Specific Human Rights – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

Who Gets to Decide? Prescription Laws, Public Health, and the Ethics of Medical Gatekeeping

In a world where people are expected to take responsibility for their health, the systems meant to support them too often stand in the way. Around the globe, and especially in the United States, access to essential medications is tightly controlled by prescription laws. These laws are often justified on the grounds of safety, but they also raise a pressing human rights concern: What happens when gatekeeping itself becomes a barrier to health, autonomy, and dignity?

This blog argues that prescription drug laws, as they currently function, too often violate the core principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). These include the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being (Article 25), the right to autonomy and freedom from arbitrary interference (Article 3 and 12), and the right to equal access to public services and protection (Article 21). By rethinking how access to medications is regulated, we can move toward a more equitable and compassionate model of care.

Prescription Control as a Barrier to Rights

At their best, prescription requirements aim to protect people from misuse, medical harm, and exploitation. But in practice, these laws create systemic barriers, particularly for marginalized communities, by requiring time, money, and proximity to healthcare providers simply to access medications that are safe, well understood, and often urgently needed.

This structure assumes that people cannot be trusted to manage their own care without professional oversight. But that assumption is increasingly at odds with both ethics and evidence. Many people understand the medications they rely on. They know the risks. Studies show that patients with chronic conditions often develop a high level of medication literacy and risk awareness through long-term use and counseling. And yet, they are asked to justify their needs to clinicians who may not share their urgency, or even their values. Prescription laws, in these cases, do more than inconvenience. They function as a form of medical disenfranchisement, denying individuals the right to act in their own best interest simply because they are not deemed qualified to make decisions for themselves.

Pretty sparkly pills — Image 1: An assortment of pills. Source: Yahoo Images

In the United States, prescription requirements are enforced through a legal and regulatory structure that delegates authority over medication access to licensed healthcare providers. The system is primarily governed by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) of 1938, which granted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to require certain drugs to be dispensed only by prescription. In 1951, the Durham-Humphrey Amendment formally distinguished between “prescription” (legend) drugs and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, mandating that certain medications could only be obtained with the written authorization of a licensed practitioner.

Today, the FDA, along with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and state medical boards, determines which medications require prescriptions. These typically include:

Drugs with a high potential for abuse or dependence, such as opioids
Medications with significant side effects or narrow therapeutic windows, like warfarin or lithium
- A narrow therapeutic window (or therapeutic index) means there is a small range between a drug’s effective dose and its toxic dose, making precise dosing essential to avoid under-treatment or dangerous side effects
Substances that require monitoring or diagnostic oversight, such as antidepressants, antibiotics, and hormonal therapies

For a medication to transition from prescription-only to OTC, the manufacturer must submit a New Drug Application (NDA) with evidence that average consumers can safely use the drug without a clinician’s supervision. This review process is lengthy, costly, and highly restrictive. Even well-established medications often remain prescription-only due to regulatory or political reasons, rather than clinical necessity. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has advocated since 2012 for over-the-counter access to hormonal contraception due to its safety profile, yet access remains restricted in many states due to political and regulatory inertia.

While intended as safeguards, these laws impose significant barriers, especially for people in rural areas, uninsured individuals, undocumented immigrants, and those with chronic conditions who need long-term medication access.

Access Denied: Real-World Consequences

To illustrate how this plays out, consider two examples: insulin and oral contraceptives.

Insulin, a century-old medication essential for people with diabetes, remains locked behind prescription requirements in the United States. The result is tragic: according to the American Diabetes Association, 1 in 4 Americans with diabetes has rationed insulin due to cost or access barriers. Delayed prescriptions, expired scripts, and unnecessary office visits put lives at risk—not because insulin is inherently dangerous, but because the system around it is.

Image 2: Insulin and injection supplies. Source: Yahoo Images

Now consider oral contraceptives. Major medical bodies like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the World Health Organization have long advocated for over-the-counter access to birth control, citing overwhelming evidence of safety and efficacy. Yet millions must still navigate clinical appointments, insurance requirements, or geographic isolation just to avoid an unintended pregnancy.

