Human rights protection Essay | Online Homework Help

Should the Developed world be responsible for human rights protection in the developing world?

Do a literature search to develop your perception of the debate.
Outline the debate. This means demonstrating the various different perspectives that academics have taken when seeking to analyse this question.
Identify three key authors whose work is frequently cited in articles that address the debate.
Briefly summarise the contributions these key authors are making to the debate. Make sure to paraphrase (putting others’ words/ideas into your own words), rather than use direct quotations, as it will save you words, which you will need for the analysis.
Critically analyse the question in light of the authors’ views. Weigh each other against each other. What contributions do they make to the debate, what impediments do they present/reflect?
Provide a short comment on where you position yourself in relation to the general debate and the key authors.
Remember, the essay is an assessment of your literature review skills. It is not about answering the question, it is about being able to show that you know what the different aspects of the debate are about and then being able to position specific authors’ positions within the debate.
Your reflections are designed to develop critical reading skills and help you learn how to identify what the nuances of the author’s arguments are.
Now take this knowledge you have gained from the reflections and apply it more broadly to the essay. You are not to replicate what is in the reflections, but rather to build upon it.

Purpose of the Essay

To demonstrate your critical analysis of the literature
To demonstrate knowledge of the wider debate and situate
positions within this wider context
To show how tensions within human rights concepts affects the
practice of promoting and protecting human rights
To show that you are theoretically aware of the various, and often
conflicted, aspects of these debates and how these tensions affect
human rights practice

The aim of an essay is:

NOT to come down on one side or the other, but rather to present
the theoretical arguments that are at odds with each other, or that

NOT to come down on one side or the other, but rather to present
the theoretical arguments that are at odds with each other, or that

NOT to come down on one side or the other, but rather to present

the theoretical arguments that are at odds with each other, or that

agree with each other

AND to critically assess how these positions fit within the larger
context of the debate. What contribution to the debate do these
positions make? What is left out? What can these two positions tell

AND to critically assess how these positions fit within the larger

context of the debate. What contribution to the debate do these

positions make? What is left out? What can these two positions tell

us about the tensions inherent in human rights concepts/practice?

Structure of the Essay

Analyse rather than Describe

You are not simply being asked to describe the content of the
required readings or to summarise their arguments. You are being
asked to analyse the arguments (strengths/weaknesses) in relation
to the contribution they make to the debate and how these limits or
You are not simply being asked to describe the content of the

required readings or to summarise their arguments. You are beingasked to analyse the arguments (strengths/weaknesses) in relation

to the contribution they make to the debate and how these limits or

advances human rights protection.

You are demonstrating that you understand what the author(s)
aims are, how they have accomplished these aims, and what
contribution their approach makes to the debate. If you feel they
have hindered the debate then you can say that too; provide

You are demonstrating that you understand what the author(s)

aims are, how they have accomplished these aims, and what

contribution their approach makes to the debate. If you feel they

have hindered the debate then you can say that too; provide

reasons why you feel this way.

Additional sources should be used to supplement and flesh-out

your analysis, rather than be the central foci of your essay. The

required readings are the central foci.

You are demonstrating an overall understanding of the question

(debate) via a focused analysis of the required readings and

additional sources.

Guiding Questions

When conducting your critical analysis,think about:
What argument(s) form the debate?
What contribution do these arguments make to the debate?
How do they relate to one another?
Who is making them? Are there factions? Do most people agree?
How do these arguments help us understand the tensions within
human rights practice?

Organisation of Lit review, options:

Chronological
Advancements
Geographical
Questions

5.3 Marking Criteria

	Outstanding (85+)	Excellent (70-84)	Very Good (60-69)	Good (50-59)	Bare Pass (40-49)	Bare Fail (30-39)	Absolute Fail (<30).
Complex understanding and knowledge	Demonstrates complex, independent and insightful understanding of a range of key concepts theoretical approaches and debates that could not be improved upon at this level, recognizing and evaluating their contested nature examining	Demonstrates complex understanding of key concepts, theoretical approaches and debates, recognizing and evaluating their contested nature although with a few improvements possible	Demonstrates complex understanding of key concepts, theoretical approaches and debates, recognizing and evaluating their contested nature, although with some omissions and inconsistencies and a number of areas of improvement possible	Demonstrates good understanding of key concepts, theoretical approaches and debates recognizing and evaluating their contested nature however with a number of omission and inconsistencies that require significant improvement	Demonstrates an adequate indepth understanding of key concepts, theoretical approaches and debates however key elements are missed or omitted with little recognition or evaluation of their contested nature	Does not demonstrate sufficient understanding of key concepts, theoretical approaches and debates nor recognizing and evaluating their contested nature	Does not show any understanding of key concepts, theoretical approaches and debates
Critical thinking and application of concepts and theory	Demonstrates insightful , indepth and sophisticated critical thinking and application of key concepts and theoretical approaches to current debates , developing or applying new knowledge or applying knowledge in a new way	Demonstrates indepth critical thinking and application of key concepts and theoretical approaches to current debates which are applied in an insightful way developing or applying new knowledge or applying knowledge in a new way	Demonstrates very good critical thinking and application of key concepts and theoretical approaches to current debates with only minor omissions	Demonstrates good critical thinking and application of key concepts and theoretical approaches although with some omissions, errors and lack of clarity.	Demonstrates adequate critical thinking and understanding of key concepts and theoretical approaches which required more clear and consistent application	Fails to demonstrate critical thinking and clear understanding of key concepts and theoretical approaches nor ability to apply them in a consistent manner	No critical thinking nor engagement with key concepts and theoretical approaches.
Clarity of communication and expression	Excellent communication with engaging and appropriate academic expression that could not be improved upon at this level. . All terms are fully and clearly explained. Demonstrates very successful and full editing and redrafting prior to submission	Excellent communication with engaging and appropriate academic expression with only minor areas of improvement needed. All terms are fully and clearly explained. Demonstrates successful and full editing and redrafting prior to submission	Very good communication with appropriate academic expression, however lacks clarity in some areas. Evidence of editing and redrafting prior to submission	Good communication although academic expression and clarity both could be improved upon. Editing and redrafting could be improved prior to submission	Adequate communication although has some consistent issues in relation to the lack of clarity and/ or academic f expression. The work required more comprehensive editing and redrafting prior to submission	Communication is confused, with a lack of clarity and academic expression. Little evidence of editing or redrafting prior to submission	No coherence or clarity and failure to meet academic level of expression. No evidence of editing or redrafting prior to submission
Research	Demonstrates information literacy, synthesis of an independent and extensive range of research and use of scholarly sources, which are relevant, accurate, and fully support the analysis.	Demonstrates information literacy, synthesis and use of an extensive range of research and scholarly sources which are relevant, accurate, and fully supports the analysis	Demonstrates a very good level of information literacy, ,synthesis and use of a significant amount of research and scholarly sources which are relevant, accurate, and fully supports the analysis although could be more comprehensive	Demonstrates a good level of information literacy and uses a satisfactory amount of research which is mostly relevant, accurate, and fully supports the analysis although with reliance on core texts	Demonstrates adequate but limited information literacy and uses an adequate amount of research although not entirely relevant, accurate, or does not supports the analysis. There is an over-reliance on core texts	Does not demonstrate information literacy and does not use an adequate amount of research with little use of academic sources, or research is not relevant, adequate, nor supports the analysis.	No evidence of information literacy , uses little or no research or use of sources and research that lack any relevance nor support the analysis
Structure and focus	An excellent structure that could not be improved at this level. It is logical and balanced, fully focused on the question and develops a comprehensive and insightful argument.	A very strong structure that is logical and balanced, fully focused on the question that is posed that allows a comprehensive argument.	A very good structure, although there could be minor improvements to ensure a logical and balanced development of argument fully focused on the question.	A good structure although it could be strengthened to ensure a more logical and balanced analysis. The structure of the paragraphs and overall structure could be improved to ensure focus on the question.	An adequate structure although requires substantial improvement to provide a more logical and balanced argument, and to ensure the focus is fully on the question.	A poor structure that is not logical or balanced, and fails to fully focus on the question.	The work is not structured in any meaningful way and fails to focus on the question.
Group Work	Complete synthesis of arguments with all team members working in full coordination to the extent that the work could not be improved at this level.	Evidence of very good coordination and team work between all team members to produce a coherent and unified piece of work	Good coordination between team members although there could be improvement in the synthesis of individual work for a more unified collective output	Some evidence of coordination of individual effort although this needed substantial improvement to produce a more unified collective output	Little evidence of collective work, with either a disproportionate amount of work done by a single person or little coordination of individual outputs resulting in a weak collective effort	Fails to evidence collective work with extremely limited evidence of coordination or input by all team members	No evidence of collective work nor coordination of individual inputs
Substantiveness	Meets expectations within 10% – no penalty applied Does not meet expectations: +/- 10-19% 5 mark penalty +/- 20-29% 10 mark penalty +/- 30-39% 15 mark penalty +/- 40-49% 25mark penalty +/- 50-59% 30 mark penalty > 60% 0 marks awarded
Timeliness	Meets deadline – no penalty applied Does not meet deadline and no mitigation in place + 1 day 5 mark penalty + 2 days 10 mark penalty + 3 days 15 mark penalty + 4 days20mark penalty + 5 days 25 mark penalty + 6 day 30 mark penalty + 7 days 35 mark penalty + 8 days 40 mark penalty + 9 days 45 mark penalty 10 + days 0 marks awarded