This highlight shows an argument AGREES national protection is best.
This highlight shows an argument DISAGREES (arguing for International protection).
This highlight shows Evaluation, where you weigh up arguments or make a judgment.
To get into the top band (Level 4: 13-15 marks), you need:
| Level 1 | Simple, generalised answer. Little analysis. Undeveloped evaluation. |
|---|---|
| Level 2 | Some analysis, but focused on ONE side. Lacks breadth/depth. |
| Level 3 | Balanced (both sides), but analysis is "unsustained" (not deep). Relevant. |
| Level 4 | Convincing, sustained analysis. Deep evaluation of both sides. |
I agree because countries should look after their own people. Simple Answer: No definition of terms or outline of argument. Just a basic opinion. If you live in England, the police and judges here know what is best for you. People in other countries don't know what it is like here.
Also, international rules are too far away. Generalised: "Too far away" is conversational. It doesn't explain *why* distance matters (e.g. lack of enforcement power). The UN is in America or somewhere, so they can't stop a crime happening in London. It is better to have local police.
So yeah, national is better. Undeveloped Evaluation: The conclusion adds no new logic or judgment.
This is a Level 1 response. It relies on common sense rather than Citizenship knowledge. It doesn't mention any specific laws or organizations.
I agree that Human Rights are best protected at a national level. National means inside the country, like the UK government. Basic Definition: Shows some knowledge of the key term.
One reason is that we have our own laws. For example, the Human Rights Act 1998 makes sure everyone is treated fairly. Evidence Used: Mentions a specific Act (HRA 1998). This pushes it out of Level 1. Because this is a UK law, British judges can use it in British courts. This means if someone breaks your rights, they can be punished straight away.
Also, international organizations like the UN are too weak. Limited Breadth: Mentions the UN but doesn't explain *why* it is weak or give an example of its failure. They can write reports but they can't put people in jail in England. So national protection is stronger.
Overall, I agree because national laws are real laws. One-Sided Conclusion: The student only really focuses on the 'For' argument and ignores the benefits of international protection.
This is a Level 2 response. It has some analysis (explaining the HRA 1998), but it is focused on one side.
Protecting human rights is a complex issue. There are arguments for both national and international protection. I will look at both sides of the argument. Structure: The student clearly intends to offer a balanced view.
On one hand, national protection is better because of sovereignty. The UK Parliament is sovereign, meaning it can make any law it wants. Key Term: Good use of "Sovereignty". This allows the UK to pass laws like the Equality Act 2010 which protect people from discrimination. Because these are national laws, the police can enforce them effectively.
On the other hand, national governments can sometimes abuse rights. Balance: The student offers a clear counter-argument. If a dictator runs a country, they won't protect their citizens. In this case, we need international bodies like the UN or the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). These organizations can put pressure on bad governments to change their ways. Unsustained Analysis: Good point, but it doesn't explain *how* they apply pressure (e.g. Sanctions).
In conclusion, I think national protection is usually better, but we need international protection as a backup. National courts are faster, but international courts are needed when national governments fail. Reasoned Argument: There is a clear judgment that recognizes the role of both systems.
This is a Level 3 response. Both sides are discussed (Balance), and the material is relevant. However, the analysis is unsustained.
Introduction:
There is a tension between national sovereignty and universal human rights. Knowledge: Defines the core tension immediately. While national courts offer enforceable protection, they are useless if the state itself is the abuser. Therefore, I partially agree, arguing that national protection is most *effective*, but international protection is essential as a safety net.
Argument FOR (National):
Arguments supporting national protection focus on enforceability and jurisdiction. Terminology: Uses specific Citizenship terms. National courts have the power to punish offenders immediately. For example, the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the ECHR into UK law, Specific Evidence: Connects the HRA to the ECHR. allowing UK judges to rule on rights violations without going to Strasbourg. This makes justice accessible and swift, whereas international courts can take years. Sustained Analysis: Explains WHY national is better (Speed/Access).
