"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

In this statement, Human rights are best protected at a national rater than at an international level because, first National is about the Country and international is like outside the country like for example other country outside than one country or a lot of country.English: You defined "national" and "international" simply. To improve, mention the key institutions: "National" (UK Courts) vs "International" (UN).

Français : Vous avez défini simplement « national » et « international ». Pour améliorer, mentionnez les institutions clés : « National » (Tribunaux britanniques) contre « International » (ONU). Human right are best protected at a national because, when people are in on her own country they get very protected than other country for example: security, education and encouraged people.English: Good point: a country protects its own citizens with schools and police (security).

Français : Bon point : un pays protège ses propres citoyens avec des écoles et la police (sécurité).

However, In one part I agree, because Human who is not in her own country they are not relax or they are not in security, but when they are on they own country they are in good security and Good Healthcare.English: You argue that citizens feel safer and have better services (Healthcare) in their own country.

Français : Vous affirmez que les citoyens se sentent plus en sécurité et disposent de meilleurs services (santé) dans leur propre pays.

In the second part i disagree, because the international level are also very protected in a very higher good behaviour.English: Vague. You need to name an organization. E.g., "The United Nations protects rights globally."

Français : Vague. Vous devez nommer une organisation. Par exemple : « Les Nations Unies protègent les droits à l'échelle mondiale. »

Finally, in my opinion I think national are the best Human rights thing about like is in they own country and they are very in security and Encouraged.English: Simple conclusion restating your view.

Français : Conclusion simple réaffirmant votre point de vue.

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

I agree with this statement as human rights protects us it promotes freedom of SpeechIntroduction: You state your view immediately. To get higher marks, define "National" (UK Laws) versus "International" (UN/ECHR) first. an example could be when posted on 'X' Saying 'bomb all the houses for all i care' this led to people in the UK to protest, destroy buildings without this we wont be protected and none of these things would have happened. they fail to realise that they would be held accountabilityArgument For: You reference the 2024 Riots/Social Media. This is a relevant example. You imply that "National" protection (holding them accountable/arresting them) is what solves this.

One reason why i may disagree with this statement because in situations like USA attacking greenland any NATO members Countries have no permission to aid and support which means our human rights arent protected at an internation level.Argument Against: **Major Factual Error**: The USA did not attack Greenland. (Perhaps you meant Russia attacking Ukraine?). Also, NATO is a military alliance, not a Human Rights court. Accuracy is vital here. Another reason could be war and conflict they fail to realise that they are breaching people's rights and responsibilities e.g human rights as they dont have the right to live.Argument Against: Valid general point: In war (international level), the "Right to Life" is often ignored, proving international protection is weak.

In conclusion, I agree that it's protected nationally because of our backgrounds, culture etc but not internationally due to war and conflict breaching peoples rights and responsibilitiesEvaluation: You link national protection to "culture", which is an interesting idea (Shared Values), though needs more explanation.

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

Whether or not human rights are best protected at a national or international level has been a continuing debate.Introduction: Excellent opening sentence setting up the debate. On one hand, most parliaments are sovereign, meaning that they are the supreme legal body in their respective countries, meaning that only they can control the laws in their country. On the other hand, international bodies such as the UN, are influential figures that greatly influence national decision.Evaluation: Clear distinction between "Legal Power" (Sovereignty) and "Influential Power" (UN).

As the majority of parliaments are sovereign, only they can control the laws in their countries. This means that outside influence and international bodies, such as the UN or the International Court of Justice, cannot hope to oppose national decisions. As a result, human rights will also fall under the control of that countries parliament.Argument For: Strong, sustained argument about Sovereignty. You argue that International bodies (ICJ/UN) are legally weaker than National Parliaments. In addition, there are much less civilians to protect nationally than internationally. This means that parliaments and government can have an easier time protecting the human rights of a much smaller number of people.Argument For: A practical/logistical argument: smaller populations are easier to manage/protect.

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

Whether human rights are best at a national rather than at a international level is a good argument for a debate as smaller countys with less power depend on international courts to protect their human rights while larger and more democratic countrys enjoy their sovereign Parliament and control our human rights.Introduction: Excellent sophisticated opening. You recognize that the answer depends on the *type* of country (Small/Weak vs Large/Democratic). This is Level 4 thinking.

