In the written documents and practices of international law, a wide range of human rights are widely recognized, and these human rights promise to protect all people from serious damage at home and abroad that may harm them. However, international law also establishes institutional structures that largely lead to various human rights violations and maintains these institutional structures: the basic part of international law systematically hinders the desire poor population’s strong democratic independence, civil rights and minimum economic self-sufficiency, and the highest international organizations like the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were established to systematically sustain severe poverty.
Human rights and related obligations.The international law system, the national legal system and the local legal system all regulate various human rights. These human rights and their corresponding legal obligations depend on the legislature, the judiciary and the law enforcement agencies, which uphold the implementation of the law and provide judicial interpretation. The disastrous consequences of the Second World War made it widely recognized that there are also moral human rights that are independent of any government organization. There are two types of human rights that can coexist in harmony. Those who care about moral human rights will admit that the law can greatly promote their realization. The Human Rights Lawyers recognize that the legal rights and obligations they draft and explain are to achieve pre-existing moral rights. In fact, in the everyday language of “internationally recognized human rights”, this recognition is ambiguous. This is clearly expressed in the introduction to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which describes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a moral human right that states its own independent existence. This recognition has an emphasis on connotation because almost no one can clearly state the difference between moral human rights and legal human rights. Therefore, many people tend to think that our human rights are the human rights claimed by the government. This view may be correct for legal human rights, but it is wrong for moral human rights, and the government itself has already admitted it. Governments may have different views on what kind of moral human rights there are. However, even if governments act together, they still cannot formulate laws for these non-existent rights. The universal recognition of moral human rights is important, and it provides the conditions for independent and critical assessment of existing international law. Such a more limited assessment is possible even within the law itself, and it is known to see how international law obeys the human rights it recognizes. However, it is very fragile to recognize human rights purely at the national level, and it changes along with the changes of the law. Re-clarifying legal provisions or amending laws (such as “anti-terrorism” legislation), weakening human rights through judicial decisions to harmonize with other laws, or modifying international law practices through precedents, such measures to amend the law will erode the key forces of legal human rights. Moral human rights rely on eloquent arguments rather than the good will of the ruling party. It provides a more solid foundation for critical assessment, which forms the basis of my argument. In the process of argumentation, I used concepts such as human rights and related obligations in a very narrow sense to ensure that the moral premise I use is universally accepted. I don't think that the premise I use dissolves the connotation of the concept of human rights, but that human rights need at least such a bottom line. I will focus on the human rights of the world's poor, because the current persistent human rights deficits are mainly concentrated in this part of the population.
Social and economic human rights, such as the right to “enjoy the standard of living required to maintain the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care” (Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), now and so far the most frequently violated human rights. On a global scale, the right to citizenship and participation in politics is seriously lacking. Human rights require democratic politics, due process and the rule of law, and people living in extreme poverty are often hampered by physical and mental development due to malnutrition at the child stage, becoming illiterate for lack of school education, and are busy maintaining the basic survival of the family. These people can hardly cause any harm to the politicians and officials who rule them, and they can hardly bring any benefits to them. Therefore, these rulers do not have any enthusiasm to consider the interests of these poor groups. On the contrary, they are more concerned about those more capable of achieving the benefits of reciprocal personnel and institutions – including foreign governments, large companies and tourists-' interests. We can treat those who are extremely poor as those who have the minimum need for human survival — safe food and drinking water, clothing and housing, basic medical services and basic education — and who are not guaranteed with those. This narrower and more absolute provision for extreme poverty is generally