Argument AGAINST (International):
However, national protection fails when the government becomes the oppressor. Coherent Argument: Signals the counter-argument clearly. In dictatorships (e.g. North Korea or Syria), national laws are used to violate rights, not protect them. Here, international bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC) or the UN Declaration of Human Rights Breadth: Uses international examples (ICC/UN). are vital. They set a universal standard that no country should fall below. Without this external scrutiny, a sovereign state could commit genocide with impunity. Deep Evaluation: High-level analysis of the "check and balance" function of international law.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, while national protection is practically superior due to its legal force, it relies entirely on the goodwill of the government. Weighing up: Identifies the fatal flaw in the national argument. Therefore, international protection is the ultimate safeguard, ensuring that rights remain "universal" rather than just privileges granted by the state.
This is a Level 4 response. It offers convincing and sustained analysis.
Use this table to check your own essays before handing them in.
Don't just say "I agree" straight away. A top-grade essay often waits until the end to decide. Use your introduction to set up the debate first. Here are 3 ways to do this:
Whether human rights are better protected by our own government or by international groups is a big debate. On one hand, our national courts can punish criminals quickly. But on the other hand, international groups like the UN are needed when a government attacks its own people. This essay will look at both sides to see which offers the best protection.Why this works: It doesn't pick a winner yet. It shows the examiner you understand there are two strong sides to the argument before you start writing.
To answer this, we must define what "protection" means. Does it mean having strict laws in your own country (National), or having universal rules that apply to everyone, everywhere (International)? While national laws are stronger, international laws act as a safety net. This essay will weigh up the strength of legal power against the importance of universal safety.Why this works: It defines the problem. It distinguishes between "strict laws" (National) and "universal rules" (International).
In the UK, Parliament is sovereign, meaning it makes the final decisions on rights. However, since World War II, international organizations like the UN have tried to protect rights globally. This response will consider whether we are safer relying on our own Parliament, or if we need the backup of international courts like the ECHR.Why this works: It gives context (WWII/Sovereignty). It sets up the specific conflict between the UK Parliament and International Courts.
A conclusion shouldn't just say "In conclusion I agree." You need to weigh the arguments. Which side is stronger? Why?
In conclusion, I mostly agree that national protection is better. The argument that national courts can enforce laws immediately is stronger than the argument for international courts, which are often slow and weak. However, international protection is still necessary as a "backup" plan if a national government fails.Why this works: It weighs the "speed" of national courts against the "weakness" of international ones, but acknowledges the need for a backup.
Overall, I disagree with the statement to an extent. While national laws are effective in democratic countries like the UK, they are useless in dictatorships. Therefore, Human Rights are only "best protected" nationally if you live in a safe country; for everyone else, international protection is the only hope.Why this works: It evaluates the *condition*. It argues that the answer depends on *where* you live (Democracy vs Dictatorship).
"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)
Human rights can be considered as best protected at a national level rather than international. But one one hand Human rights are universal meaning everyone everyone is applied to them but on the other hand countries that are run by dictators leading citizens to not have access to chose. This essay puts both sides up for debate.Introduction: Good start. You define "Universal" rights (International) vs "Dictators" (National failure). This sets up the conflict well. Because there are many organis ations in place which ensure Countries are capble running. For Example An Example of these organisations are ane NGOsArgument Against: You identify "NGOs" as a way to help countries run, but the point is unfinished. How do NGOs protect rights? (e.g. Amnesty International exposes abuse).
"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)
The concept of human rights and how best they are protected is a big debate. Although human rights are best protected at national levels in different regions, I disagree to a large extent as you need to understand that it is best protected at national levels [international?] due to global organisations such as United Nations and council of Europe that play a huge role.Introduction: Good context. You mention the "United Nations" and "Council of Europe" immediately. Be careful with phrasing to ensure your stance is clear. To begin with, If we take a look at the United Nation (that was set up right after WWII) it was established in order to protect human rights. For example, they are able to encourage countries to allow these human rights in their country. This is a great point as it encourages democracy and peace amongst society. Furthermore, programmes in UNICEF help refugees with their rights. This is a valid argument as it shows they aim to help people whos human rights have either been restricted or exploited in other countries.Argument Against: Strong evidence. Citing "UNICEF" and "Refugees" proves that international bodies protect people when nations fail them. However, If we look at it in national levels, such as human rights are not always protected. For example, less modern democratic countries such as Somalia or Afghanistan human rights are not always protected mainly restricted such as freedom of speech or to practice religion. This is an invalid point as it just shows the flaws at national level.Argument Against (Critique of National): Excellent evaluation. You use "Somalia" and "Afghanistan" as case studies to prove that National protection fails without democracy.
