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

While some people may believe that Human rights are protected more Nationally, others may disagree as they might think Rights are best protected internationally... However this can be unbalanced because the UK really does not need any other country to tell it how to act.Introduction: Good attempt to set up the debate. You identify the tension between "National Independence" and "International oversight". Also the parliament IS Sovereign so All rights are equal no matter what. Whereas internationally have multiple countries thinking for one another for e.g. UNICEF. This is an international organisation which help eachother make decisions. This can be unstable as some communities might disagree with some views.Argument For: Strong Citizenship Terminology: "Sovereign". You argue that National protection is stable because Parliament has final authority, whereas International bodies (UNICEF) are "unstable" due to disagreements.

Overall, Human rights are protected more Nationally as parliament is protected under law as Parliament IS Sovereign.Evaluation: Clear conclusion relying on the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty.

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

Where ever human rights are protected more on a national level ratter then an international level is a big debateIntroduction: Basic opening. Some countrys do not need to be told how to manage Human rights as they are capable on their own.Argument For: Basic point about National Capability. Some other countrys require assistance as In some countrys people are opipressed and do not have some of the basic Human rights we have here in the UK.Argument Against: Valid point: International protection is needed when national governments "oppress" their people. You contrast this with the UK.

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

This essay will look at how side to see is national or international protect human right more.Introduction: Stance stated, though grammar makes it hard to read. Nationally soverign countries shoud have right to care with out there own law with other country disagree with what they belive soverigns mean a country can govern it self and make there own LawArgument For: Good definition of "Sovereignty" (governing self/making own laws). This supports the National side. however on the other international is for other countries For example the geneva convention is a rule that people in war follow such as a army torture people or a court kill a citizen...Argument Against: Strong specific evidence. You mention the "Geneva Convention" protecting people in war (torture). This is a great example of International Law working where National law fails.

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

I agree to an extent. Whether human's right's are best protected at an international level is up for debate.Introduction: Clear, standard opening. And this is because on one hand some could say that even tho the result's arent clear as day their are sevrul organisation's that help to protect human right beyon an internatinal levele. For example the united nation's, unicef as well as Ngo's. The most noticable being the united nation's... laws like the Geneva Convention which protect's human's night's during brutal conflict this is fulthur reinforced as the country's wich don't follow are sanctioned or boy cottal.Argument Against: Excellent Citizenship Knowledge. You link "UN/UNICEF/NGOs" to the "Geneva Convention" and mention "Sanctions/Boycotts" as enforcement methods.

On the other hand on a internatinal level national levele Some could arge that since thing's are done on a way smaller scale it's easier to protect thos right's even tho their is merit to this arguement it fail's to consider how thing's like the hollocaust the mass murder of a specific group was done on a national levele showing that even tho it's easier local prevention is impossible as mass genocide goes way beyond humur right's and violates sevral laws.Evaluation (Rebuttal): Outstanding Level 4 evaluation. You introduce the "National Scale" argument but immediately destroy it by using the Holocaust/Genocide as evidence that National protection fails completely when the state turns on its people. This proves International protection is essential.

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

Wether human right are best protected at a national rather than at a international level is up to personal opinion as they both have their advantages and disadvantages.Introduction: A bit weak. Avoid saying "it is up to personal opinion". Instead, outline the *political* reasons for the debate (e.g. Sovereignty vs Justice). On one hand Human Rights on a national level can target every minority in their country like the UK which is one of the most immigrated countries as they encourage their Human rights to live safely and many people move to for their children entitment to education.Argument For: Valid point. You argue that National governments (UK) provide direct services like "education" and "safety" to immigrants.

However on the other hand people may say that international Human Rights are best protected because if not excisied propley they can not tell them what to do as every country is somrient [sovereign] but they can sanction them like Turkey as they are not allowed to join NATO because they dont recognise their Human rights propley.Argument Against: Strong specific evidence. You identify "Sanctions" and "NATO membership" (Turkey) as tools the international community uses to pressure sovereign countries.

Overall Human rights are best protected everywhere as you seeEvaluation: Weak conclusion. It doesn't give a definitive judgment.

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

Human rights are rights that everyone is entitled to, however not all countries enforce it.Introduction: Clear definition. Countries such as England have created laws which lawfully back the declaration of human rights. But on the other hand international organisations implement Precautions that gives people a Pathway to acess their rights.Argument For: Good distinction between National "Laws" and International "Pathways".