In both cases, prescription requirements do not enhance public safety—they undermine the right to health and self-determination. They increase cost, delay care, and disproportionately burden people with the fewest resources. These are not minor inefficiencies. They are rights violations with life-altering consequences.

Image 3: Monthly birth control pills. Source: Yahoo Images

The UDHR states in Article 25 that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being, including medical care and necessary social services. But health is not merely about access to care; it also includes freedom and agency.

As the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights emphasizes, the right to health includes:

Availability: functioning healthcare services and medications
Accessibility: free from discrimination and within financial/physical reach
Acceptability: respectful of autonomy, culture, and identity
Quality: scientifically appropriate and safe

Prescription laws often fail all four. When a person cannot afford or reach a provider to refill their birth control, their care is not accessible. When a person is denied insulin because their script has expired, their treatment is not available. When gatekeeping assumes incompetence instead of encouraging informed decision-making, care becomes unacceptable in a rights-based framework.

Rethinking Risk, Rethinking Responsibility

None of this means all drugs should be available without limits. Medications with high risks of misuse, like opioids or antibiotics, require thoughtful regulation. However, the current system treats risk as a universal, rather than a spectrum. It places the burden of proof on patients rather than regulators and too often assumes incompetence by default.

We trust people to make countless risky decisions every day: driving, drinking, even refusing life-saving treatment. So why does buying an oral contraceptive or refilling a long-used insulin prescription require a professional sign-off?

A better model by human rights standards would be tiered and rights-conscious:

Expand over-the-counter and pharmacist-prescribed access for lower-risk, widely used medications
Increase public health education and harm reduction tools
Preserve professional guidance as an option, not an obstacle

This model would treat people not just as patients, but as rights-bearing agents.

Conclusion: The Right to Decide

Prescription drug laws were built with good intentions. However, when these laws block access, restrict autonomy, and exacerbate inequality, the human rights point of view holds that they must be reevaluated. Health is not just about surviving illness; it is also about having the freedom and support to shape one’s life. Access to medication is not simply a medical issue. It is a matter of freedom, equality, and dignity. The right to health also includes the right to decide. We don’t need to eliminate medical expertise, but, from a human rights perspective, we do need to stop making it the price of entry to healthcare.

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.

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.

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. 

The Pending Impeachment in South Korea

It is May of 1980. It was already the 6th and last day of the Gwangju citizens resisting the military coup of the dictator Chun Doo-hwan. Having faced massacres, executions, military forces, and endless indiscriminate and inhumane firings aimed at them, it was unity and dedication that held them strong. After this 6th day, however, their protest will be put to an end by military tanks and an uncalculated count of casualties.

It is now March 2025, but just three months ago, on that same massacre site, the largest Gwangju newspapers blocked their newsrooms in a hurry to print copies and throw them out the windows in case paratroopers force in, as they did in 1980. A surviving child of May 1980, now in her 70s, tells others of her generation to risk their lives on the front lines to protect the younger generations on a social media platform, X.

Details of the Gwangju Uprising tragedies remain unknown to this day; however, the current events of modern-day South Korea are open for the world to see.

The Day of Chaos

At 10:30 p.m. (KST) on December 3rd, 2024, Yoon Suk-yeol, the president of South Korea, left a televised address to the public, and for the first time in 44 years, martial law was declared in the country. A decree that suspended freedoms of speech, assembly, and press, as well as all political activities, warranted arrests and rights in the face of military authority and decisions. This decree inevitably challenged and threatened the human rights and freedoms of Korean citizens. According to Yoon, the justifications for this choice are efforts by the opposition party to impeach his cabinet and obstruct the government budget, as well as vague communist threats from North Korea. Justifications that Human Rights Watch refers to as “ludicrous”.

By 10:42 p.m., an emergency meeting was called by the National Assembly, the only body that could overturn martial law. However, before the entry gates would close at 11:04 p.m., armed military special forces lined up outside in order to arrest political leaders and prevent a majority vote from overturning the decree. In the face of fear, uncertainty, and potential violence, the South Korean population, once again, came together. Many rushed out of their homes in the middle of the cold December night towards the National Assembly to clasp hands, create a barricade against soldiers and large military vehicles, and provide passage to the political officials.

