April 2025 – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

Alterations to the State Department’s Human Rights Reports Threatens Global Accountability

In a move that has alarmed human rights advocates and foreign policy experts alike, the U.S. State Department is undergoing a dramatic reorganization—one that includes stripping key content from its annual human rights reports. As NPR reported on April 18, 2025, internal memos instructed staff to remove references to over 20 categories of human rights violations, including prison conditions, restrictions on freedom of assembly, political corruption, and violence against marginalized groups.

These reports have long served as a global standard, used by scholars, advocates, journalists, and international institutions to assess rights conditions worldwide. Their sudden dilution is not just bureaucratic streamlining; it’s a quiet dismantling of accountability.

Image 1: A shocked reporter holding a camera. Source: Yahoo Images.

What’s Changing—and Why It Matters

Since 1977, the U.S. Department of State has released detailed annual country reports on human rights practices. Though sometimes criticized for political inconsistency, these reports have been broadly recognized as crucial documentation of abuses across the globe—from extrajudicial killings in authoritarian states to censorship, labor exploitation, and systemic discrimination.

But under the new directive, entire categories of analysis are being erased. Sources within the department confirmed that topics such as discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, abuse of asylum seekers, and politically motivated arrests will no longer be discussed. These are not fringe issues—they reflect core violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), including:

Article 5: Protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
Article 9: Freedom from arbitrary arrest
Article 19: Freedom of expression
Article 21: Equal access to public service and fair governance
Article 2: Freedom from discrimination on any basis

When the U.S. selectively omits these rights from its assessments of other nations, it undermines the very foundation of universal human rights—that they are indivisible, interdependent, and apply to all people, everywhere.

The Chilling Effect of Omission

The most dangerous censorship is often the quietest. When a government stops discussing certain abuses, the signal to others, particularly authoritarian regimes, is clear: these violations no longer matter enough to be named.

In countries where local journalists, dissidents, or NGOs depend on international validation to draw attention to abuses, U.S. human rights reports can serve as a shield. Without public acknowledgment from a prominent diplomatic actor, local violations are easier to obscure, deny, or normalize. Human Rights Watch, for example, has long cited State Department reports as part of its advocacy efforts, particularly in places where press freedom is under threat.

This shift will also hinder asylum claims, many of which rely on credible evidence of persecution or unsafe conditions. When categories like “political persecution” or “anti-LGBTQ+ violence” are scrubbed from official reports, it becomes harder for individuals to prove their eligibility for protection under international refugee law.

Even beyond humanitarian concerns, this policy shift has strategic costs. The U.S. has historically positioned itself, however imperfectly, as a moral voice in international affairs. This voice is now compromised. Diplomats and foreign service officers will be asked to promote democratic values abroad without the backing of their own agency’s complete assessment of those values.

Former ambassador Tom Malinowski noted that this move “betrays the people in repressive countries who depend on the U.S. to tell the truth about what they’re facing”. It also gives foreign governments an easy out: why heed U.S. criticism when that criticism is suddenly partial and politically selective?

A Broader Retrenchment of Rights Infrastructure

These changes aren’t occurring in isolation. They’re part of a broader rollback. As Reuters and AP have reported, the State Department’s ongoing reorganization includes eliminating 132 offices and slashing 15% of domestic staff, with many of the cuts affecting divisions focused on human rights, democracy, and civil security.

The office of the Undersecretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights has been dissolved, with responsibilities now folded under a new, less focused Coordinator of Foreign and Humanitarian Affairs. Programs on global women’s rights, diversity and inclusion, and atrocity prevention have been defunded or absorbed into more general roles.

Image 3: People protesting for their democratic freedom. Source: Yahoo Images.

Taken together, this appears to be a conscious effort to deemphasize rights-based diplomacy at a time when such diplomacy is critical for millions of people around the world. From a human rights perspective, this shift represents a failure of positive obligation. Governments that claim leadership in human rights are not merely expected to avoid violations—they are also responsible for upholding, promoting, and defending these rights domestically and internationally.

The United States’ retreat from honest human rights reporting signals that some lives and liberties are no longer worth documenting, let alone defending. This undermines Article 1 of the UDHR itself: that all people are “endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Instead, the new approach views human rights as selective and strategic tools, rather than universal moral commitments. That’s not just an administrative shift. It’s an ideological one.

Woman with tape over her mouth — Image 4: Woman silenced with tape over her mouth. Source: Yahoo Images.

Conclusion: What Happens When the Witnesses Go Silent?

Human rights reporting isn’t just about keeping records. It’s about bearing witness, recognizing suffering, and giving people living under oppression the affirmation that they are seen. When a government as influential as the United States chooses to omit entire categories of injustice from its global reports, it effectively tells victims: “Your pain doesn’t count.”

In the long arc of justice, documentation is everything. We cannot fight abuses we refuse to name. And we cannot claim to protect rights if we edit them for convenience. If we want to live in a world where power is held accountable, the act of recording the truth must remain sacred. Otherwise, silence becomes complicity—and complicity, policy.

Hungary Leaves the International Criminal Court

Earlier this month, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban declared that the country would withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC), becoming the first European Union member state to pull out of the decades-old global institution. This decision came during Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Hungary, where Orban refused to comply with his ICC-mandated responsibility to arrest the Israeli Prime Minister, thus rejecting the legitimacy of the court’s arrest warrants. Though an individual incident, this event is indicative of a global shift away from international institutions, raising concerns regarding the future and authority of the ICC and global organizations as a whole. As numerous countries, the United States included, fight against democratic backsliding, international law is crucial in ensuring democratic standards are upheld, making this withdrawal worth monitoring.

What is the ICC?

The ICC is a permanent international court designed to prosecute political officials and military members following their initiation or continuation of international law violations, specifically targeting perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. Unlike the International Court of Justice, the United Nations’ branch that pursues cases between nations, the ICC functions independently from any pre-existing international organization and focuses solely on individual responsibility and perpetration of crimes.

The idea of establishing a court of global accountability originated after World War I; however, the largest push came after World War II and the global outrage surrounding the Holocaust. While an international court had yet to be established, ad hoc tribunals were created, prosecuting Nazi military and political officials. In between then and the court’s creation, other ad hoc tribunals have been organized, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. These events popularized the establishment of a permanent, global court. In 1998, the UN General Assembly met in Rome, finalizing a treaty that would then become the Rome Statute, the foundational document of the ICC. 120 countries voted to establish the court, and by 2002, the statute was adopted, gaining the necessary 60 ratifications needed for it to enter into law, thus granting the ICC international legitimacy and authority.