On an international scale, organisations are limited as to how they can intervene because all countries are sovereign. This ultimately means no country or organisation can tell a country what to do.Argument For (Critique of International): Strong definition of "Sovereignty". You explain *why* international protection fails (it cannot intervene). However Organisations such as the UN utilise their funds in order to fund projects such as Providing clean education for in LIC such as Rwanda children allowing them to access their right to an education. Although direct action is not being made subtle projects funded by the UN are set to give people access to their human rights.Argument Against: Excellent specific evidence. You mention "Rwanda" (LIC) and "UN Funds". This evaluates "Soft Power"—arguing that while the UN can't force laws, it can buy/fund rights protection.

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

I believe that there are strong arguments for and against... The base of what we must understand about all countries is that we are all Soverign meaning no country can tell another what to do.Introduction: Good definition of the key barrier: Sovereignty.

One argument for this statement is that even though we have human rights does not necessarily mean all countries apply to the public. For example in the UK we have the Equality a law stating everyone has access to a free education but also we have free school meals which make it easier for parents. Also the equality Act that came out in 2010 ensures that people under certain minorities or ethnic groups or more broadly diffrent identities are less likely to experiance any racism or anything predjustice. Also the declaration of human rights in 1990's roughly also is enforced more efficiently nationally asArgument For: Strong specific evidence for National protection: "Equality Act 2010" and "Free School Meals". You argue that national laws actively reduce racism/prejudice. (Note: HRA was 1998, not 1990s roughly).

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

To decide whether human rights are protected at a national rather than at an international level, we need to reiterate the fact that a small minority of countries do not enforce/recognise human rights such as North Korea despite knowing they exist.Introduction: Excellent context. You identify the "Problem States" (North Korea) immediately.

Firstly, all countries in the world are Sovereign meaning that another country cannot tell another country what to do.Argument For: Good definition of Sovereignty. However, just because they can't tell them what to do doesn't mean that they can't get Sanctioned. For example, Russia is very limited in exporting oil as they are Sanctioned by the USA alongside other countries for being a dictatorship, allowing minimal human rights in that country. This means that despite a country not giving their citizens their human rights they are still being somewhat protected at an international level. Additionally, Turkey cannot join NATO as they don't recognise human rights meaning thArgument Against: Outstanding evaluation of "Soft/Hard Power". You admit Sovereignty stops direct orders, but argue that "Sanctions" (Russia) and "Exclusion" (Turkey/NATO) are effective international tools.

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

I agree as human rights are protected and laws can get passed as a legislature. This is an advantage as nobody can tell you what to do.Evaluation: "Nobody can tell you what to do" is a very basic definition of Sovereignty. Human rights are put in place for the safety of everyone. Putting it nationally can ensure this for everyone However, a problem is that nationally not everyone has their rights or respected causing problems globally.Argument For: Basic points. You identify that National laws are "legislature", but the argument is circular.

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

Human rights are a big debate. On a international level, rights & laws are straight-forward and efficent as they apply to a large majority of countries shown through the UDHR however these rights aren't actually protected and present in society. On a national level such as a sovereign United Kingdom laws that are made such as the equality act are indeed effective...Introduction: Excellent. You define the tension perfectly: International laws are "straight-forward" (broad) but National laws are "effective" (enforceable).

Initially, the equality act of 2010 was a act protecting characteristics such as age, gender, disabilty and religion... that stopped the abuse of people as it is legally binding. Futhermore, a woman that had been forced to resign due to her gender could now go to a judge as it is a clear violation of human rights. This is a good point as the UK is one of many countries that uphold these valves...Argument For: Strong evidence. You cite the "Equality Act 2010" and explain *how* it works (going to a judge/legally binding). This proves national protection is enforceable.

and countries such as Turkey which are apart of United Nations and should listen to UNDR in fact have a bad human rights history; people feel unprotected, unsafe and dehumanised.Evaluation: Strong contrast. You use Turkey to show that being part of the UN (International) doesn't guarantee safety if the National government has a "bad history".