consistent with the World Bank’s “two dollars a day” international poverty line. The international poverty line set by the World Bank is based on the purchasing power of the US$ 2.15 in the United States in 1993. According to this standard, an American family now (2005) is poor as long as its annual per capita total consumption is less than $1,058. From an official point of view, there are about 2.735 billion people – 44% of the world's total population – who are considered to live below this poverty line, many of whom are far below this poverty line. This extreme poverty is alarming. It has been estimated that 831 million people are chronically malnourished.1.197 billion people do not have safe drinking water, and 2.747 billion people lack basic sanitation (World Bank Report (2004), pp. 129-130).About 2 billion people lack of essential medicines (www. fic. nih. gov/about/summary. html).About 1 billion people do not have the housing necessary to survive, and 2 billion people do not have access to electricity (World Bank Report (1998), Page 49).About 876 million adults are illiterate (www.uis. unesco.org), 250 million children between the ages of 5 and 14 are working outdoors in wages – often in extremely difficult and cruel environments, such as being a soldier, prostituting or being a domestic servant, or engaged in the production of agricultural labor, construction labor, textiles and carpets. About one-third of the total number of human deaths, or 180 million, are due to poverty-related causes. Better nutrition, hygienic drinking water, vaccines, antibiotics and other drugs could have easily avoided these death phenomena. Colored people, women and children still account for a high proportion of the world's poor and those struggling with extreme poverty. Aside from the irrefutable importance of the basic necessities of human life, human rights in the socio-economic sphere remain controversial, especially in the United States, which has not ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Most of this controversy stems from the following misconception that human rights to escape from poverty and enjoy freedom must bear relevant practical obligations. Now, this practical obligation imposed on human rights requires helping and protecting anyone who is seriously deprived without doing so. This practical obligation has been widely abandoned in the United States and other developed countries. However, what is abandoned here is not the rights of a particular class, but the obligations of a particular class or class: the actual obligation.Extremely poor foreigners enjoy moral rights based on human rights, and those who are negative about it often deny that foreigners enjoy any other human rights-based moral right to help others – against genocide, slavery, torture, authoritarian tyranny and religious persecution. What these people actually abandon is not such human rights of this kind, or any type of human rights. They abandon the actual obligation imposed on human rights, and therefore abandon any human rights specified to make them bear the relevant practical obligations.
Some people strongly refuse to impose actual obligations on human rights, while others strongly endorse these obligations. I am here to ignore them without any prejudice. In order to make my views widely accepted, I see human rights in a narrower sense as the right to assume only negative obligations. In this way, those who refuse to impose actual obligations on human rights can accept my point of view, because they generally recognize the urgent negative obligations of combating torture, deprivation, and destruction of agricultural production and livestock necessary for survival. My views can also be accepted by those who recognize the imposition of actual obligations on human rights, because I have not denied their claims. There are two broad categories of negative obligations: mutual influence and institutional. The right to be free from torture has been violated by some people, some of whom still use torture, and some cooperate with those who use torture to enforce social systems that torture humanity. The latter type of people first includes bureaucrats and those politicians who allow or even order torture, but also some ordinary citizens who help to enforce a social system that apparently causes a lack of human rights without getting paid, and this phenomenon could have been avoided. For example, they support the extremely brutal and extremely unjust Nazi system with any remuneration. Many Germans make human rights violations easier and more serious, and one can foresee that the Nazis will lead to such an outcome. Even if they have never killed themselves, never used torture, and have never directly harmed anyone, they have participated in collective crimes and have thus violated the human rights of those victims. Conservatives and liberals often refuse to recognize the right to life, even if they admit that certain institutional arrangements do not avoid the phenomenon of poverty that threatens to survive, thus violating human rights, such as the ancient feudal system of France and the tsarist dictatorship, and even Stalin. Economic policy from 1930 to 1933. Next, I will not discuss the negative obligations of mutual influence and completely base my argument on the institutional negative obligations related to human rights.