Furthermore some may argue that human rights are best protected at a national level as countys like the UK have a sovereign Parliament which allows them to protect and make laws to further help the countrys human rights.Argument For: Good use of the concept of "Sovereign Parliament". In addition human rights are best at a national level as the government of the country hears from its People and should know how to improve and protect the citizens life. For example when it comes to rights and responsibilities when challenging global situations national protection could be better as every country goes through different experiences during situations.Argument For: Valid point about cultural specificity ("different experiences") and democratic accountability ("hears from its people"). In addition countys like the UK has developed the human rights from documents like the Magna Carta in 1215 to the own human rights act which helps and benefits.Evidence: Excellent historical context. Linking "Magna Carta 1215" to the "Human Rights Act" shows deep knowledge of the UK's rights history.

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

I somewhat agree with this statement. Human rights are fundamental laws designed to protect individuals from inequality. some argue these rights are best protected at national level as they have direct authority over laws however others believe international protection is more significant as they set universal standards.Introduction: Clear and concise. You define the conflict well: "Direct Authority" (National) vs "Universal Standards" (International).

i believe human rights are more effectively protected at a national level as there is direct control over legal systems and judiciary. National courts can provide quicker and accessible responses. This could mean courts are able to view who's rights were been violated directly.Argument For: Strong practical evaluation. National courts are "quicker and accessible" compared to distant international ones. Additionally national laws can be influenced by a countries social and cultural beliefs making them more relevant and democratic for example UK and [India?] may differ making their judiciary responsible for making choices.Argument For: Valid point about "Cultural Relativism"—laws should fit the culture of the country, which implies National protection is more appropriate.

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

I somewhat agree with this statement. Human rights are fundamental laws or freedoms designed to protect individuals from inequalities inequality from the state... some people may argue these rigorous decision are not protected.Introduction: You define human rights as "fundamental freedoms", which is good. The stance "somewhat agree" is clear.

I belive human rights are more effectively protected at national level as there is direct control over the legal systems and judiciary in the UK and they can have accessible responses to these and they are able to view peoples rigiros decision.Argument For: Valid point. You argue that "direct control" over the "legal systems and judiciary" makes protection more effective/accessible. This refers to Enforceability.

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

I believe that human rights are best protected at a national rather than international level simply because nations are sovereign. However international law doesn't affect individuals as much. Although International law is what sets the baseline for human rights followed by most nations.Introduction: Excellent. You contrast "Sovereignty" (National strength) with "Baseline" (International strength).

I agree with the above statement mainly because each and every country are sovereign. The way countries are run vary from nation to nation. Certain nations such as Afghanistan dont follow the international declaration of human rights... and they can pick and choose how to run there nation. Humans have the right to live according to international law however some countries such as the US still allow the death penalty to take place. International organisations such as the united nations are unable to interfere with such affairs due to the simple overarching fact that [each] country is sovereign.Argument For: Outstanding analysis of "Sovereignty". You use Afghanistan and the US Death Penalty to prove that International Law is weak because it cannot "interfere" with sovereign states.

Overall this is an excellent point as it discusses how international law struggles to target individuals or specific nations for breaching Human rights.Evaluation: Strong summary of the previous argument's strength.

However it doesn't take into account the facts that International organisations can issue Sanctions via trade for example In order to punish nations.Argument Against: Strong counter-point. You identify "Sanctions" as the tool International bodies use to bypass sovereignty.

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

I agree with this statement. For national law, it focuses more on the actions of individuals whereas international law focuses more on countries as a whole and sets the basis of human rights. National and International law goes hand in hand to maintain scrutiny and opt for equality worldwide however it can be argued that national law is a better enforcer of citizen's behaviour set laws.Introduction: Excellent conceptual distinction: National = Individuals; International = Countries/Basis.

I believe national law is more effective in protecting human rights as they set individual acts that directly protect certain things and give punishment. An example is the 9 protected characteristics in the UK. This means that people can be punished for passing discrimination to anyone who beholds these characteristics... without national law, international will not be able to enforce this as parliament is sovereign meaning it cannot be influenced from anyone outside the country.Argument For: Strong evidence: "9 Protected Characteristics" (Equality Act 2010). You link this to the concept of "Enforcement" and "Punishment".