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

Wether or not human rights are best protected at a national rather than at an international level is a large debate. One one hand I could agree with this statement and say that on a national level the sovrinity of individual countries allow them to focus more on their own human rights... But on the other hand, I could also disagree and argue that at an international level it makes it easier to hold a weak government to account.Introduction: Excellent. You identify the key trade-off: "National Sovereignty" vs "Holding weak governments to account".

One reason why someone may agree with this statement is because nationally each country being sovergin makes it easier to advocate for human rights compared to internationally. This is because international countries cannot instruct other countries on how their human rights should be. For example, I know that Turkey has breached some of their peoples human rights, but that doesnt give the UK the right to instruct Turkey on how to run their country. This furthermore allows me to argue for this statement as the people can protect their own rights through protests whilst internationally cannot.Argument For: Strong conceptual argument. You explain that because of "Sovereignty", international pressure (UK telling Turkey what to do) fails. You argue change must come from within ("protests").

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

I agree with the statement... this is because the Countrys like the UK, USA and Hic - high income countrys are more strict on human rights and like to abide to their laws. where as Countrys that are Lic's - low income countrys like India and eritrea doesnt have a stable government and the country isnt develeped enough to put their focus on human rights and abide by it.Introduction/Argument For: You make a valid distinction between HICs (High Income) and LICs (Low Income), arguing that wealth/stability = better national protection. For example the right to education in some country's arent given even though you have the right to it. The UK is Soverign and we cant tell other Countrys what to do so its hard to make sure human rights are protected internationally.Argument For: Good definition of "Sovereign". You explain that we can't force LICs to follow rules.

however I also dissagree with this statement this is because internationally it is made sure that most of the rights are being given to everyone. and most Countrys are strict in making sure that humen right law is given to everyone For exampe Dubie and China. even though they are Far from the UK - International - They still make sure the human rights are protected and being given to everyone.Argument Against: **Factual Error**: You cite China and Dubai as examples of countries that "make sure human rights are protected". In Citizenship studies, China is usually the prime example of a country that *abuses* human rights (censorship, Uyghurs, no democracy). This weakens your argument significantly.

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

In the past humans rights were mainly weak Both nationally and internationally. For example during the holocaust individuals in camps were stripped off their dignity in these areas.Introduction: Historical context. Mentioning the Holocaust is good because it led to the creation of the UDHR.

At on one hand in the UK used to have Breach allot of human rights an example is hard labour. People worked excessive hours sometimes for little to no Profit. However the UN stepped in to restrict any of these breach of human rights.Argument Against: Confused timeline. The UK abolished hard labor/slavery long before the UN existed (1945). However, the general point that "International bodies stop National abuses" is valid. Although this point is heavily reinforced however whett this point has failed to mention is that it was not just workers rights abused but it was also consumers rights that have been breached aswellEvaluation: This drifts off topic. "Consumer rights" are different from "Human rights" (like torture/freedom of speech). Stick to the core human rights.

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

I partially agree human rights are best protected at a national rather than at an international level this is because In the past, newspapers were seen as the "Watchdog" of democracy - they were there to check up on the government. But the internet has changed everything. With the rise of algorithms and viral posts, the media acts differently now. This response will look at whether these new forms of media have tripped the balance from being helpful to being too powerful.Irrelevant Content: You have written the title "Human Rights" but the essay content is about "The Media/Watchdogs". It seems you have memorized an answer for the wrong topic.

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

In the past, newspapers were seen as the "Watchdog" of democracy - they were there to check up on the government. But the internet has changed...Irrelevant Content: You have written an introduction for a Media essay. The question asks about Human Rights (UN, Courts, Laws). You must answer the specific question on the paper.

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

Human rights are protected national rather than at an international level Human rights ar... Human rights are [Stops writing]Incomplete: You wrote the title but did not start the essay.

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

Whether human rights are protected at a National level or international level is a big debate. on one hand countries are sovereign and cannot be told how to manage human rights by other countries. But on the other hand we have Organisations like the UN to help advocate and promote human rights.Introduction: Clear and balanced. Sets up "Sovereignty" vs "Advocacy".

I partially disagree with this statement. This is partially due to the fact that there is an organisation full of countries like the UK called the Council of Europe [candidate wrote 'the HRA' then crossed it out, seeming to mean Council of Europe/ECHR] that helps advocate and promotes human rights international. This helps ensure that more peoples rights are protected on a Global Scale. This point is Strong as it highlights how there are organisations built for the sole purpose of protecting human rights.Argument Against: Valid point about "Global Scale" and "Advocacy". You mention the "Council of Europe" correctly as the body responsible for the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights).