"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)
I Agree with this point heavily for many reasons. One reason this is is because national layers are smaller and easier to maintain/manage over interaction scales.Introduction: Good "Practicality" argument. "Smaller and easier to manage" is a strong logical starting point. A example for this is North Korea and the UK. In north Korea human rights are not respected or entitles to anyone And there is nothing other countries like the UK can do about it as they had no Jurisdriction over there. But in the UK Power is centralised but devolved into different sectors like mayors and police officers. things like this ensure human rights are respected as there is more control and oversight of what is respected and not.Argument For: Excellent use of "Jurisdiction". You argue that because the UK has no power in North Korea, International protection is weak. Conversely, UK "Devolution/Police" makes National protection strong. On the other hand unions like NATO, or the United Nations Add Sanctions to try and ensure that the human rights are respected. These often do work and at a larger scale but it may be less effective than a national level.Argument Against: Good acknowledgement of "Sanctions" (NATO/UN). You evaluate them as "less effective" than direct national control.
"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)
The idea that human rights are best presented at a national level is a good debate. This is because of the insignificance of big organisations like the UN and nato.Introduction: Bold opening. Calling the UN "insignificant" sets up a strong critical argument. This is important to understand because countries such as Russia are able to violate the people of ukraines human rights without the un or nato taking any action or imposing any sanctions on russia. This shows why someone may agree that human rights are better presented at a national level because as countries are soverign they can preserve human rights much better than an international organisation could because of multiple countries having different ideas.Argument For: Excellent use of current affairs (Russia/Ukraine). You argue that International bodies failed to stop the war, proving National Sovereignty is the only real power. For example Permenant members of the security council can veto any decision in the un So the un is not a democratic organisation which means it is not as good as upholding human rights values because of them not listening to the ideas of eachother and countries in higher power being able to do whatever they want for example russias attack on ukrain.Argument For: Outstanding Level 4 point. You identify the specific mechanism of failure: the "Security Council Veto". This explains *why* international protection fails.
"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)
The arguement that human rights are best presented at a national level... has been an ongoing debate... Whilst one could argue that at a national level, the wide varety of laws and alliances make it hard to preserve human rights, another person could debate that at a national level, there are less sanctions in place if someone violates your human rights, making you less protected.Introduction: Good attempt to balance "Laws/Alliances" vs "Sanctions". One might argue that human rights are best presented at a international level. This is because internationally there are rules and regulations in place that halt the protection of human rights. For example if someone attacked a NATO country, and people were attacked based on race, article 5 states that an attack on 1 NATO country is an attack on all. However it takes a while for help to arrive meaning it's harder to protect peoples human rights.Argument Against: A complex point. You use "NATO Article 5" (Collective Defence) as evidence. While accurate to NATO, it's more about *War* than Human Rights law, but it shows knowledge of international treaties. The critique ("takes a while") is a good evaluation of efficiency.
"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)
I partially disagree with this statement because I think if Human rights are potected at an international level more awareness will be spreaded. whereas if its only 'best' potected at a national level awareness will be limited.Introduction: Stance stated. You focus on "Awareness" as the key factor. Although human rights show to be spread internationally and all around, sometimes it showed is best protected at nationally or internationally. I personally believe human rights are best at an international level because if it is spread only nationally, it will only reach your country whereas if it is introduced Internationally then everyone will be able to have protected human rights, and some people use it as an excuse and claim that these [laws?] dont have any meaning.Argument Against: Basic "Universality" argument. You argue that International is better because it reaches "everyone", whereas National excludes people.
"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)
I partially agree with this statement because. If human rights were Protected internationally It wouldn't be a Safe Space for them and there rights could be disrespected.Introduction: You state a view ("partially agree") but the reasoning ("wouldn't be a safe space") is vague. You need to explain *why* international protection isn't safe (e.g. lack of enforcement). Although human rights could also be Protected internationally because some countries treat human rights differently.Argument Against: Valid point: "Cultural Relativism". Different countries have different views, so maybe we need international standards? Human rights being Protected nationally could be a Strength because it is under the Protection of your own country So no other cantry can challenge them or have a Say. On the other hand it could also be a weakness because other countries aren't involved.Argument For: Good point about "Sovereignty". You argue that National protection stops other countries interfering ("challenging them").
