Since the 21st century, there has been a sharp rise in terrorism and counterterrorism measures that are an insult to both international and domestic human rights. This essay will attempt to define the intersection of counterterrorism and human rights and why it is important to either adapt existing norms or adopt new conceptions on the constraints to armed conflict. Global interconnectedness also called globalization is not only a phenomenon felt in the realms of economics and culture but is also keenly evident in armed conflict. Modern national security, non-state actors, and detention methods represent the cogs of conflict interconnectedness in the 21st century. Focusing on these three areas will show how counterterrorism is eroding the protection of human rights from outside and within, specifically in the United States of America (US), but also many other nations. Just as the arguments around regulating the effects of globalization are rather heated, so too is the discourse surrounding adaptation and innovation in the methods of counterterrorism. In referencing the current political climate in the US, this essay will conclude that the status quo for human rights will prevail if not become worse in time.
Today is a day of reflection. Today is a day to wonder what will come about tomorrow and the day after. What exactly does the United Kingdom leaving the European Union mean? Why do so many say this is the dawn of a new era? There is a lot that will be told and learned in the time to come. Right now the shock is achingly real making it worrisome to ponder predictions, besides the overall worrisome that comes with predictions. However, one cannot feel there is something to worry about in all this. While it might not be understood, the economics might fly over our head, and the politics are muddy, something still feels ominous about this new relation in the UK.
The age of disparity should be yesterday, but it is not. One cannot stand very firm with the notion the UK does not carry an unequal amount of global influence. It is entirely accurate to say that a sovereign nation much like people will follow the leader is an oversimplification. However, in this case, the proverb might ring quite true. Should we even worry about the precedent this sets up with other countries in the EU? Does this apply to those countries that are not in a union similar to the UK but rather still possess an environment where influence could be burdensome?
The answer is yes; we should worry about this on all fronts because of the influence the UK carries and the painfully critical times at hand. Deciding against cooperation might just be the spark numerous other disgruntled countries need to close their doors. We live in times where cooperation is decreasing globally and misconceptions and doubt reign supreme. A global power like the UK should not set an example of going at it alone. Going ‘Rogue’ could have sinister causalities that we do not see coming.