Image 1: Military special forces at the National Assembly on December 3rd. | Source: Yahoo Images

A 63-year-old, Lee Hyun-gyu, stated, “I experienced martial law in 1979…I spent three and a half hours at the rally to block this from happening again to the next generation”. The night of December 3rd quickly ignited memories of May 1980 in many of the older generation. Memories of violence, pain, grief, and loss aimed to attain pure and blind compliance. Memories of having their well-being, lives, autonomy, and basic rights stolen. Memories they refused to let themselves or others live through again.

A spokesperson for an opposition party, Ahn Gwi-ryeong, grabbed and pushed away the barrel of a weapon pointed at her and yelled, “Are you not ashamed? Are you not ashamed?”. An act of courage that quickly became a viral video.

With the support of the general public, 190 lawmakers were able to enter the building in time and overturned martial law under Article 77 of the constitution unanimously, including members of Yoon’s own party. A few days later, the matter was finally addressed.

Impeachment

On December 11th, Yoon addressed the night in his speech and denied giving orders to prevent the lifting of martial law. In contradiction, Colonel Kin Hyun-tae, leader of the special forces stationed on the night of the 3rd, states he received orders to stop at least 150 National Assembly members from entering, the exact number needed to overturn martial law, from senior commanders. Cho Ji-ho, the national police force head, states he was asked to locate and detain 15 people, including political leaders, by the armed forces. The former deputy director of the National Intelligence Service states he received an order to arrest several political leaders, broadcasters, a union official, a judge who previously ruled in favor of Yoon’s opponent, and a former chief justice of the Constitutional Court.

Image 2: Yoon Suk-yeol giving a speech. | Source: Yahoo Images

On December 14th, a motion for impeachment was passed. Although Yoon continues to preside over the presidential seat, he has lost his powers. The motion was passed with the charges of ordering military and police forces to prevent voting that would overturn martial law, aiming to take over the National Election Committee, and arresting political and judicial leaders. Beginning on the 14th, the Constitutional Court has 180 days to move forward with the impeachment based upon a series of hearings.

The Trial Begins

Yoon did not show up for the first hearing on January 14th due to health concerns, according to his lawyer. His absence ended the hearing in four minutes. The following day, Yoon became the first president of the nation to have been detained. After hours of questioning, he was taken directly from his residence by anti-corruption officials under charges of insurrection and abuse of power.

Since then, the sitting president has been present at the following hearings, and he continues to deny any tampering attempts on the voting of December 3rd despite military witnesses and statements that say otherwise.

Moving Forward

As we’ve moved through February, final hearings have been undergone, with a ruling expected in mid- or late March. Impeachment will require the favor of six out of the eight Constitutional Court judges. And if impeachment is the decision, an election must occur within 60 days. We hope that the final decision will lead to the restoration of the nation’s economic, social, and political crisis since the failed martial law.

December 3rd was a night of fright that ignited feelings of uncertainty and fear. An attempt to compromise the human rights of the South Korean population under vague justifications. Hence, it is important to acknowledge the actions of that night to prevent another. There are various methods of support you can consider. This includes keeping yourself updated on the ongoing events, supporting civic groups such as Global Candlelight Action that have held peaceful rallies, and spreading awareness on the impeachment trials and the role of the Constitutional Court.

Though these efforts may seem minor, they can showcase tremendous support and concern for the rights of the South Korean population.

Thailand’s Uyghur Crisis: A Decade of Detention and Desperation

Forty-eight Uyghur men have been held in detention facilities throughout Thailand for more than ten years. Trapped in a diplomatic limbo that perfectly captures the clash of international politics, human rights violations, and the suffering of an oppressed minority. These men, who are members of a Muslim ethnic group from China’s Xinjiang province that speaks Turkic, left their country in search of safety from systemic persecution. But rather than escaping to safety, they now risk being forcibly deported back to a government notorious for its cruel treatment of Uyghurs.