An example is that in countries like Nigeria you can be given the death penalty for being homosexual even though the international human rights state that everyone has the right to life and to a family of their choice. This shows how international law is not able to effectively enforce human rights on sovereign countries...Argument For: High-level comparison. You use the Nigeria/Homosexuality example to prove that International Law (Right to Family/Life) fails when a Sovereign nation disagrees.

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

Human rights are the basis of all laws in most nations. However, what if they are not protected? And if they are protected, how should they? At a international level, or a national level?Introduction: Using rhetorical questions is a good way to engage the reader, though you need to outline your *answer* to them here too.

I agree with this statement to a large extent, as at a national level, human rights can be protected in singular nations, as most are Sovereign, so they can depend on their own rights and laws, and not on international law. Sovereignty means that the nations cannot be influenced by international laws, as they only rely on their own laws.Argument For: Solid point about "Sovereignty". You explain correctly that it prevents outside influence.

One may however disagree with this statement, as internationally, there are organisations and alliances which ensure that human rights are secure and protected in other nations. For example in the EU, it is ensured that all members have their human rights in place in their country to prevent exploitation as well as the danger that people may face. Another way in which internationally, human rights are protected, is through international acts and treaties such as the Magna Carta. This treaty has lasted a long time, and provided a good baseline to all laws, on how to make fair, protected laws and rights such as the human rights.Argument Against: Good point about the EU (Membership requires rights adherence). **Correction:** The Magna Carta (1215) is a National (English) document, not an international treaty. Be careful with history.

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

I partially disagree with this statement. I think this because although national laws may be more fitting for individuals, human rights are best protected at an international level in my opinion.Introduction: Clear stance. You introduce the idea of "fitting for individuals" vs "international protection".

I somewhat disagree with the statement. This is because human rights being protected at an international level will be taken more seriously and will be more equal. This is because some countries are run as a democracy, whereas others are run as a dictatorship. If human rights were protected at a national level, countries such as North Korea won't have their human rights protected. This would lead to inequality and the mistreat of individuals. This is why human rights should be protected at an international level, to ensure that everyone is equal and making sure no ones human rights are being breached.Argument Against: Strong logical point regarding "Universality". You argue that because some nations are Dictatorships (North Korea), we *cannot* rely on national protection, therefore International protection is necessary for equality.

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

The question of whether human rights (HRs for a short hand) are best protected by individual countries rather than international bodies like the UN is a nuanced one. On one hand, ensuring countries enforce HRs on their own borders... makes HRs more actionable... but if you leave HRs to each individual government... some may disregard HRs completely... North Korea for example does not enforce any HRs and is a dictatorship.Introduction: Excellent. You define the debate clearly: "Actionable" (National strength) vs "Disregard/Dictatorship" (National weakness).

One reason why HRs aren't best protected at a national level compared to current international HR conventions like the UN's 28 articles is that governments may completely disregard them and worsen their citizens and refugees' lives. For example, the previously mentioned North Korea is a brutal tyrannical dictatorship... citizens have no access to the outside world... they could theoretically be killed by the state... The point here is that if international HRs are scrapped and delegated to countries... citizens have no or far less protection... refugees fleeing persecution... would have no international protection meaning they'd be no-one's problem legally... Without international HRs much international accountability is gone because no one will check how you treat your people or refugees.Argument Against: Outstanding evaluation. You argue that International Law is essential for "Accountability" and for protecting "Refugees" who fall outside of national protection. This is Level 4 reasoning.

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

The statement makes a good point in saying that human rights are best protected at a national level as countries are sovereign and cannot be forced to respect peoples human rights, take North Korea for example. However the point doesn't consider that if left to national protection alone, people in countries such as China or North Korea may have their human rights breached.Introduction: Clear and balanced. You identify the key tension: Sovereignty vs Abuse.