"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)
I agree that human rights are best protected at a national rather than an international level as since their is less of a majority in a national area rather than a international individuals human rights are more likely to be respected.Introduction: Stance stated. You argue that a smaller scale ("less of a majority") leads to better respect for rights. For example the united kingdom respects every right their citizens haves not having to be hectored by other countries for a change. Having whats nessicary for a stable country and respect for rights. Unlike international area may lack What is needed for a Freedom of human rights and some may even not respect them at all.Argument For: Valid point. You argue that stable nations like the UK don't need to be "hectored" (bossed around) by international bodies. A clear example of this is North Korea. This is because they lack whats nessicary for an average rights e.g right to freedom of Speech, right to vote etc. And run on a dictator who has uncontrolled power. This Shows that human rights are best protected at a national rather than international level as national areas have whats required to have a stable human rights Programme.Argument For/Evaluation: A bit confused. You use North Korea (a national government abusing rights) to prove that National protection is *best*? Usually, North Korea is used to prove National protection *fails*. However, the description of "Dictator/Uncontrolled power" is accurate.
"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)
Personally At a certain extent I agree Because in Western countries Human rights Are protected and Are publicly seen. they follow the convention Accordingly, which they Are Alot More democratic than eastern countries.Introduction: You set up a "Western vs Eastern" comparison. This is a valid "Realist" political view, though be careful of generalizations. The (UNCHR) they personally want to demonstrate its human rights. there Are Alot of rights in This country espically, we do not need other internationals to be dictating dictating the west on how to run its country. We have Many laws in place to Protect us For a reason. the uk and EU Are All democratic countries.Argument For: Strong "Sovereignty" argument. You argue that democratic nations (UK/EU) are capable enough and don't need international "dictating". the international court of justice helps to deal with such Atrocities comited. There is No toleration For Any human's right violations Whatsoever. This Also includes the geneva convention which countries Legally Have to Follow.Argument Against: Strong Citizenship Knowledge. You correctly identify the "International Court of Justice" (ICJ) and "Geneva Convention" as necessary tools for dealing with "Atrocities".
"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)
Whether human rights are best protected ar a national rather than at an international level is a big debate.Introduction: Standard opening. On one Hand people might Say Human rights are Followed differently in different country For Example a Souerignoty country like the uk. Humans rights is protected by the Law and if you Break that Law there is punishments.Argument For: Good definition of "Sovereignty" (Making your own laws/punishments). Compare to China were their abuse of their human rights... they can do as they please. Other point view can be Human rights are best protected by your country Because if someone try to abuse your human right they will get punishment like fine or community servip.Argument For: Valid comparison. UK (Protected) vs China (Abuse). You argue National is best *if* the country is good. Final considering my point of view Human rights are best protected by international Because our country are given Geneva convention which help make them follow their Human rights however the Flaws Can be countries dont like to be told to do.Evaluation: Clear judgment. You conclude International is best (Geneva Convention) because it forces countries to behave, even if they don't want to ("flaws can be countries dont like to be told").
"Human Rights are best protected at a national rather than international level." (15 marks)
The uk has numerous rights that are protected which means that society can live a free life and comfertable life. However this may not be the same for other countries due to how the government is and how that country operates. Therefore I fully agree that human rights are best protected at a national level rather than at an international level.Introduction: Clear stance. You base your agreement on the success of the UK system. For example in the uk, Everyone has a right to food, water, education. Whereas a country like other caultic [?] (Low income country) may not have that right due to financial reasons and instead of going to school young kids are forced to start working at a young age to recieve somesort of income.Argument For: Interesting point about "State Capacity". You argue that some nations *can't* protect rights (education/food) due to poverty, implying that National protection depends on wealth. Another reason why I agree is because these expanding these rights internationally could result in conflict. Let's look at North Korea for an example. Society there basically have any rights and can't really move around freely in that country. Introducing these rights to Kim-Jung-un Could maybe anger as he wants to lead and take full responsibility of his country and could lead to conflict between the two.Argument For: Sophisticated "Realist" argument. You argue that trying to enforce International Rights on a dictator (Kim Jong Un) causes "conflict" or war. Therefore, National protection (staying out of it) is safer/better.