I believe that the widespread and persistent lack of human rights in the world today can be attributed to institutional factors, which can be attributed to many democratic institutional arrangements in the so-called developing countries, and can also be attributed to institutional arrangements in the global system. In those developing countries, the political and economic elites bear primary responsibility, while on a global scale, governments and citizens in developed countries bear primary responsibility. I will focus on the latter. I believe that the current global institutional arrangements stipulated in international law provide legislative guarantees for the vast majority of developed countries to collectively violate the human rights of the world's vast population without any compensation. The moral framework of my argument has been accurately stated 57 years ago: Everyone has the right to demand a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized (World Article 28 of the Declaration of Human Rights, see also article 22) I interpret this article in accordance with four direct explanatory speculations: (1) Alternative institutional designs that do not meet the requirements of Article 28, they can be sorted in accordance with how close they are to promote the realization of the human rights: the construction of any social system should be to achieve human rights as reasonably as possible within the system; (2) the degree of realization of human rights under a certain system design should be based on the degree of realization of these human rights and Under the assumption of institutional design conditions, the degree of achievement should be measured; (3) for a person under a system, as long as a certain human right is realized, then the system design realizes this human right; (4) When someone has the security guarantee to achieve the human rights goal, his human rights are realized. Considering these four explanatory speculations together, Article 28 should be seen as the belief that the moral nature or justice of any institutional order depends mainly on its connotation, that is, this institutional order provides access to all its members. A safe way to achieve human rights goals: The assessment and reform of any institutional order should, in principle, be based on its relevant impact on the realization of human rights in this order. An institutional order and its implementation If and as long as we can foresee that it would result in a lack of actual human rights that could have been avoided, this institutional order and its enforcement are human rights violations. Second, the basic characteristics of the current global order are how to cause widespread severe poverty on a global scale. Today, about 50,000 people, most of them children, women and people of color, die of hunger, dysentery, Pneumonia, tuberculosis, malaria, measles, poor maternity conditions and other causes related to poverty. This persistent number of abnormal deaths is equal to the number of deaths caused by the tsunami in just a few days in December 2004, and every three years is equal to the number of deaths caused by the Second World War (including the Nazi concentration camps and the Soviet Union’s Gulag The number of deaths in the concentration camp). I believe that this widespread poverty problem and the global annual abnormal deaths that are the epitome of this poverty problem can be avoided by making a slight adjustment to the global order, and this adjustment will at best lead to development. A slight reduction in national income. However, such reforms have encountered obstacles from the governments of developed countries. They are ruthlessly pursuing their own interests and helping to improve the interests of their big companies and citizens. They have designed the global order and imposed this order on developing countries. It is foreseeable that this order will result in sustained and widespread over-poverty and the resulting death of minors. There are three ways to deny this allegation. One can deny that the current changes in the design of the global order have no significant impact on the serious development of poverty on a global scale. When this cannot be denied, they will claim that the current global order is the most ideal or close to the most ideal order in the sense of avoiding poverty. Once this negative mode fails, they will also believe that the current global order is only in the best order in the sense of avoiding poverty, and it does not cause serious poverty. It just does not do everything in its power to eliminate the phenomenon of existing poverty. (it is caused by other factors).
I will discuss these negatives in the same order. 1. Poverty is purely a matter of nationality. The various forms of global order design have a significant impact on causing severe poverty, and those who want to deny this view explain this poverty simply by means of nation-state or local factors. Rawls is a typical example. He claims that when society is unable to prosper, “the problem usually lies in the nature of public political culture and the religious and philosophical traditions that underlie the system. The social evils of poor countries are likely to lie in their oppressive government and corrupt elites” (Rawls, 1993). : 77). He added: "The reasons for the prosperity of the people and the form of prosperity are based on their political culture and the religious, philosophical and moral traditions that support their political and social institutional infrastructure. They also depend on the members of the people who are supported by the political virtues of the people. Diligence and cooperation, all of which are supported by their political values... The political culture of a burden-bearing society is the most important... Equally critical is a country’s population policy.”