One may believe that human rights should be protected at a national level as all countries are sovereign (Meaning they can make their own rules and do as they please) If human rights were enforced at a national level then countries will lose their sovereignty leading to further inequalities.Argument For: Good definition of Sovereignty. Attempting to enforce human rights on an international scale may also be ineffective as once again countries are sovereign... This could lead to tensions between countries who do or don't uphold human rights, perhaps sparking conflict between them... North Korea is a sovereign & powerful nation, attempting to force rules upon them would lead to conflict & further casualties. For these reasons, one may believe that human rights are best enforced at a national level rather than an international level.Argument For: High-level "Realist" evaluation. You argue that International protection is dangerous because enforcing it breaches sovereignty and causes "Conflict" and "Casualties" (War). This is a unique and strong argument.

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

I somewhat partially agree with the statement, this is because Rights are better protected at a local level. This is because certain laws are made to reflect the local community however the statement loses credibility as some countries are dictatorships and may treat people within the country terribly and if national courts arent helping the international court of justice will.Introduction: Good start. You introduce the "Local Level" (reflecting community) vs "Dictatorships" (needing ICJ).

on the one hand Human Rights are protected better at a national level. This is because many countries such as the uk are Sovereign and can pass laws which reflect people Human rights. There are also many different courts and trade unions you can go to if workers rights are [breached] or to courts if your Human Rights arent being protected. for example case law and precedent ensures that laws keep up with society whilst it may be harder to change on an international level one example of this is the case where a man was forced to drive whilst drunk by a terrorist the law was slightly changed to match his rights as his life was in danger.Argument For: Outstanding legal detail. You mention "Trade Unions", "Case Law", "Precedent", and refer to a specific legal case (Duress/Necessity defence). This shows deep understanding of how national law adapts.

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

I agree with the statement to some extent. This is because human rights should are acknowledged on a large scale of factors, which multiple countries should be involved in.Introduction: Vague. "Large scale of factors" doesn't clearly define the debate.

Human rights are protected rights that all most citizens have. This makes the law fair Human rights can be influenced by Social media on an international level which could have a stronger effect on many people. However, on an international level, not all the peoples rights are fairly considered in countries that are not very democratic.Argument Against: A bit confused. You mention "Social Media" influencing rights, which is interesting, but not really about *protection*. You correctly identify that "not very democratic" countries are a problem.

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

I agree with the statement because human rights are More protected National Because other countries would neither protect the human rights to show how good or how there country operated to paint a good image about there country also the Development of human rights have changes through out the year for example like the human rights Act over all protects youIntroduction: Hard to follow structure. You mention the "Human Rights Act", which is a key piece of evidence. and there being More More human rights have been added and also some countries Might have More rules then others which means if you go to other country it Might not respect you as they your own country states... However you can talk about the rights and responsibility in challenging global situation which helps focus on protecting human rights Globaly.Argument For: You seem to be arguing that your own country respects you more than strangers/other countries do, which is a valid intuitive point about National protection.

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

I disagree with the statement because I think that at a National level some Human Rights aren't being followed in some of the countries.Introduction: You state your view (Disagree) and a basic reason (National failure). To improve, set up the debate first (Sovereignty vs Universal standards). A reason why i think that Human rights has been protected at a National level is because for example, A country like your doesn't follow some of the Human rights act like the Right to ... this shows that Human rights Aren't best protected at A National level, the best course of view Two countries must follow through with it.Argument Against: A bit confused. You are arguing that because some countries break the Human Rights Act, National protection doesn't work. This is a valid point, but needs a specific example (e.g. Russia/China).

Another reason as to why i think that Human rights are best protected at An International level is that The human rights act are recognized by every country. For example... all of the Human rights but its the countries choice whether to be obliged by them... being punished is Geneva [Convention?] ... punishment for those that Human rights Are best protected at an international level due to the laws like Geneva convention...Argument Against: You mention the "Geneva Convention", which is excellent evidence. This is International Law that protects people during war. Using this proves International protection works when National governments fail.

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

This is quite a complex question as it has a veriety of points of view to consider. Though someone could quickly agree as they could argue that every country is sovereign and should be in charge of its people, we can see in many instances where a country's government has failed them and caused more harm than good to their human rights.Introduction: Excellent. You identify the "Complex" nature of the debate: Sovereignty (National) vs State Failure (International necessity).