Under the Rome Statute, the ICC is given universal jurisdiction, meaning that perpetrators of international law violations can be tried even if the events occurred in another country. This also grants the court the ability to investigate allegations, with claims being brought to the ICC or based on the suspicions of the institution. If the court finds that an individual has likely played a direct role in the initiation or continuation of a crime outlined by the ICC, an arrest warrant will be issued. As part of ratifying the Rome Statute, member states assume the responsibility to comply with these rulings and are expected to detain those who receive arrest warrants if they enter the nation’s territory. After detention, trials are conducted, and a final ruling is eventually made. Since the court lacks an overarching enforcement mechanism, this organization relies heavily on state compliance to maintain legitimacy. Without this, the ICC loses its prosecutorial power and therefore its purpose.

Large meeting at International Criminal Court. Seats in a semicircle around a large screen and panelists — Image 2: ICC Assembly of States. Source: Yahoo Images

Why is Hungary’s Withdrawal Important?

Though Hungary’s absence won’t single-handedly undermine the ICC’s functional capacity, it does signify the country’s shift away from global institutions and further descent into authoritarianism. Since Orban took office in 2010, the country has become an “illiberal state,” a term Orban uses with pride. This reality is demonstrated in his views on international institutions. When discussing his reasons for withdrawing, Orban expressed that “Hungary has always been half-hearted” on its commitment to what he stated was the “political court” of the ICC. Furthermore, under his regime, Hungary has isolated itself from the democratic values of the European Union, with Orban having captured public institutions and the formerly independent media. He has undermined judicial independence, creating a government oversight committee that tracks the domestic courts and placing partisan judges in politically important positions. Orban has also been consistent in his support of Vladimir Putin, criticizing EU-imposed sanctions on Russia and openly condemning support for Ukraine. These actions have ultimately isolated the country from the Union and its foundational values, thus undermining the EU’s efforts to foster a unified Europe.

Hungary’s rejection of the ICC is also representative of the current global climate, as there has been an international decrease in support for global institutions. Since the issuance of Netanyahu’s arrest warrant, several countries, such as Belgium, Germany, and France, have remained unclear as to whether they would comply with ICC orders, disregarding their responsibility as set out under the Rome Statute. Similarly, Europe has seen a rise in Euroscepticism, or a distrust in the authority of the European Union. This perspective has pervaded several powerful political parties throughout Europe, such as the Alternative for Germany Party in Germany, the Freedom Party in Austria, the Law and Justice Party in Poland, and the Georgian Dream Party in Georgia. These parties have openly criticized the authority granted to the EU and the need for sovereign countries to align their policies with an overarching institution. Meanwhile, numerous countries are reverting to conservative, traditional cultural and political norms, further increasing hesitancy toward a liberal international order that advocates for equality and progressive policies.

This shift is not unique to Europe, as the United States has also been open in its rejection of the ICC and other international institutions. Recently, the Trump administration has placed sanctions on ICC officials, signifying distrust in the court. Furthermore, the US has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement, the World Health Organization, and certain branches of the United Nations. With one of the world’s hegemonic powers withdrawing and delegitimizing international institutions, it is understandable why this perspective has been normalized on a global scale.

Hungarian PM Orban talks at a European Union podium, with EU flags behind him — Image 2: Orban talks at the EU. Source: Yahoo Images

The Case for International Law and the ICC

While many argue that international law and institutions violate a country’s sovereignty, the reality is that this relinquishment can be viewed as necessary to ensure long-term stability. Historically, nations have been seen as fully autonomous, lacking international institutions to follow; however, this autonomy allows countries to encroach on the rights of others, whether domestically or internationally, thus creating instability that jeopardizes the rights and safety of individuals. By surrendering some control over an independent nation to an international body, sovereignty can be enhanced. For example, by allowing international policy to dictate environmental policy, sovereignty could be strengthened by enabling countries to live without fear of climate-related destruction. In the case of the ICC, by granting a global court the authority to enforce international law, egregious behavior can face punishment, hopefully deterring these actions and thus providing greater long-term stability. In other words, relinquishing some domestic power to an international agency can enhance aspects of sovereignty as countries can live without fear of external encroachment on their rights. So, while international law might not yet be perfect, there is an argument to be made that it is worth attempting to fix rather than rejecting it altogether.

Conclusion

Hungary’s withdrawal from the ICC is representative of a broader shift away from the modern-age liberal order. Though its absence won’t directly interfere with the court’s ability to try violators of international law, it does bring into question the future of the ICC and other international institutions, as numerous countries, both within the EU and beyond, see a decline in their support of democratic values and global organizations. However, not all hope is lost; if current member states can uphold their commitments to the Rome Statute, the ICC can remain a powerful authority and deterrent against committing egregious crimes. In doing so, trust in the ICC can be consolidated, ensuring it and other global organizations play a role in the future of international politics. Because of this potential, international law remains a cause worth advocating for, as it can help ensure long-term stability during a time of global uncertainty.

Water Scarcity and Initiative for Sustainability in Peru

An alarming concern continues to grow in Latin American countries regarding drinking water. Due to water being an internationally recognized human right, international human rights law makes states work towards achieving universal access to water and sanitation. The implementation of these rights involves ensuring availability, accessibility, affordability, quality, safety, and acceptability.

When water demand exceeds the supply due to scarcity caused by local ecological conditions and economic scarcity resulting from inadequate water infrastructure, we are dealing with water stress. It is a global problem, as billions of people worldwide lack access to adequate water, which affects public health, economic development, and international trade and can lead to conflict and mass migration. Moreover, as a consequence of the increased droughts, there is food insecurity, which leads to malnutrition, death in children, and an increase in infectious diseases.

The Causes of Water Stress

In Latin America, despite efforts to increase water access, 77 million people still lack access to safe water, according to the World Water Council and the National Water Commission (Comisión Nacional del Agua, in Spanish). There is a lack of treatment of sanitation waste, which leads to untreated sewage in rivers, lakes, and underground aquifers. What’s more, natural phenomena such as hurricanes and El Niño have had significant repercussions on the water sources and infrastructure of the affected countries.