(Rawls, 1999: 108) Correspondingly, Rawls believes that our moral responsibility can be adequately described as “the obligation to help” (ibid. 37-8, 106-20), taking into account extreme poverty abroad. It is best to simply recall that it is the historical development of genocide, colonial plunder and even planned genocide that reaches the level of social, economic and cultural development in their current real life. Although these cruel sins are now history, they leave a legacy of history, namely severe inequality. Even if people are now masters of their own development, this legacy is still unacceptable to them. People often respond that colonial plundering has been a long time ago, and it cannot be the reason for explaining today's inequality and poverty. However, look at Europe's inequality of 30:1 per capita income when the shackles of African colonial rule were unraveled in 1960! Even if Africa continues to achieve per capita income growth that is one percentage point higher than Europe, the ratio of this inequality will still be 19:1 today. At this rate, Africa will have to catch up with Europe at the beginning of the 24th century. Let’s look at how this inequality in terms of competitiveness and bargaining power can create inequalities that Africa and Europe can bear in negotiating trade conditions! Trade relations established under such unequal conditions are more likely to benefit more powerful parties and often reinforce the initial economic inequalities. This phenomenon does have an important role in explaining why per capita income inequality actually increases to 40:1. It shows that the average annual growth rate of per capita income in Africa since national independence has been 0.7% lower than in Europe. Rawls (unbelievably) believes that this serious economic inequality stems from the early free decision-making between everyone and is therefore acceptable. However, his defense has nothing to do with our real world. How our huge economic advantage has accumulated in the historical process. Its historical accumulation process has destroyed the society and culture of the four continents and has deepened our advantages. Deep imprinted. Let us set aside the modern heritage created by our historical crimes and turn our attention to the field of experience! The development of countries and regions that used to be colonies over the past 40 years has created a huge gap. Some countries and regions have made brilliant achievements in economic growth and poverty alleviation, while other countries and regions still have deteriorating poverty and per capita The decline in income. In these countries and regions, the road to national development that is very different from each other must be attributed to different national conditions. Isn’t this very obvious? And serious poverty persists. This should be attributed to local factors. Isn’t this obvious? According to this phenomenon, many people believe that the following points are very convincing: the post-colonial era brought about a rapid increase in global per capita income, at least in this era, the reasons for the persistence of severe poverty and the way to completely eradicate poverty. It lies in the backward country itself. However, no matter how repeated this logic is repeated, how to accept it is wrong. Different countries have different economic development paths, and there are bound to be local factors that affect the economic development gap. However, it cannot be concluded that global factors have no explanation for the development gap in these countries. Of course, it cannot be concluded that global factors have no effect on the overall speed of explaining severe poverty. Of course, exposing widely accepted public opinion does not solve the problem. The huge differences in the development paths of different ethnic groups do not prove that global institutional factors have not had a strong impact on the development of severe poverty worldwide. But is there really such a powerful influence? Have! It is hard to doubt about this. In the modern world, international and even internal economic exchanges are deeply influenced by international treaties and international conventions on trade, investment, loans, patents, copyrights, trademarks, progressive taxes, labor standards, environmental protection, and the use of marine resources. The impact of the detailed system. Among the various possible alternatives, these different aspects of the global order now enable many very specific design decisions to be made. On the surface, it is hard to believe that all these alternatives affecting the world economy will develop at the same rate in the overall level and regional distribution of severe poverty worldwide. 2. An optimistic view of the current global order. The way we construct the world economy affects the development of poverty worldwide. Once we accept this view, it is interesting to examine the impact of the current global order on severe poverty.
People often hear this saying that in this respect, we live in a world where all possibilities are the best, because from the perspective of avoiding poverty, the current global order is the best or close to the best. The usual way of denying this claim may be to propose a contrary hypothesis in four steps: In the first step, those who coordinate the specific aspects of the global order are highly sensitive not only to avoid severe poverty. Any such coordinator is likely to be very sensitive to the concerns of his government in terms of domestic political achievements, and is therefore sensitive to the concerns of their compatriots about economic prosperity. In the second step, for the coordinators of more developed countries, these “nationalist” concerns and concerns about avoiding global poverty are not completely consistent. In the negotiation of the design of the global order, for the governments, large companies and citizens of developed countries, the best specific decisions are sometimes not the best according to the criteria for avoiding severe poverty in developing countries and regions. In the third step, in the face of such contradictions, negotiators in developed countries generally (required) prioritize the interests of their own governments, large companies and citizens, rather than the interests of the global poor. In the fourth step, developed countries have strong advantages in bargaining power and skills. High-income countries account for only 15.5% of the world's total population, and their income accounts for 80% of the world's total income (World Bank Report (2005), p. 257), and therefore it is a day to enter their huge market. Asking price. Their strengths in bargaining power and skills have allowed developed countries and their negotiators to shift the global order model from the most beneficial