One argument against this statement is the idea that international organisations such as the commonwealth and the UN (united nations) are there to help with the reinforcement of human rights as well as many other issues. These international organisations are helpful and necessary as they have more power. For example, if a country is allowing the abuse of people's human rights, by condoning slavery for example, another country can intervene by imposing sanctions on the perpetrator country. This can be very helpful as multiple countries imposing sanctions on one country eg, economical, military, means they are likely to change upon seeing the effect of that sanction on their country.Argument Against: Strong mechanism analysis. You explain *how* international protection works: "Sanctions" (Economic/Military). This proves international bodies have "Hard Power".

However, someone could well argue against this point as the permanent members of the UN could veto the decision if it's made there, and actually imposing sanctions against a country could also be considered as a breach of human rights, depending on the extent in which the sanction is imposed.Evaluation: Outstanding Level 4 evaluation. You critique your own point about the UN by introducing the "Veto" power of the Security Council. This shows a deep understanding of why international protection often fails.

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

I mostly agree with this statement. The reason why is because i also slightly disagree.Introduction: A bit simple. Try to explain *why* you slightly disagree in the intro (e.g. "due to the need for a global safety net"). The reason as to why I agree is because national is smaller than international which means there are less peoples rights to take care of which is easier than international which is the whole world. Human rights has developed since the Magna Carta which was a paper that King James had to sign which spoke about human rights and other things that changed the law. That was when the first Human rights evolved.Argument For: Two points: 1) Scale (National is smaller/easier to manage). 2) History (Magna Carta). **Correction**: It was King John, not King James, in 1215.

Different countries are sovereign which means they can choose how to rule their country as long as its fair. So I think its easier at a national level because if there is a problem its more likely to get solved quicker than an international level.Argument For: Good evaluation of "Efficiency". National courts are "quicker" than international ones. This is a practical reason why National is better.

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

This could be argued with two sided because everyone hasn't been everywhere which can effect the way people see this agreement. So may agree because their country is stable and in order, whilst an [alien?] or refugee may disagree and say no because their government is bad doesn't really care about them.Introduction: Creative approach. You argue that the answer depends on *who* you are (a citizen in a stable country vs a refugee). This is a strong evaluative framework.

I agree with this statment partially because each country should be held accountable for their actions and see what they could do better and improve. For example the Magna Carta held everyone in place and ensured no one had more power or treatment than others. So human rights are not best protected at an international level because only should individual countries be held sovereign which means they should be independent and responsible...Argument For: Good use of "Magna Carta" and "Sovereignty". You argue countries should be "responsible" for themselves.

If they can not then its should be protected at an international level because people in the country could be troubled and scared of their sustainability of their life. So it should be to an extent where its protected nationally so they can show how a country can protect their countries human rights.Argument Against: Valid point. International protection acts as a "safety net" when citizens are "troubled and scared" (oppressed).

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

On one hand it is agreeable that human rights are best protected at a national as it makes it much easier for the government to take control over one place. However others would disagree because they think it's only fair if everyone gets the same human rights.Introduction: Clear structure. "Control/Ease" (National) vs "Fairness/Equality" (International).

Those who agree might say that the best protected human right would be the national one as they will feel more secured. For example in the UK the Parliament makes sure to run the laws and the 2010 equality act to make sure that everyone is receiving the same treatments. This is important because making the human rights International could make it difficult for countries to receive the same right and therefore would make it unfair... As well as that we also have the Magna Carta signed this which makes sure that places like the uk, usa, france, etc are ensured to have their rights covered.Argument For: Strong specific evidence: "Equality Act 2010". You argue that National laws (Parliament) provide specific security. (Note: Magna Carta is a UK document, it doesn't cover France/USA directly, though it influenced them).

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

I believe that there could be a very compelling argument either for or against this statement. On one hand, human rights are much easier to uphold on a national level than an international level, however on the other hand, upholding human rights on an international level is more influential to individual countries and more impactful.Introduction: Good balanced opening. You identify the trade-off: "Easier to uphold" (National) vs "More influential/impactful" (International).

