AO1: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) was created/accepted by the UN General Assembly in 1948 as a sign of unity. AO2: In 1948, of the 58 members of the UN at the time, 48 voted in favour of the UNDHR and no states voted against and most states have signed at least some of the treaties associated with the UNDHR which includes 30 articles which have passed into customary international law AO3: We may evaluate that the widespread support which the UDHR enjoys from UN member states clearly indicates that there is more unity than division in global governance over humanrights AO1: There have numerous examples of humanitarian intervention including in Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, Libya and Iraq in support of human rights which signifies unity. AO2: The increase in the amount of humanitarian intervention, particularly since the end of the Cold War has been supported by the development of the idea of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), endorsed by the UN at the 2005 UN World Summit where states collectively accepted that in certain circumstances states should intervene in a state where people were facing harm and human rights may be undermined AO3: We may evaluate that the developments of humanitarian intervention and R2P make clear a growing and widespread unity of states in commitment to global governance in protection of human rights AO1: The United Nations, under global state pressure, created a number of special tribunals to prosecute individuals for human rights abuses and there are calls for similar special tribunals to be set up as a sign of unity. AO2: The UN created a special International Criminal Tribunal to investigate human rights abuses in the former Yugoslavia in 1993 and an International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in 1995 which have prosecuted and sentenced a number of individuals who were found to have committed human rights abuses with economic support for the trials from numerous states and some states providing facilities for individuals to serve sentences AO3: We may evaluate that the widespread support for these human rights prosecutions and calls for similar prosecutions in relation to subsequent human rights abuses (Ukraine) makes clear that there is a unity among states for global governance protection of human rights AO1: A permanent court, the ICC, was established in 2002 to prosecute crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide as a sign of unity. AO2: The ICC has carried out a number of prosecutions for human rights abuses on behalf of its 123 members (majority of world states) from all continents of the world AO3: We may evaluate that the court is a further example that the global community is determined to take action where human rights are challenged and that there is more unity than division in determination to see that human rights abuses are deterred and punished

AO1: The term “Human rights” and particularly “Universal Human Rights” is controversial and open to dispute and criticism, particularly in relation to sovereignty as a sign of disunity. AO2: Sovereignty is a big issue with The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights (1990) providing an alternative view on human rights, reaffirming sharia law and has been accused of failing to guarantee some rights in the UDHR and the Bangkok Declaration of 1993 emphasises the principles of sovereignty and non- interference which appear to clash with any commitment for intervention in protection of human rights AO3: We may evaluate that there are many states and/or groups of people unwilling to support the concept of human rights impinging on sovereignty or acceptance of universality of human rights which indicates that there is more division than unity in global governance AO1: There are numerous criticisms of the concept of humanitarian intervention in protection of human rights which suggests disunity. AO2: Humanitarian intervention has been criticised as protecting or furthering western interests, undermining state sovereignty and being selective with many states speaking out to criticise intervention at the UN or elsewhere AO3: We may evaluate that the long running and consistent criticism of humanitarian intervention, for a variety of reasons, makes clear that there is more division over the protection of human rights than unity in global governance AO1: Most of the powerful states in global politics have been criticised for human rights abuses and regularly disagree over human rights actions/abuses and when action is or isn’t required as a sign of disunity. AO2: Whilst part of the justification for action in Iraq was to protect human rights, the US has been accused human rights abuses in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, launching an illegal war killing innocent civilians, indiscriminate drone attack, Russia of human rights abuses in Ukraine and China of abuses of Uighur Muslims AO3: We may conclude that the repeated criticisms of each other for human rights actions and abuses by so many states makes clear that there is more division than unity between states over human rights protection AO1: Despite support from some states, the ICC is subject to a great deal of varied criticism by many other states as a sign of disunity. AO2: The ICC does not have universal membership and importantly a number of large and powerful states have decided not to become members inc USA, China and India, because they believe it challenges their national sovereignty and possibly their actions and African states have expressed concern that prosecutions to date have focussed on Africans with the AU debating withdrawal AO3: We may evaluate that the failure of so many states, including some of the largest by population and most powerful to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC makes clear that states are certainly more divided than united in protection of human rights through global governance