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

Whether human rights are protected more at an international or national level is a very good debate as you have to take into consideration the fact that most countries are Sovereign meaning they can make their own decisions and no one can tell them what to do, but also have to consider how morally correct these are and if they use the title 'sovereign' fairly without breaching human rights.Introduction: Excellent definition of the ethical tension: "Sovereignty" vs "Moral Correctness".

I partially agree with Statement to an extent as human right are more easily monitered at a national level as they can control what happens more easy and punish any individual/organisation who goes against these human rights and find justice.Argument For: Strong point about "Monitoring" and "Punishment". National governments have the police and courts to enforce laws directly.

Whereas at an international level it would be elusive to find a way to convince those in power in Sovereign countries to become more strict and enforce those human rights to ensure everyone has access to them if needed.Argument Against: Good vocabulary ("Elusive"). You argue that International protection is weak because it relies on "convincing" sovereign leaders rather than forcing them.

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

I believe that Human Rights are particularly stronger on a national level than an international level as international laws protect rights when the government fails to protect human rights international as safeguard which is rare and seen as backup towards situations when it goes wrong compared to National government make stronger and direct powers for example police force, prisons, so human right laws can be applied.Introduction: Excellent. You define International as a "Safeguard/Backup" and National as having "Direct Powers" (police/prisons). This evaluates the *nature* of the power.

An example of why Human rights are best protected on a national level is due to how the Human Rights Act 1998 allows people to take cases to UK courts making protection quicker and easier. There is also a More democratic responsibility as government get elected so citizens can vote them to be chosen or not if they feel as if they failed to protect their rights. It also gives them a better understanding of local issues as national governments understand the country [culture] on a huge culture level and socially as they are more familiar with these organisation compared to on an international level where they dont have as much awareness about a country before taking more action to make it better or worse.Argument For: Top tier analysis. 1) "Human Rights Act 1998" = Quicker courts. 2) "Democratic Responsibility" = We can vote out governments that fail us. 3) "Cultural Understanding" = Locals know best. This is sustained Level 4 reasoning.

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

Although international organisations set important standards, human rights are most effectively protected at a national level because governments and courts have real power to enforce laws and punish abuse.Introduction: Excellent. You distinguish between "setting standards" (International role) and "enforcing laws" (National role). This is a precise definition of the problem.

Human rights are protected nationally because enforcement is stronger and more meaningful than international pressure. National governments can pass laws, fund public services, and use courts to punish those who violate rights... for example, if a person faces discrimination or unfair treatment, they can take the case to a national court, which has the authority to issue penalties or compensation.Argument For: Strong focus on "Enforcement". You explain *how* national protection works: Courts -> Authority -> Penalties.

In contrast, international bodies such as the UN mainly rely on reporting, criticism and sanctions, which are often slow and can be ignored by powerful states.Argument Against: Concise critique of International power ("Soft Power"). Reporting vs Enforcing. However, international protection is still significant because it can expose abuses and pressure governments when national systems fail, particularly dictatorships.Evaluation: Strong nuance. You acknowledge that while International power is weaker, it is essential when the National system is corrupt ("Dictatorships").

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

I am inclined to disagree heavily with this statement; human rights are better protected at an international level, because human rights are not very subject to interpretation.Introduction: Interesting angle. You argue that rights should not be "subject to interpretation", implying National governments might twist them. It would be better to have it protected not on a national level as it leaves them vulnerable for intentional misinterpretation even if it could make human rights enforcement more efficient.Argument Against: Sophisticated trade-off. You admit National is "more efficient" (enforcement) but argue International is "safer" (interpretation).

One way which human rights are better enforced on an int'l level is shown to us by their invulnerability to disregard by governments... If human rights are better enforced internationally, the interpretative power is taken away from malicious govts... It may also help correct traditionalist dogma on morality in developing countries that are blatantly incorrect (e.g. the age of consent in Iraq is 9 years old, making child marriages common). It would be hard for govts to implement these rights due to the weakness of their institutions.Argument Against: Strong specific evidence. Citing the "Age of consent in Iraq" is a powerful example of where National Law violates human rights, proving the need for International "Universalism" to override "traditionalist dogma".