to avoiding poverty to more responsive to the interests of governments, big companies and citizens in developed countries. These four steps lead to the common opposite hypothesis: we should think that the global order reflects the common interests of governments, big companies, and citizens in developed countries rather than paying attention to avoiding global poverty, as long as there is a conflict between them. There is ample evidence that the assumptions of this idea are true. At present, the global rules of the game are conducive to the developed countries: it allows developed countries to continue to protect their markets by giving domestic producer quotas, tariffs, anti-dumping, export guarantees and subsidies, but does not allow backward countries to do so, they can not afford. Other important examples include the rules of the World Trade Organization on cross-border investment and intellectual property rights. Such asymmetrical rules, compared to the distribution of global economic growth under the symmetrical rules of free competition, increase its share of the flow to developed countries and reduce the share of flows to poor countries. Thus, the asymmetry of trade rules strengthens serious inequalities and enables governments in developed countries to impose these asymmetrical rules first on poor countries. This inequality gap has widened: the average income ratio of the fifth-income with the highest income in the highest-income country and the fifth-income with the highest income in the lowest-income country was 30:1 in 1960 and expanded to 60:1 in 1990. In 1997, it was expanded to 74:1. In 2003, the corresponding ratio was 66:1 (the data in the World Development Indicators, which I calculated myself). Looking further, the income gap between the highest-income countries and the lowest-income countries was 3:1 in 1820, expanded to 7:1 in 1870, and further expanded to 11:1 in 1913 (United Nations Development Program) Report of the Department (1999), p. 3). These ratios also reflect the inverse relationship between the country's average income and market exchanges. When people compare the correspondence between family income and purchasing power worldwide, the depiction of basic trends is still frustrating: in the first five years of globalization, “global inequalities have intensified... Gini coefficient increased from 62.8 in 1988 to 66.0 in 1993. This shows that the Gini coefficient is growing at a rate of 0.6 per year. This is a very rapid increase, much faster than the growth experienced by the United States and the United Kingdom from 1980 to 1990. ... 5% of the world’s most backward countries are poorer. Their actual income has fallen by a quarter from 1988 to 1993, while 5% of the richest countries are richer, and their growth has reached 12% according to actual standards. That is to say, it is twice as high as the world average income growth (5.7%)" (Milan Novick's 2002 report, p. 88). Data on malnutrition and poverty also point to this. The global poor are not involved in global economic growth. These facts should be enough to refute the view of optimism: from the perspective of avoiding poverty, the global order is not, and is not close to, the best model. If the poorest countries and regions receive financial support, hire top-notch experts to ask how to clearly express their interests in the WTO negotiations, how to retain the World Trade Organization’s delegation in Geneva, and clearly reflect to the World Trade Organization. The situation, and the arduous adjustment tasks that require them to implement, then these countries and regions should serve this value pursuit well. The backward countries are competing to attract foreign investment and have to provide cheaper labor in succession. If the current "race to the bottom" is controlled, the terms of the World Trade Organization stipulate Work, which limits minimum working hours and working conditions, should also be better served to avoid poverty. If the UNCLOS decrees to some extent the right of backward countries to exploit marine resources, if developed countries pay for the negative effects we impose on backward countries as required: the pollution we have caused for decades and Their compensation for their environment and climate, for the rapid depletion of natural resources, for the AIDS epidemic caused by our sex tourism in Asia, for our drug needs and for our violent conflicts, All of this should also serve the purpose of avoiding poverty better. There are many more examples. I think it's clear that there are many possible adjustments to the current global order that will greatly slow the global development of extreme poverty, far below the current shocking numbers. The current global order is not the best order in terms of avoiding poverty. 3. Does the current global order just not play its due role? Since the first two defenses cannot withstand scrutiny, people turn their attention to the third defense: the global order is obviously not ideal according to the effect of avoiding poverty, but it does not harm the global poor, and therefore does not violate their human rights. . Can we say this? Now let's discuss the last accusation of my point of view. If people try to prevent human rights from being fully realized and violate their negative obligations, we accuse them of being human rights offenders. The interpretation of human rights violations in accordance with such standards is narrow. Under the current global order model, poverty is becoming more and more serious. This is a fact. However, we cannot conclude from this that the existing global order has led to excessive poverty and death from excessive poverty. It cannot be said that it harms anyone or kills anyone, nor can it be said that it violates human rights. This order is just not doing what it can to bring benefits to people and protect human life. With regard to the decision to build this order rather than an alternative order that is more able to avoid poverty, one can also say that this decision did not lead to excessive poverty and death from excessive poverty. It did not harm people or kill people. And human rights violations. It just didn't bring benefits to people and didn't stop the death. On the whole (the same as seeing separately), we are at best not doing what we can to achieve human rights.