In 1998, Hurricane Mitch killed 9,000 people in Central America, temporarily displacing 75% of the Honduran population. El Niño and La Niña have caused large-scale droughts and more severe storms. Furthermore, in 2020, Hurricanes Eta and Iota caused internal displacement in Guatemala. In 2023, Mexico experienced its driest year on record, while Uruguay declared a water emergency, according to the UN Development Programme. At the same time, Chile, Bogotá, and Mexico City were reported to be at risk of water depletion. Due to the progression of these phenomena, scientists believe that climate change will continue to intensify weather patterns.

Aftermath of Eta and Iota in Honduras. — Image 1: The aftermath of Eta and Iota in Honduras. Source: Yahoo Images.

Within the region, Peru has one of the lowest percentages of access to safe drinking water. Since the Amazon spans across three countries, droughts in the Amazon and other events have affected Peru. According to the UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund) press release above on inequalities in access to safe drinking water in Peruvian households, the northeastern region of Loreto, Peru, is the most affected by ongoing drought, mostly impacting remote communities. There has been biodiversity loss in 22 of the country’s 26 regions due to wildfires and increasing air pollution.

Current and Future Initiatives

Because remote communities are the most affected, environmental studies and more sustainable efforts would benefit 63,000 small farmers in rural poverty who live in vulnerable ecosystems. Therefore, different projects have been developed to optimize irrigation systems and promote better water management.

Rio Seco pond in Peru. Source: Yahoo Images. — Image 2: Rio Seco Pond in Peru. Source: Yahoo Images.

One of the projects is PRO ICA (Project Pisco-Villacurí-Lanchas). The National Authority of Water requested the UN Program for Environment and UNOPS (United Nations Office for Project Services) to implement the project in El Valle de Rio Pisco (Rio Pisco Valley) and the ravine of Rio Seco (Dry River). These are located on the south coast of Peru, one of the country’s most important agricultural zones, which faces several problems with water contamination, scarcity, and supply.

To secure clean water, the Nature Conservancy (TNC) established three water funds for Lima, Piura, and Cusco. This came partnered with two pieces of legislation that established a unique, self-sustaining mechanism to fund water source protection. Its goal is to maintain the most efficient and effective natural infrastructure projects and nurture relationships with the communities that affect the conservation areas. These initiatives have been assigned to help strengthen existing initiatives such as farmers’ committees, modern irrigation proposals, productive reconversion, and habitat restoration. Over 1,600 participants, including government officials and irrigation workers, are involved in workshops to improve knowledge on subjects such as numerical modeling, groundwater hydrology, and the use of specialized equipment. As agencies of the United Nations (UN), UNEP (UN Environment Programme) and UNOPS are committed to achieving the objectives of sustainable development.

Cuenca del rio pisco — Image 3: The basin of Rio Pisco in Peru. Source: Yahoo Images.

Since mountain glaciers are melting due to climate change and the rainy season is becoming shorter, new initiatives focus on reviving pre-Incan technology. According to a BBC report, civilizations in the Los Andes Mountains had to deal with seasonal rain; therefore, they developed hydrological innovations, a strategy invented by the Huari (WAR-I), Amunas are water canals that take water from mountain streams and move it to infiltration basins. This approach allows the water to go back to the rivers that supply Lima. Therefore, having more amunas would allow for a higher supply during the dry season. Thanks to these findings, Sedapal, the water and sewage service, plans to invest $3 million in building two more water canals.

One obstacle Peru faces regarding water management is the gray areas of enforcement jurisdiction. Despite its laws to protect wetlands, actors such as the NGO Forest Trends work to define those areas by meeting with authorities and developing a manual so the locals know who the points of contact are and what to do (e.g., taking photos and GPS coordinates, harvesting plants, ensuring water flow, etc.). There is uncertainty about the recovery time for the soil, but there’s hope that the Peruvian people can help nature repair itself by using natural techniques.

Although many scientists agree that using nature-based solutions to address climate change is beneficial, critics view it as a diversion from other key conversations, such as transitioning to clean energy or reducing large-scale emissions of fossil fuels. Ultimately, initiatives that revive ancient practices are a step toward a future where we can eventually find alternatives for our energy sources and produce less pollution. A key contribution to making these initiatives happen is continuous international coordination. Many freshwater sources cross international borders, requiring cooperation among nations. As a result, collaboration, funding, and the revival of native practices could make a difference in addressing water scarcity.

Peace Constitutions: Costa Rica and Japan

What do you know about peace and peace-building processes? If you have previously studied the concept of peace, you may have encountered peace constitutions and their role in promoting both positive and negative peace.

In peace studies, peace is not limited to the absence of violence (negative peace); it also includes the social and economic institutions and structures that sustain societies (positive peace). In other words, as Martin Luther King put it in his response to an accusation that he was disturbing the peace during the Montgomery Bus Boycott, “True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice.” Learn more about peace from the fifth edition of David P. Barash and Charles P. Webel’s Peace and Conflict Studies, which elaborates on the aspects of positive peace, historical and current conflicts, nationalism, and terrorism.

Constitution on paper — Image 1: A written constitution. Source: Yahoo Images.

Constitution-building is the process of creating or amending that involves negotiating, drafting, and implementing fundamental principles and frameworks for a nation to work, according to PeaceRep. Peace agreements can be a constitution or have the constitution included within them. Charlotte Fiedler from the German Institute of Development and Sustainability analyzes the effects of writing a new constitution after conflict. This political scientist argues that constitution-making is part of the peace-building process, and empirical evidence indicates that it allows countries to start anew with a new governance framework, rethink previous regimes, and, therefore, improve their societal peace outlook. According to Fiedler, post-conflict constitutions are linked to trust-building, meaning that longer constitution-making processes are more successful in sustaining peace than shorter, forced processes. Both Japan’s and Costa Rica’s peace constitutions were drafted after conflicts, and both countries have seen respective benefits.

Japan’s Postwar Constitution

The 1947 constitution introduced more power to Japanese society by placing the military under civilian control, granting new rights to women, and reformulating the responsibilities of the imperial family. After WWII, Japanese cities were devastated, and post-conflict planning started. The U.S. diplomat Hugh Borton, who was part of these plans, claimed that Japan needed a new one: “to truly steer away from the imperial institution.” The Japanese wanted to amend their 1889 Meiji Constitution, but the Allies didn’t think this was enough. Therefore, General MacArthur created three principles to serve as an outline for a new constitution: no longer being able to wage war, a parliamentary system, and more power to the people.

