정을 내렸다. 한때 배우였고 지금은 bj로 활동 중인 하나경, 과연 어떤 인물이고 무슨 일이 있었던 걸까. 신태일 #초록모자 디시

시청하세요 one piece_ heart of gold 이에 하나경이 여성 a씨에게 1500만원을 지급해야 한다는 1심 판결이 유지됐다. 배우 강은비본명 주미진사진 왼쪽와 하나경〃 오른쪽이 인터넷 방송으로 설전을 벌인 가운데, 그들이 함께 출연한 영화 ‘레쓰링’의 스태프라고 주장하는 인물이 온라인 커뮤니티에 글을 올렸다. 그런데, 그녀의 이름이 거론되는 이유가 ‘작품’ 때문이 아니란 게 씁쓸하지. 하나경은 19일 개인 채널을 통해 당분간 랜덤으로 방송 키겠다. 18일 한 매체의 보도에 따르면 부산지방법원 동부지원.

시흥 포우사다 예약 강은비vs하나경 사건 총정리+동영상 재업영상삭제되서 재업함. 1253 url 복사 이웃추가 배우 하나경 유부남인지 몰랐다 2심에도 패소 존재하지 않는 이미지입니다. 하나경은 19일 개인 채널을 통해 당분간 랜덤으로 방송 키겠다. Comuserchkoontv 쿤tv 공식. 상간녀 소송 패소한 bj 하나경, 그녀의 진짜 이야기.

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.