An argument for this statement is that human rights are best protected on a national scale as compared to internationally, a national level is "much smaller scale, making it easier to enforce and more impactful for individuals rather than countries. This means that human rights can be more effective overall, especially for people who may not have access to some of their human rights (e.g. homeless people without their right to shelter) and would not be recognised on an international level.Argument For: Strong logic. You argue that National protection is better because it is "localized". International bodies might miss specific local issues like homelessness. While this is a strong point, it could be countered by the fact that human rights being enforced on an international level would influence whole countries, therefore benefitting the people in the countries on a much bigger scale.Evaluation: Clear weighing up. Quality (National) vs Quantity/Scale (International).

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

Human rights are first of all not associated with some countries, for example turkey. The eu involves countries with the human rights act. This is the first example of human rights being more protected at a national rather than that at an international level.Introduction: A bit confused. You mention the EU (International) protecting rights, but claim it supports the National argument? Needs clarification. What I mean by this is a country like the UK is very serious place when it comes to human rights but then a country like Nigeria won't have free education.Argument For: Valid comparison. You argue that "developed" nations protect rights well on their own, implying they don't need international help (Relativism).

On the other side the human rights could be argued to be protected at an international level aswell. For example the international court of justice hears cases bought by nations against eachother territorial disputes and human rights.Argument Against: Strong specific evidence. Citing the "International Court of Justice" (ICJ) and its role in "territorial disputes" is excellent knowledge. Although a lot of countries are afraid to accept the human rights act to get away with things. A lot of the time there citizens are treated right and not over powered.Evaluation: You touch on the idea that countries avoid international laws to "get away with things" (impunity).

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

I strongly agree that Human rights are best protected at a national level rather than an internation levelIntroduction: Stance stated. this is because human rights are associated with all countries, there are territorial disputes associated with human rights, the international court of justice hears cases bought by nations against each otherArgument Against: **Contradiction**: You said you AGREE (National is best), but then listed evidence for the International Court of Justice (which supports the International side). Also, this phrasing is almost identical to the previous candidate's script.

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

Human Rights has been a big argument for a while. One one hand, human rights have been developing and improving for a while, also being created by the influence of the Magna Carta.Introduction: Good historical context. Referencing the "Magna Carta" shows you know the roots of rights in the UK. While on the other hand, not all countries follow keep and enforce peoples human rights such as China.Argument Against: Valid point. You identify that National protection *fails* in dictatorships (China), implying International protection is needed there.

A reason why people might believe that that the human rights are best protected at a national level is because they are more informed and aware. For example, Things such as the trade union help ensure and protect people's human rights. While countries such as North Korea don't enforce human rights in any type of way.Argument For: Excellent specific example. Identifying "Trade Unions" as a national mechanism for protecting rights is a unique and high-level point. It moves beyond just "courts".

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

Human rights can help be protected at an international when things like wars are taking place... helping to protect countries, however all countries are sovereign so they do not have to listen to or take the punishment that they have received.Introduction: Outstanding summary of the conflict: "International necessity" (Wars) vs "Sovereign Immunity" (Don't have to listen).

One reason why you would agree with the statement is because all countries are sovereign... allowed to do what they want... if a war broke out and one country broke any human rights they wouldn't have to take any ownership and punishment... As well as this if a country is democratic they will usually be able to protect the human rights of their citizens as the country has chose for that group to be in power meaning they can also loose that power like in the UK with Parliament.Argument For: Level 4 Evaluation. You explain that in a Democracy (UK), the government protects rights because they fear losing power (Accountability). This explains *why* national protection works in democracies.

However one reason why you would disagree is because if human rights are broken on an international the punishment can be a lot harsher as well as the fact the collective power of the country means they can try enforce more rightsArgument Against: Strong point about "Collective Power". International bodies can use the weight of many nations to enforce rights where one nation cannot.

"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)

I disagree because our world has developed for a very long time so this would make almost every nation support the Human Rights Act. The breaching of Human Rights would decrease as we have a fair society throughout the world.Introduction: A bit naive. You assume the world is a "fair society", but in Politics/Citizenship you must discuss the places that *aren't* fair (e.g., dictatorships). Also, the "Human Rights Act" is a UK law, not a global one.

The International level is greater as it would have more influence and support them a national level of Human Rights.Argument Against: You assert that international is "greater" and has "more influence", but you don't explain *how*. Does it use armies? Sanctions? Courts?