This type of defense resorts to some difference between behavior and mistakes. The decision of rich countries is to construct the current global order and to provide the right to make such decisions, rather than to choose an alternative order that is more avoidable of poverty. The purpose of the above defense is to eliminate the moral significance of such decisions. Now, the countries concerned are obviously very active in proposing the global economic rules they demand, and they urgently demand that the international community accept their ideas and actively implement them. This is an undeniable fact. The above defense seems reasonable, but it then has to use the difference between behavior and mistakes in another place: instead of avoiding how the governments of the countries concerned relate to global rules, it avoids how these global rules are linked to excessive poverty. The recognition is that the rules governing the world economy have not actively led to excessive poverty and thus harmed people or murder, but simply (involuntarily) did not stop serious poverty and did not protect people from harm. The difference between behavior and mistakes is very difficult to use to discuss individual actions and collective actions. In the field of social systems and rules, the use of such distinctions is first and foremost in creating confusion. When there are more underage deaths in an institutional model established according to certain rules than in a viable alternative institutional model, we can say that there is excessive death in this existing institutional model. . But how can we attribute these excessive deaths to existing rules, and what are the rules that are not prevented? Let us look at the three perspectives that made this defense a reality. (1) Recourse to the baseline comparison method “Globalization” has harmed the global poor or brought them happiness? This is obviously an issue of experience level, which is about the current global order – more specifically about the terms of the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Western Seven (Groups of Eight) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Role - the importance of public discussion. Hazards and benefits are relative concepts that all include a situation in which people's circumstances worsen or improve. But what is the benchmark used to measure the current destiny of the global poor? Their situation is either worse (and therefore compromised in the process of globalization) or improved (and the benefits of globalization), what is the fate different from this situation? In most cases, the current discussion is: Since the beginning of globalization in the late 1980s, the world's severe poverty has further aggravated or eased. Discussions on this issue are hot, and some economists have been awarded a considerable amount of bonuses with moving stories about poverty eradication. However, this discussion has nothing to do with the moral evaluation of the globalization process, which is a microcosm of the World Trade Organization framework. The World Trade Organization is imposed on the world by the governments of the developed Western countries. The moral allegation we face is that the governments of developed countries have established a global order in which excessive and severe poverty and the resulting deaths continue to grow, so that developed countries’ governments have violated many poor people with this order. human rights. In fact, whether serious poverty is aggravated or moderated does not affect the rationality of such accusations. To recognize this, please take a look at similar allegations. These allegations are that slave society has harmed and violated the human rights of slaves, and the Nazis violated the human rights of those who were restricted and killed in concentration camps. Of course, the ratio of people who have been sacrificed has been greatly reduced, but this does not refute these allegations. Even if the modern world does not have the same serious poverty as it did 15 years ago, we cannot conclude from this that the current global order (in an important moral sense) has brought benefits to the world's poor. Otherwise, we will simply respond to the answer to the whole question by assuming that the degree of severe poverty 15 years ago is on a suitable benchmark without any harm. Just as the Nazi violation of the human rights of the victims cannot be refuted because the number of such killings has fallen, claiming that the mandatory acceptance of the current global order violates the human rights of those who live in severe poverty and often die as a result. It cannot be refuted because it indicates that these numbers are falling. Virtual comparisons and diachronic comparisons with historical benchmarks are also inconclusive. Even if the poverty that exists under the current WTO system is no more serious than the previous system, we cannot conclude that the current global order has brought benefits to the global poor. People sometimes put virtual comparisons together with historical benchmarks that have been defined in the long-term era. It is therefore believed that Africa’s current situation is no worse than if it had never had any important contacts with Africa. We should also question the moral relevance of this hypothesis's continued mutual isolation: if world history has not left any colonial rule and slavery, then there will be a affluent population in Europe and a poor in Africa? There will be, but it is completely different from the people who live there now. In fact, people living in Africa are now deeply affected by their mainland and European invaders and are deeply imprinted. So we can't tell Africans who are hungry, they should endure hunger and we should live a prosperous life, even if the crime of colonial rule never happened. Without these crimes, there will be no serious