After a lot of back and forth between the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers staff (SCAP), the Japanese cabinet, and the first post-war general election, a new constitution was drafted. The SCAP included in Article 9 that Japan would renounce the use of force as a tool for addressing international issues. Some agreed with this article, showing Japan’s commitment to peace, but others weren’t keen on the idea. Ultimately, it was amended to read that Japan would not keep armed forces strong enough for any acts of aggression

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution includes a no-war clause, in which the government renounces war as a means of sovereignty and refuses to settle disputes using military force. It also includes wording such as “We, the Japanese people, desire peace for all time… we have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world.” Because of the language in it, the constitution played a major role in shaping Japan’s national identity of pacifism.

Lessons from Japan

Image 2: Japan Self-Defense Forces in the forest. Source: Yahoo Images.

As established in “Peace in Theory and Practice” under Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution, a review by Lawrence W. Beer, an expert on the politics of Japan and other Asian countries, reveals a few lessons that these peace constitutions teach the world. First, a renunciation of war is acceptable, desirable, and realistic. Second, the military does not have to be the center of international and national planning; instead, the economy, democracy, human rights, and the environment should be the center of national security concerns. Third, major peaceful changes in culture and system are possible even in the most nationalist, military-driven nations. Despite these efforts and lessons, some government officials have worked to reinstate a stronger military force and larger access to arms. Hence, time will tell how Japan will uphold its pacifist identity.

Costa Rican Constitution

Costa Rica committed to peace and democracy after years of internal conflict and unrest. Early on, after gaining independence from Spain, Costa Rica focused on its internal development, avoiding prolonged conflicts and opting for defense rather than aggression. After a period of peace when the military focused on maintaining internal order, Federico Tinoco seized power through a coup and established an authoritarian rule heavily dependent on military power. Tinoco was not well received, and this dictatorship affected public opinion on the military and its role in society. The event that pushed Costa Rica to make its final decision to abolish its military was the 1948 Civil War, which left thousands dead and had people urging for a peaceful country. The aftermath of the civil war led to the decision that same year.

Painting celebrating the peace constitution of Costa Rica — Image 3: Painting celebrating Costa Rica’s peace constitution. Source: Yahoo Images

The codification of the 1949 constitution declared Costa Rica a neutral nation, prohibiting the use of force by its army. Article 12 states, “The Army as a permanent institution is abolished,” and instructs the funds to be allocated to public welfare programs instead. What was before the job of the military became the job of the civilian police force, whose main objective is community policing and human rights?

Finally, the Costa Rican Constitution, in Article 50, guarantees the right to live in a healthy and environmentally balanced environment, making both the state and the public responsible for conserving their natural resources. Following this article, the country has passed legislation to address fishing and mining, as well as utilizing renewable sources for a large portion of its energy.

Lessons from Costa Rica

Without the burden of military expenditure, Costa Rica was able to focus more on its social services, providing better resources for its nation. This investment in education and healthcare resulted in one of the highest literacy rates in Latin America and a healthcare system with universal coverage for its citizens. What’s more, fund reallocation allowed for the development of tourism, technology, and environmental conservation. Although a lot of money and arms are still poured into the police, the shift to a more peaceful and sustainable society is evident. Ultimately, Costa Rica’s stance on peace has had an impact on the nation’s structure and its reputation in the international arena.

These two countries are not the only ones with limitations on their military forces. Iceland, Mauritius, Panama, and Vanuatu have also decided to abandon the use of the military and instead rely on alliances, diplomatic relations, and geographical isolation for national defense. For other countries and territories, such as Micronesia, defense is the responsibility of others. For example, Monaco’s defense is the responsibility of France, while the Faroe Islands are under the responsibility of Denmark.

Leaning away from raising armies for aggression may improve international harmony. How it would affect internal conflict is an aspect to consider. Moreover, the logistics of maintaining a defense army, such as limitations on size and allies, are also important factors in this conversation. A peace constitution that abolishes the military may not be a popular reform in bigger countries such as the U.S., Russia, and China. Less threat of attacks may allow for further distancing from military expenditure. Ultimately, a peace constitution not only addresses negative peace but also leads to positive peace as resources are reallocated to fit the new goals and structure of each nation.

Russia/Ukraine War Update Until March 3, 2025: U.S. Relations, Deals, and Human Rights Violations

Image 1: Ukrainian soldiers on a tank, holding the Ukrainian flag. Source: Yahoo Images.

On Tuesday, February 18th, Russia and the U.S. began a discussion regarding an end to the Russia/Ukraine war. Along with talk about ending the war, the two countries spoke about making improvements to their economic and diplomatic ties. Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State; Michael Waltz, U.S. President Trump’s national security advisor; Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Secretary of State; and Yuri Ushakov, President Putin’s foreign affairs advisor, were present at the meeting.

If you’re asking yourself, “Wait, isn’t there a country missing from the meeting?” You would be correct. Ukraine was not present, nor were they invited to the meeting in which the future of their state was being discussed. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy stated that Ukraine would disregard any conclusion the meeting came to, as Ukraine had not been a part of it.

Ukraine received a great deal of American support throughout the Biden Administration’s term in office. Ukraine Oversight reports and tracks funding and aid that has come from the U.S. during the time period of February 2022 until December 2024. The total amount has been $182.8 billion. Of that total $83.4 billion has been used, $57 billion is obligated but not yet distributed, $39.6 billion has been appropriated but is not obligated to be paid, and $2.7 billion has expired. Ukraine has also received aid from the U.S. and other G7 nations, which are France, Japan, Canada, Italy, and the United Kingdom, in the form of a loan program that would provide $20 billion to be paid from frozen Russian assets. The website further breaks down where the money has come from. The U.S. Department of State also offers explanations and breakdowns of what the money was spent on and the aid that was sent to Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has repeatedly thanked the U.S. for the aid Ukraine has received since the invasion in 2022. In 2022, President Zelenskyy gifted the U.S. Congress with a Ukrainian war flag. He has also thanked the American people on multiple occasions, as well as stated that their money is an investment in the security and future of Ukraine and its people.