Image 1: 150 Uyghurs and supporters protested in Berlin after July 2009 Ürümqi riots. Source: Claudia Himmelreich, Creative Commons

Who Are the Uyghurs?

The northwest Chinese province of Xinjiang is home to the Uyghurs, who are an ethnic minority whose population is predominately Muslim. International human rights organizations have repeatedly reported serious violations in Xinjiang, such as forced labor, mass detentions, cultural erasure, and even accusations of genocide. The so-called “re-education camps” in China have imprisoned more than a million Uyghurs and subjected them to psychological abuse, forced sterilization, and indoctrination.

Many Uyghurs have left China in search of safety, often going across Southeast Asia in dangerous conditions. Thailand’s close proximity has made it a popular transit country. However, many Uyghurs have been held in overcrowded facilities indefinitely instead of being granted refuge.

Thailand’s Role: A Decade of Detention

Nearly 350 Uyghurs, including women and children, were detained by Thai police in 2014 under the pretense of being “illegal immigrants.” Some, most notably the forty-eight men, were left behind in Thailand. Others were later sent to Turkey, a country that shares cultural and theological similarities with the Uyghurs. The individuals detained in Thailand have suffered horrendous conditions in prison over the years, with no access to healthcare, sunlight, or legal protection.

When Thai authorities forced the captives to sign “voluntary return” forms in January 2025, their situation worsened. In a desperate protest against their protracted incarceration and impending deportation, the Uyghurs refused to comply and on January 10 began a hunger strike.

Fears of Refoulement

Human rights organizations are incensed by the idea of sending these men to China. The cornerstone of international refugee law, the principle of non-refoulement, would be broken by such acts, according to Human Rights Watch and other groups. Countries are not allowed to send people back to places where they risk threats of torture, cruel treatment, or persecution under the principle of non-refoulement.

There is little uncertainty on the fate of deported Uyghurs given China’s history in Xinjiang. Prior examples have shown that repatriated individuals are subject to substantial prison sentences, forced confessions, and immediate detention. “Deporting these men to China would be a death sentence. Thailand must resist political pressure and prioritize human rights.” said Elaine Pearson, Asia Director for Human Rights Watch, urging Thailand to honor its international obligations.

Thailand’s Political Calculations

A larger battle to achieve a balance between national policies, international commitments, and geopolitical influences is seen in Thailand’s treatment of the Uyghur captives. Thailand has historically refrained from ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention due to worries about illegal immigration and sovereignty, and the nation’s dependence on Chinese commerce and investment makes it more difficult for it to stand firmly against Beijing.

Despite widespread outrage, Thailand deported 109 Uyghurs to China in 2015. Chinese state media aired videos of deportees arriving in shackles and clearly distressed. The incident showed the impact of China’s global reach while also drawing harsh criticism from the UN and other international organizations.

Image 2: Child’s play – Uyghur children in old town Kashgar, China. Source: Sherpas 428, Creative Commons

Hunger Strike

The severe physical and psychological effects of indefinite incarceration are brought to light by the ongoing hunger strike. Hunger strikes, which represent the captives’ desperation, have long been used as a nonviolent protest tactic. Prolonged hunger strikes can cause organ failure, permanent health problems, and even death, according to medical professionals. However, for many Uyghurs, the risks of being detained or deported forcibly are greater than the risks of protesting.

The detainees’ relatives have pleaded with Thai authorities to step in. In an impassioned appeal, a relative of one detained stated, “They are not criminals; they are victims… Sending them back to China is the same as signing their death warrants.”

International Responses

The plight of Thailand’s Uyghur prisoners has drawn attention from throughout the world. Foreign governments and advocacy organizations have called on Thailand to free the inmates and give them safe transportation to third countries that are prepared to take them in. Turkey is still a possible destination because of its sizable Uyghur diaspora. These attempts are complicated, however, given political tensions between Beijing and Ankara.

International human rights standards are being broken by Thailand’s ongoing detention of the Uyghurs. Even though Thailand is not a member to the Refugee Convention, the UNHCR has reminded it of its duties under customary international law to prevent refoulement.