inequalities that actually exist between the rich and the extremely poor. The same considerations also refute the moral relevance of virtual comparisons with hypothetical benchmarks. For example, some claim that in a fictional state of nature, more people's lives and deaths will be more tragic than in our existing world. The response to this is that there are many different ways of describing the state of nature. From the scope of research currently available to provide and discuss such descriptions, how a certain natural state can be selected as the only morally reasonable explanation is still unclear. Moreover, our global civilization records that the number of underage deaths associated with poverty each year is steadily maintained at 18 million. Therefore, it cannot be said that the current global order has brought benefits to the world's poor by reducing severe poverty in its natural state. Finally, since it has been pointed out that people's situation in the natural state is even worse, some people are being hurt and this view can now be overthrown. There is still a need to point out how this view is overturned. If such a defense is established, does it not mean that anything that a person (group) does to other people (groups) is only harmful if it is lowered to the natural state benchmark? If we do not harm 2.735 billion people, we are in a state of severe poverty. As long as they are not made worse than if they were in a related natural state, such slavery will not harm the slaves! In this way, benchmark comparisons do not provide a solid basis for denying that the current global order contains violations of the human rights of the poor who are struggling, or rather to defend any other institutional scheme against alleged violations of human rights. For example, let us recall the early stages of the United States, when people designed institutional order that seriously undermined women's rights and enforced it. It has been claimed that the imposition of such order violates women’s human rights, and this view will not be refuted by any diachronic comparison with women’s previous conditions under British rule, nor will it be subject to any virtual comparison and if it continues to rule in the United Kingdom. Under or in the natural state, the comparison is refuted. The question is whether the imposition of such an order can predictably impose a heavy burden on women, and these burdens can of course be avoided through a more equitable system design. (2) Recourse to the global poor to approve that the current global order has harmed the poor and violated their human rights. Another common way to deny this is to resort to the old concept: the person who voluntarily incurs damage should not claim damage. That is, what is done to those who agree is not injustice.
Under a social system, excessive poverty persists. But if the poor have previously agreed to impose such a system on them, then such a social system will not harm them. Members of the World Trade Organization are voluntary. Since backward countries and regions have signed treaty rules as they have done, it cannot be said that the enforcement of these provisions harms them. There are four reasons for independence that can completely refute this defense. First, resorting to endorsement can only refute accusations of human rights violations if human rights can be transferred - specifically by abandonment. However, according to the usual understanding of moral human rights and legal human rights, they cannot be abandoned: people are not allowed to transfer human rights for personal freedom, political participation, freedom of speech and freedom from torture. People may be able to compromise with each other through religious oaths, serve others, restrain elections, or remain silent. However, as far as human rights are concerned, such compromises are not legally enforceable and therefore cannot lead to the conclusion of the transfer of human rights. Second, even assuming that the right to meet basic necessities can be waived, resorting to endorsement does not provide any justification for the child's severe poverty, which to a large extent represents those who suffer from severe poverty and its consequences. Of the approximately 18 million people who die each year from poverty-related causes, 10.6 million are children under the age of five. Does anyone really claim that these children endorse our global order or claim that everyone else has the right to agree with their tragic fate for their own benefit? It is foreseeable that as long as the current global order is not measured by the criteria for avoiding child poverty, this order violates their human rights, and such assertions will not be refuted by any imaginative defense approach to approval. . Third, the overwhelming majority of countries in severe poverty are not, and are not, democracies in the full sense. The rulers of these countries have endorsed it – for good reason of caution – the rules and provisions of the World Trade Organization. However, they succeeded in building their own rule with military power. Does this success give us the right to interpret the signature of the ruler as people's approval? According to any convincing explanation for approval, the answer is “no”. Fourth, if very poor people really agree with a specific global institutional arrangement through a truly democratic process, such approval is forced and its defense force is weakened. Therefore, the following point is suspicious: in a boating accident, the only way you can avoid drowning is to agree with others to take possession of all your property, and you agree, he owns all of your property because of your approval. Legitimate. To be precise, it is better to be penniless than dead. In this sense, your approval is rational, but the stain of this legitimacy is that you have no other tolerable choice.