U.S. President Trump recently stated that Ukraine had three years to put a stop to this war and that they (presumably meaning Ukraine) should have never started it to begin with. As was stated in my last blog in relation to the Russia/Ukraine war, Russia started the war by invading Ukraine in 2022. Russia also previously illegally annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. To this day Russia still occupies Crimea. While Rubio had exclaimed his excitement for the end of the war and the concept of bringing Russia and the U.S. closer together, Ukrainian forces continued to be overwhelmed by the illegal invasion of Russian troops.

If you are interested in the human rights violations that occurred in 2024 regarding the Russian Ukrainian war, check out my blog post, Russia-Ukraine War Update and Interview With Ukrainian UAB Student. For this blog I will focus on recent developments about U.S. and Ukrainian relations, Ukrainian and European relations, and human rights violations committed by Russia.

Tensions Between Ukraine and U.S. Grow

Image 2: Two soldiers hold the American flag and the Ukrainian flag. Source: Yahoo Images.

Ukraine is a land rich in critical minerals such as ilmenite, which is used in the production of titanium. The vast potential of Ukraine’s critical mineral industry has been untapped due to war and state policies. Recently, the Trump Administration proposed that U.S. companies should have access to these mining pits for ilmenite in exchange for U.S. aid in the war.

The first deal that the U.S. proposed would have Ukraine pay $500 billion worth in minerals while receiving no guarantee of security. They would receive weapons and Ukraine would have to pay a debt for generations. This agreement was rejected by President Zelenskyy on February 15th because it did not protect either Ukraine nor the country’s interests. In an AP article, they talk of Ukrainians’ feelings of unease at the prospects of U.S. businesses on their land. Many people felt that too much would be given away in exchange for weapons.

The second agreement that was drawn up stated that Ukraine would give 50% of its entire revenue on natural resources into a fund. This fund would then be used to invest in projects in Ukraine. As of now, the projects that would be funded are not defined in the agreement and will be further defined in later discussions. This agreement still does not guarantee the security of Ukraine.

The success of this agreement would have been determined in part by the success of private investment in Ukraine’s mineral resources. The ongoing war and reconstruction of Ukrainian infrastructure could hinder investment into the mining of these minerals. With no outlines for Ukraine security, mining companies are hesitant about investing in the country. Mining is an extremely expensive industry, and with the threat of Russian attacks, it is extremely unlikely that a corporation would risk investing in Ukraine.

This new agreement was going to be discussed in person between President Zelenskyy, who traveled to the U.S. on February 28th, 2025, and President Trump. However, during the meeting, not much was able to be said as President Trump, who was seated next to Vice President J.D. Vance, yelled at Ukraine’s President. The mineral agreement was not signed, as was originally intended, during that meeting.

Ukraine has been struggling against Russian forces for three years. Comments made by U.S. defense secretary, Pete Hegseth that Ukraine must give up hope of regaining its territory or getting NATO membership, have poured salt on wounds that have not been given time to heal in the last three years. Ukrainians have been worried over the position they will be left in after a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine is decided.

For years, the overall Western consensus has been that no agreement will come at the cost of Ukrainians still living in places now occupied by Russia. That viewpoint may now be changing in the United States, and Ukraine and other nations located close to Russia fear that a break in the war will allow Russia’s military to regroup and potentially invade Ukraine again as well as other parts of Europe.

European Nations Uniting

Image 3: Stairway with Ukrainian flag painted on the walls. Source: Yahoo Images.

On Sunday, March 2, 2025, the leaders of Ukraine, Spain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Canada, Finland, Sweden, France, the Czech Republic, Romania, and Britain, as well as the Turkish Foreign Minister, attended a meeting about Ukraine at London’s Lancaster House. This was done in a show of support for Ukraine. During the meeting, the leaders agreed that it was in everyone’s interest that defense efforts be expanded so that peace could finally be accomplished for Ukraine.

It is worth noting that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer still said that the support of the U.S. was critical for this plan to work. In other words, while Europe must be at the forefront of Ukraine’s defense, the U.S. must back the rest of Europe for the defense to work.

While Europe is attempting to support and back Ukraine, on March 3, 2025, U.S. President Trump officially paused all military aid to Ukraine in hope of pressuring President Zelenskyy into negotiating peace talks with Russia. These peace talks, if rushed, will most likely give Russia the upper hand and negate any hope Ukraine has had for regaining the Ukrainian land that is currently occupied by Russia.

Russia’s Continued Human Rights Violations

Image 4: Ukrainian flag standing over a destroyed building. Source: Yahoo Images.

Amnesty International stated that any peace talks that do not include justice and repercussions for the international laws violations and human rights violations that have occurred against Ukraine will only serve to prolong Ukrainian suffering. Throughout the three years that Russia has been invading Ukraine, Russia has continued to target civilian infrastructure.

Residential buildings, schools, cultural heritage sites, and hospitals are some of the civilian infrastructure that has been destroyed by Russian forces. In my previous blog about the war, I wrote that the summer of 2024 was the deadliest time for children in Ukraine. Children are the most vulnerable members of society. Russia’s disregard for the lives of Ukrainian civilians, specifically children, is a violation of human rights. Since the invasion of Ukraine, thousands of schools have either been destroyed or have fallen under the control of Russia.

During Russia’s occupation of Crimea, people have been convicted of discrediting Russian armed forces, which violates the right to freedom of expression. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that all people have the freedom of opinion and expression. When those freedoms are interfered with, it is a violation of human rights. Crimean Tatars who are imprisoned have also been denied medical care. Additionally, 6,000 prisoners of war (POW) continue to be detained by Russian forces. POW and civilians alike have been subject to torture. In the year of 2024, Russia charged at least 120 Ukrainian POWs with terrorism. Since then, they have all been executed.

It is estimated that, as of July 2024, 14,000 Ukrainian citizens had been wrongfully and unlawfully detained by Russia. There are reports of war crimes and crimes against humanity being inflicted on Ukrainian civilians. These offenses include torture, sexual violence, extrajudicial killings, and denials of fair trials. In Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), it is stated that torture or inhuman punishment is a violation of human rights.

Many Ukrainian civilians have been subject to arbitrary arrest, and over 50,000 Ukrainians have been reported missing. Arbitrary arrest is the unlawful arrest and detainment of a person by a government without due process. Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that arbitrary arrest, exiles, and detentions are human rights violations.