Broader Implications

Thailand’s Uyghur crisis is not an isolated event; rather, it is a part of a wider trend of Southeast Asian nations facing refugee challenges. Regarding their handling of Uyghur asylum seekers, Malaysia and Indonesia have also come under fire, frequently pointing to Chinese diplomatic pressure and domestic security concerns.

Furthermore, Thailand’s actions established a concerning precedent. Global human rights frameworks are weakened if strong countries like China can apply enough pressure to compel weaker states to violate international rules. It also calls into question how international organizations hold nations responsible.

A Path Forward

The ongoing crisis calls for immediate action to protect the rights and lives of the detained Uyghurs. Here are some thoughts on how they should proceed:

Release and Resettlement: Thailand should release the detainees and work with international organizations to facilitate their resettlement in third countries willing to accept them, such as Turkey or Canada.

Strengthened Legal Protections: Thailand should consider ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, thereby aligning its policies with international human rights standards.

Increased International Pressure: The global community, particularly Western nations, should intensify diplomatic efforts to prevent deportations and ensure the detainees’ safety.

Monitoring and Transparency: Independent observers should be granted access to monitor the conditions of Uyghur detainees in Thailand to ensure compliance with human rights norms.

Addressing Root Causes: The international community needs to hold China accountable for its actions in Xinjiang, addressing the root causes that force Uyghurs to flee their homeland.

Looking Ahead

The situation of the forty-eight Uyghur men who are being held captive in Thailand serves as an alarming example of the human cost of international indifference and geopolitical scheming. Unless Thailand and the international world step in, these people, who escaped unspeakable oppression, now face a bleak future. Respecting the values of refugee protection and human rights is not only a moral obligation but also a test of our shared humanity.

There is, nevertheless, hope for a solution that puts human rights and international collaboration first, even though the situation is still grave. Thailand can establish a standard for treating refugees humanely and solidify its standing as a responsible global actor if it takes the appropriate actions. The future of the Uyghur captives is in jeopardy, but a fair resolution is hopefully achievable with enough advocacy.

The Future of Trees in the Amazon and the World

If someone offered to pay you to keep trees thriving in your backyard, would you take the deal? This is the new idea proposed by Brazil to tackle climate change, starting with trees.

Prioritizing environmental sustainability has been a challenge in Brazil over the past few years. In contrast to its predecessor, the new administration has expressed its desire to restore sustainability efforts and implement stronger tree protection policies.

Image 1: Within the Amazon. 27/02/2016. Photo: Valdemir Cunha/Greenpeace. Source: Yahoo Images

Background on the Amazon

Looking back at history, the reasons for implementing financial incentives to protect trees date back to the 1970s. Under a military dictatorship then, Brazil had clear plans to develop and integrate the Amazon into the national economy by increasing agriculture and cattle breeding in the region. To achieve this, the government incentivized people to move and start their own agricultural villages deep within the forest. Following the dream of expanding land and conquering the Amazon, Brazil continued to utilize the forest for economic development by building highways, allowing farmers to settle and work their way into the forest.

The rhetoric of using the Amazon for national economic profit was put on hold when President Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva took office in 2003. Then, several steps were taken to protect the Amazon. Little by little, legal protections were put in place, with the help of Marina Silva, who was appointed to the environment ministry in 2003 to set up a plan to deal with deforestation. At the time, only 28% of the forest was protected. Therefore, the government expanded protections by demarcating Indigenous territories, adding reserves where business activity was banned, and increasing the land where nut harvesting and rubber-tapping took place because of their low contamination and impact on the forest. To find a balance between economic profit and sustainability, the environment ministry stretched law protections to 47% of the Amazon. What’s more, the budget for the Brazilian Institute of Environmental and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA)—a police agency that investigates people committing illegal deforestation—also increased.

By 2012, Brazil made significant progress towards sustainable solutions. What once was a call of worry by world news over the rapid deforestation shifted to optimism about the Amazon’s recovery. As awareness of the rainforest’s significance grew, so did the public uproar. Luciana Gatti, senior researcher at Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, emphasized the Amazon’s critical role in absorbing CO2. However, due to deforestation, the Amazon is reaching a turning point where it will emit more carbon than it absorbs. Unfortunately, when Jair Bolsonaro took office in 2019, his policies revived the development-focused rhetoric of the 1970s. Bolsonaro, known for being a critic of environmental protection, rejected the idea that the Amazon is the heritage of humanity, insisting that it belongs to Brazil and to Brazil only.