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

Initially I agree with this statement as it is far easier to protect them nationally rather than International as countries are Sovereign. This means other countries cannot tell it what to do which makes it much harder to tell them to protect human rights.Introduction: Clear definition of the main barrier: "Sovereignty".

Futhermore some countries are forced to ignore the rights due to low economies as in some countries parents are force to send their children to work rather than school, ignoring their child's right to an education... Someone may agree that stronger countries should go to these countries to enforce these rights by forcing the government and employers to keep them in mind, however this enforcement argument is weak as Countries have Sovereignty.Argument For: Nuanced argument. You acknowledge rights abuses (Child Labour) but argue International intervention is impossible due to Sovereignty.

So this would be seen as a Foreign War and removing the employers who do hire... children... will lead to a huge amount of jobs disappearing and families suffering with increased hunger and poverty. Alot of western countries also buy from these employers so if the stronger countries were to close them down they would lose a lot of goods they purchase for cheap.Evaluation: Outstanding "Realist" evaluation. You argue that International enforcement ("Foreign War" or closing factories) creates *worse* outcomes (hunger/poverty) and harms Western economic interests. This explains *why* international protection fails.

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

Despite the vast benefits that international level brings to human rights such as the simplicity and efficiency of laws that govern human rights, I agree with this statement as human rights should be nationalised for the sake of adapting to regional culture and crises.Introduction: Excellent "Cultural Relativism" argument. You argue for "adapting to regional culture".

Initially, I could explore many examples... where countries have introduced human rights into legislation such as the Human Rights Act in 1998. This had ratified a previous EU law of the European Convention of Human Rights in 1953. This was an important step for the UK as it had made them sovereign over their own human rights which allow them to introduce further adaptations further along the line so it fits cultural standards.Argument For: Excellent legal history. You correctly identify the link between the HRA 1998 and the ECHR (1953), and argue that "ratifying" it restored Sovereignty/Control.

This had later led to the 2010 Equality Act which had been a representation of public view over a common theme that arose in the early 2000s: discrimination... the 9/11 crisis had made the world scrutinize muslims which then led the UK to introduce an anti-discrimination law...Argument For: Specific contextual evidence. You link the "Equality Act 2010" to specific historical context (post-9/11 discrimination), proving that National governments react to events faster/better.

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

Human rights and protection are a big deal. On an International and national level I partially agree that human rights are better protected and carried out on a national level, due to how much more effictive it can be nationally.Introduction: Clear stance focusing on "Effectiveness".

The UK parliment established the human rights in 1998. This would give everyone rights. Scince the Uk is soverign, meaning no other country can tell them what laws to pass, they can carry out and protect human rights. Nationally it was more effective, as the Uk government can relate more to the people and understand their needs compared to international organisations such as the UN.Argument For: Good point about "Representation". National governments "relate more" to their people than distant international bodies.

Another example of this is the Equality act passed by parlimint in 2010, protecting 9 key characteristics in a persons identity... This protected individuals from discrimination. This is very affective and a well thought point as it demonstrates how rights are protected better nationally compared to internationally such as the UN, an organisation that focuses on human rights, failing to establish them in own member countries such as turkey.Argument For/Comparison: Strong direct comparison. You contrast the success of the UK Equality Act with the failure of the UN to control member states like Turkey. This evaluates *efficacy*.

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

Whether human rights are best maintained nationally or internationally is a very prominat debate... On one hand, allowing nations to review their own rights may uphold democratic values while internationally, allows them to be overseen on a larger magnitude.Introduction: Good "Scale vs Democracy" framing.

Fistly, you could argue how Sovereignty will be upheld by allowing countries to decide on their own human rights. Democracy in many, can be upheld far more effectively and also allows more people to be directly involved in the making of new or regulating of them as governments could easily hold Referendums in deciding about them.Argument For: Good link between "Sovereignty" and "Direct Democracy" (Referendums). National rights allow people a say.

Despit this however, it will also be far more difficult to hold governments to account / scrutinize them... the UNs interjection holds a far better job at this due to less biased bias and also holding a large role in international affairs.Argument Against: Strong point about "Bias". National governments might mark their own homework; the UN offers unbiased scrutiny. By being an International issue, Human rights themselves issue being undermined for this reason.Evaluation: A bit unclear at the end, but the point about scrutiny is solid.