In places occupied by Russia, 1.6 million Ukrainian children must attend schools, learn the curriculum, and abide by the rules of invaders, where Ukrainian children are deprived of learning their language, cultural heritage, and history. If students are to continue their Ukrainian education, they must do so online. This is in violation of Article 26 of the UDHR, which pertains to the right to education and the parents choice of their child’s education and Article 27 of the UDHR, which states that people have the right to participate in the cultural life of the community.

Conclusion:

As is stated in my last blog about the Russia and Ukraine war, there are a couple of things you can do to help defend human rights in this situation. The U.N. Refugee Agency and the Ukrainian Red Cross Society continue to send humanitarian aid to Ukraine. If you are able and willing, these sites take donations.

You can also help protect human rights by staying informed and reading reliable sources. Disinformation on Ukraine and Russia has run rampant, and when people turn a blind eye to the truth, it is easy for human rights violations to go on unchecked. Updates on the Ukraine and Russia war are occurring daily. Make sure to continue checking for updates and to keep yourself informed.

Navigating the Impact of NIH Cancer Research Funding Cuts

In early 2025, the U.S. biomedical research community faced significant changes due to substantial reductions in funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), particularly affecting cancer research. These developments have sparked widespread discussion among scientists, healthcare professionals, policymakers, and the public. This blog will aim to provide a balanced examination of the recent NIH funding cuts, their implications for cancer research, and the broader context surrounding these decisions.

Understanding the NIH Funding Reductions

The NIH, a cornerstone of U.S. medical research, has traditionally supported a vast array of studies, including those focused on cancer. In 2025, the administration implemented significant budgetary changes, notably reducing indirect cost reimbursements for research institutions from an average of 60% to a capped rate of 15%. Indirect costs cover essential expenses such as facility maintenance, utilities, and administrative support, which are crucial for the everyday operations of research labs.

These adjustments were part of a broader initiative led by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by Elon Musk, aiming to streamline federal spending. The administration projected that these cuts would save approximately $4 billion annually. While fiscal responsibility is important, the abrupt nature of these changes has raised questions about the potential risks to the nation’s biomedical infrastructure.

Implications for Cancer Research

Cancer research is an area where sustained investment has historically led to life-saving innovations. Advances in immunotherapy, targeted drug therapies, and precision medicine have dramatically improved survival rates for several types of cancer. However, these breakthroughs result from years of incremental research, often supported by NIH grants.

The reductions in NIH support have led to concerns about the future of ongoing studies, the initiation of new projects, and the overall momentum in the fight against cancer. Institutions like the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) have expressed apprehension that these funding cuts could delay the development of new therapies and hinder access to clinical trials, especially in underserved communities. Moreover, the potential slowdown in research progress raises concerns about the long-term impact on patient outcomes and the country’s ability to maintain its leadership in biomedical innovation.

Additionally, early-phase research, which often carries the highest risk but also the most potential for groundbreaking discoveries, is especially vulnerable to funding cuts. Many of these projects rely on public funding because they cannot have private investment yet. Without sufficient support, promising leads may never get the chance to be explored.

Economic and Workforce Considerations

Beyond the scientific implications, the funding reductions have economic ramifications. Research institutions across the country rely on NIH grants not only for scientific purposes but also as a large source of employment. The cuts have led to hiring freezes, layoffs, and a general sense of uncertainty within the research community.

Early-career scientists, in particular, face challenges in securing positions and funding, potentially leading to a decline in talent ranging from academics to industry or even other sectors. This shift could have long-term effects on the innovation pipeline and the diversity of research perspectives. The potential loss of highly trained researchers might also compromise the quality of mentorship available to future generations of scientists.

Legal and Political Responses

The funding changes have prompted legal actions and political debates. A coalition of 22 states filed a lawsuit against the federal government, arguing that the abrupt changes to NIH funding policies could jeopardize critical research and violate administrative procedures.

In Congress, reactions have been mixed. Some lawmakers have voiced strong opposition to the cuts, emphasizing the importance of sustained investment in medical research. Others have supported the administration’s efforts to reduce federal spending, highlighting the need for fiscal responsibility. The political discourse that’s happening reflects a broader national conversation about the balance between economic efficiency and public investment in science.

People researching in a lab — Image 2: Researchers working in a science lab. Source: Yahoo! Images

International Context and Competitiveness

Another dimension of the funding debate involves the global landscape of cancer research. The United States has long been a leader in biomedical innovation, attracting top talent from around the world. However, as other countries increase their investments in science and technology, funding instability in the U.S. could lead to a shift in the global research balance.

Nations like China, Germany, and South Korea have been expanding their research funding, particularly in emerging areas like gene editing and personalized medicine. Reduced NIH funding could make the U.S. less competitive in these fields, potentially leading to fewer international collaborations and a decline in scientific influence.

Historical Precedents and Lessons

This is not the first time NIH funding has faced uncertainty. Historical data shows that flat or declining NIH budgets have correlated with decreased research productivity and fewer grant applications being funded. During the budget sequestration of 2013, many research projects were delayed or canceled, and similar consequences are anticipated in the wake of the 2025 cuts.

However, the scientific community has also shown resilience. Philanthropic organizations, private foundations, and public-private partnerships have started stepping in to fill funding gaps. For example, the Cancer Moonshot initiative, launched in 2016, allowed both government and private resources to accelerate research. Examples like this may become increasingly important in the future.

Patient Perspectives and Public Engagement

From the perspective of patients and advocacy groups, the funding cuts represent not just a policy shift but a personal concern. Many patients rely on cutting-edge treatments developed through NIH-supported research. Delays in trials or the discontinuation of research programs could directly impact access to new therapies.

Public engagement has become a critical component of the response to the cuts. Grassroots campaigns, petitions, and awareness events have emerged to advocate for restored funding. Organizations like the American Cancer Society and Stand Up To Cancer have mobilized supporters to contact legislators and raise public awareness about the stakes involved.

Looking Ahead: Balancing Efficiency and Innovation

The recent NIH funding cuts show the complex interplay between government policy and scientific advancement. While efforts to streamline government spending are a legitimate aspect of public administration, it’s essential to consider the possible long-term consequences of these actions on critical areas like cancer research.

As the nation navigates these changes, continuing conversations among stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, patients, and the public, is necessary to ensure that the U.S. continues encouraging innovation while maintaining fiscal prudence. Collaborative funding models, greater transparency in policy decisions, and increased support for early-career researchers should ideally all play a role in adapting to the new funding landscape.