During the 2018 campaign, Bolsonaro vowed not to designate “one more centimeter” of Indigenous territory. Human Rights Watch puts Bolsonaro’s agenda in perspective. With 241 Indigenous territories awaiting demarcation, illegal logging, mining, and land grabbing in Indigenous lands increased by 137 percent in 2020 compared with 2018. The non-profit Socio-Environmental Institute (ISA) reported that deforestation in Indigenous territories during Bolsonaro’s first three years in office increased by 138 percent compared to 2016-2018. What’s more, the Report Violence Against Indigenous Peoples in Brazil linked high COVID-19 deaths to the government’s poor response and lack of monitoring in the Amazon. As a result of government negligence, invaders committing illegal activities in the area spread the virus through Indigenous villages.

In addition, Bolsonaro’s administration reversed several environmental policies, weakening IBAMA. The agency experienced budget cuts of up to 30 percent from 2019 to 2020 and decreased staff by 55 percent during the same year.

The amazon rainforest is burning as Bolsonaro fans the flames, from orinoco tribune. — Image 2: The Amazon rainforest burning from increased deforestation. Source: Yahoo Images

Overall, indigenous territories became more vulnerable thanks to weakening agencies and relaxed environmental regulations.

The Secretary for Indigenous Peoples Acre State Government, Francisca Arara, continues to emphasize how critical Indigenous people are to preserving the forest and to guard and provide protection services that benefit everyone. Arara also explains that among the helpful laws that have pushed the improvement in deforestation are the jurisdictional programs such as the REDD+ program, the SISA law, and the demarcation of territories, all of which promote sustainable use of land and natural resources, and give Indigenous people autonomy and over spaces they know how to take care of best.

What is the plan?

After a change in leadership, Brazil proposes a fund of $125 billion to pay developing countries for the trees they protect. In other words, it is an incentive to stop deforestation. The Tropical Forests Forever Facility or T.F.F.F would be an investment-based fund, not financed by donations per se. The plan is to follow a bank’s framework: get deposits and reinvest them for a profit. It would look like this: Rich nations and big philanthropies would loan $25 billion to T.F.F.F, which would be repaid with interest.

The money invested would help attract $100 billion from private investors. Then, the fund would reinvest the $125 billion in a portfolio that could generate enough returns to repay investors. The excess would be used to pay for about 70 developing countries based on how much healthy tropical forest they still have. The countries that receive funds would be paid $4 per hectare of land with old-growth or restored trees and would incur a $400 fee for each hectare of forest lost.

Some of the controversies or pushbacks surrounding the project are part of figuring out the program’s logistics: the risk of subjecting the funds to the swings of financial markets, the controls and regulations of how the money will be spent, etc.

The environment as a human right

Recognizing a healthy environment as a human right is a relatively recent development. International agreements, such as the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, acknowledge the importance of a clean and healthy environment for a good standard of living. These agreements emphasize the government’s responsibility to take action against environmental pollution and its risks. According to the UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the right to health should be extended to those factors that determine good health, such as access to safe drinking water and sanitation.

However, debates continue regarding how to define and codify into law the rights of nature, as well as challenges of jurisdiction and resource availability and allocation at the local and international levels.

In 2022, the UN declared a healthy environment a human right. While this declaration is not legally binding, it reinforces the notion that a clean and sustainable environment is essential to a dignified standard of living.

A promising approach to addressing environmental degradation is using financial incentives to combat deforestation. This model means hope for developing countries that face a difficult choice between economic growth and ecological conservation. To the greediest, making money over some trees may be tempting. Initiatives like the T.F.F.F seem to be a forward-thinking funding mechanism that could be applied to fund programs and organizations worldwide to solve human rights issues. Encouraging global collaboration on environmental protection promotes the recognition of a healthy environment as a fundamental human right.