Ultimately, the goal should be to ensure that scientific progress continues and that the U.S. remains a major player in cancer research and healthcare innovation.

Children’s Shows Today: Their Impact on Child Development and Behavior

Overview

Children’s television shows have a big influence on how young children learn and behave in a time when digital media permeates every aspect of daily life. Both positive and negative consequences can result from the content children consume, ranging from social skills and cognitive development to emotional regulation and moral development. It is crucial to look at how these shows affect young audiences in both positive and possibly negative ways as programming keeps changing to include new themes and methods of education. 

Image 1: Young boy watching television. Source: Yahoo! Images

The Evolution of Children’s Programming 

Over the past few decades, children’s television has undergone substantial changes. The foundation for media aimed at teaching literacy, social skills, and emotional intelligence was established by conventional educational shows such as Sesame Street and Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood. These programs’ emphasis on realistic relationships, slow-paced storytelling, and likable characters made it possible for young viewers to learn things in an entertaining yet developmentally appropriate way. 

Children’s programming nowadays comes in various forms, such as interactive series, educational cartoons, stories with an adventure theme, and content that is only available on streaming services. As digital platforms like Netflix, Disney+, and YouTube Kids have grown in popularity, kids now have more access to content than ever before. Although this accessibility opens new avenues for enjoyment and education, it also brings up issues with screen time, the suitability of the content, and the long-term consequences of digital consumption. 

Positive Impacts of Children’s Shows 

Cognitive and Language Development  

A lot of children’s programs are made with learning objectives in mind. Storytelling, problem-solving, and language development are all incorporated into shows like Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood, Bluey, and Dora the Explorer. According to research, preschool-aged children can benefit from well-structured educational programs that help them detect patterns, develop critical thinking skills, and improve their language skills. Asking questions and waiting for answers are examples of interactive components that promote active engagement as opposed to passive viewing. 

Social and Emotional Learning  

Children’s shows often cover concepts like cooperation, empathy, and conflict resolution. While Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood specifically teaches emotional regulation techniques through songs and relevant scenarios, Paw Patrol and Doc McStuffins are examples of programs that show teamwork and problem-solving. Children may benefit from these components as they learn to manage their own emotions and social situations. 

Cultural Awareness and Diversity  

Diverse cultures, languages, and family patterns are being reflected in modern children’s programs. Children are exposed to diverse customs and viewpoints through shows like Elena of Avalor and Molly of Denali, which promote inclusivity and deepen their awareness of the world. These programs encourage tolerance and open-mindedness in young viewers by exposing them to a range of experiences and backgrounds. 

Encouragement of Creativity and Imagination  

Imagination and artistic expression can be fostered by the storytelling, music, and creative problem-solving emphasized in many children’s shows. Children may think creatively outside the screen, thanks to shows like Peppa Pig and Curious George, which promote curiosity, exploration, and imaginative play. 

Potential Negative Effects of Children’s Shows 

Screen Time and Passive Consumption  

Excessive screen time is one of the biggest issues with children’s television. Children between the ages of two and five should not spend more than an hour a day on high-quality screens. Long-term use of screens can lead to problems regulating concentration, sleep issues, and decreased physical activity. The advantages of educational programs may also be limited by passive consumption, in which kids watch without actively participating or absorbing the content. 

Behavioral Imitation and Aggression  

Fast-paced action scenes, exaggerated facial expressions, or even mild hostility are all part of the narrative of several children’s television programs. Although many shows aim to teach morality and problem-solving skills, some topics may unintentionally encourage impulsive action. According to studies, kids who often watch fast-paced, action-packed television may be more aggressive or have trouble controlling their impulses than kids who watch informative, slower-paced programs. 

Commercialization and Consumerism  

Extensive merchandising, ranging from toys and apparel to branded snacks, is associated with many well-known children’s programs. Early brand loyalty is fostered by the frequent appearance of characters from popular television series like Paw Patrol and Frozen on a variety of consumer goods. As children may form strong brand preferences as a result of media exposure, this may encourage imaginative play but also may raise worries about materialism and the commercialization of childhood. 

Unrealistic Expectations and Stereotyping  

Even though they are entertaining, certain children’s television shows could encourage irrational expectations about relationships, achievement, and life. Certain programs may subtly reinforce preconceptions through gender-specific roles, idealized character depictions, or overstated problem resolutions. When it comes to helping kids think critically about what they watch and promoting conversations about the implications for real life, parents and other adults play an important part. 

The Role of Parents and Caregivers 

Given the possible advantages and disadvantages of children’s programming, parental participation is still crucial to maximizing the beneficial effects and reducing the negative ones. Some tips for consuming media responsibly are: 

Co-Viewing and Discussion. Watching programs with children allows caregivers to explain concepts, answer questions, and reinforce positive messages. Discussing themes and moral lessons can deepen understanding and encourage critical thinking. 

Setting Limits on Screen Time. Establishing boundaries for television and digital device use ensures that children engage in a balanced mix of activities, including physical play, reading, and social interactions. 

Selecting High-Quality Content.Choosing age-appropriate, educationally enriching programs can enhance learning experiences. Platforms like PBS Kids and Sesame Workshop offer well-researched content that aligns with developmental needs. 

Encouraging Active Engagement.Rather than passive viewing, caregivers can promote active engagement by asking children about what they watched, encouraging them to reenact stories, or relating on-screen lessons to real-life situations. 

Conclusion 

Children’s television shows continue to significantly impact the behavior and development of young viewers. Excessive screen time and exposure to inappropriate content can be problematic, while well-designed programs can promote learning, creativity, and social-emotional development. Parents who actively participate and establish a balance between education and fun can help children benefit from media use in a constructive and developmentally appropriate way. Supporting the upcoming generation of young viewers will require constant research and careful content creation as technology and storytelling continue to advance. 

Marriage, Inequality, and Human Rights: Rethinking a Cultural Norm 

As a philosophy student, I find the debate around marriage fascinating because it’s something almost everyone has personal experience with—whether through their own relationships, family, or society at large. On the surface, marriage might seem like a simple institution built on love and commitment, but when we dig deeper, we start to see cracks in its foundation. 

Marriage has long been regarded as a cornerstone of social life, providing structure for intimate relationships, legal benefits, and a framework for raising children. But as legal scholars and human rights advocates have increasingly pointed out, marriage also functions as a gatekeeper to economic security, legal protections, and social recognition—and it does not serve everyone equally. This raises serious ethical questions: Does marriage reinforce systemic inequality, particularly for women and non-traditional families? Is it time to reform, replace, or abandon it altogether? In this blog, we’ll explore three contemporary philosophical arguments about marriage and their implications for justice and human rights. 

Susan Okin: Marriage Makes Women Vulnerable

Susan Okin argues that marriage, as it exists today, creates and reinforces gender-based vulnerabilities, particularly for women. In Vulnerability by Marriage, she explores how society expects women to take on most of the caregiving responsibilities, which leads to an unfair division of labor both at home and in the workplace.  

According to the American Time Use Survey by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2022, women spent an average of 2.4 hours per day on household activities, compared to 1.5 hours for men. Women were also far more likely to provide unpaid caregiving for children and elderly family members. Even in so-called egalitarian households, studies show that men’s careers tend to take priority, affecting decisions about where to live and how to divide time and resources. 

A woman overwhelmed during a tense office meeting. Her head is down and people are yelling at her. — Image 2: An overwhelming woman in a workplace. Source: Yahoo Images.

These patterns have real economic consequences. Women who step back from paid work to care for children often experience long-term wage penalties and loss of retirement savings. After divorce, the gender wealth gap becomes even more stark. A report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that women’s household income fell by 41% after divorce, compared to just 23% for men. 

Okin’s critique points to a larger human rights issue: economic dependency can limit women’s autonomy and political participation. Without systemic support, such as paid parental leave, subsidized childcare, or equitable divorce laws, marriage remains a structural disadvantage for many women. 

Laurie Shrage: Should the State Be Involved in Marriage at All?

In her piece, The End of Marriage, Laurie Shrage takes Okin’s critique even further. Rather than just reforming marriage to be more equitable, she questions the role of the State in structuring intimate relationships. Shrage argues that marriage, as a state-sanctioned institution, provides legal and social privileges to some relationships while marginalizing others. If you’re married, you get tax breaks, easier access to healthcare, and legal rights over your partner’s well-being. But what about people in non-traditional relationships, cohabiting partners, or polyamorous families that don’t fit into the legal mold? 

Consider this: The U.S. Government Accountability Office identified 1,138 federal statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. But for unmarried partners—even those in long-term caregiving relationships—those same protections are often unavailable. This creates a system of legal exclusion that disproportionately affects LGBTQ+ individuals, lower-income families, and those outside traditional family structures. 

Shrage does not argue that the state should entirely remove itself from intimate relationships. Instead, she believes the law should be restructured so that protections and benefits are not solely tied to marriage. Instead of privileging marriage, we could develop alternative legal structures that support all kinds of caregiving relationships without requiring people to fit into a specific mold. Some states have made attempts to implement this. For instance, Colorado’s Designated Beneficiary Agreements allow individuals to assign rights such as hospital visitation or inheritance without marriage. Yet these reforms are patchwork and often limited in scope. 

Scissors cutting through a marriage contract — Image 3: Restructuring the Institute of Marriage. Source: Yahoo Images.

Shrage’s argument forces us to rethink what marriage actually does. If it’s primarily about securing legal and financial benefits, then why should it be tied to romantic relationships at all? Shouldn’t anyone be able to create binding legal partnerships that reflect their chosen family structures? Shrage proposes an alternative: decoupling legal benefits from marital status. Legal agreements could allow individuals to designate financial partners, medical proxies, or co-parents without needing a state-sanctioned marriage. By ensuring equal access to legal protections regardless of relationship type, we could create a system that better serves the diverse ways people build their lives together. 

Claudia Card: Tear It All Down

While Okin and Shrage suggest ways to reform or restructure marriage, Claudia Card takes a more radical approach in Against Marriage and Motherhood. She argues that marriage is not merely flawed but fundamentally coercive—and often serves as a mechanism for control and abuse. 

One of Card’s most powerful arguments is that marriage can trap individuals in violent or exploitative relationships. Because marriage is a legal contract that binds two people together, leaving an abusive marriage often requires legal intervention—something that can be expensive, slow, and emotionally exhausting. According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey by the CDC, 1 in 4 women and 1 in 9 men have experienced severe intimate partner violence. Due to financial dependency and legal entanglement, many people find it difficult to leave abusive marriages. A 2020 study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research found that economic abuse, like controlling access to money or employment, was a key barrier to leaving. In many cases, the legal system inadvertently works to sustain abusive relationships by making it harder for the abused partner to leave, which is the fundamental reason why Card believes marriage, in any form, is beyond repair.   

A sad child looks at the camera as her distressed parents sit behind her — Image 4: A visual representation of the harms marriage can bring. Source: Yahoo Images.

Additionally, Card critiques the cultural glorification of motherhood. While motherhood is often idealized, mothers in the U.S. face one of the highest unpaid caregiving burdens in the developed world. The U.S. is the only wealthy country without guaranteed paid maternity leave. Women, especially single mothers, are left to shoulder the costs of caregiving without adequate support, leading to heightened rates of poverty, stress, and burnout. 

Card’s radical proposal—to abolish marriage as a legal institution—calls for building new social structures based on mutual care and autonomy rather than control and dependency. From a human rights standpoint, her argument challenges us to rethink whether any institution should have the power to limit freedom, security, or self-determination.

Where Do We Go From Here?

In philosophy, we often come back to the same fundamental question: Should we work within the system to make it more just, or should we tear it down and start over? Okin, Shrage, and Card each offer different visions for the future of marriage, but they all agree on one thing—the way things are now isn’t working. 

At its core, the debate about marriage is a human rights issue. Who gets access to economic security, legal protections, and social recognition—and at what cost? And marriage laws don’t just reinforce inequality for adults; they also impact vulnerable populations in ways we rarely acknowledge. For example, child marriage remains legal in parts of the U.S.—a reality that raises serious ethical concerns. 

Our three authors all highlight different ways in which marriage has historically marginalized certain groups, particularly women, and ask us to consider alternative frameworks that promote justice and equality. Whether through reforming marriage, removing state involvement, or abandoning it altogether, the goal should be to ensure that all individuals—regardless of their relationship status—have equal rights, protection, and autonomy. As we continue to challenge traditional norms, we must prioritize human dignity, fairness, and inclusivity in the ways we structure relationships and social institutions. 