The articles this week covered the principles of human rights. While migration has historically been a fundamental human right dating back to the roots of evolution. And yet, the majority of the human race find themselves confined by concepts such as borders, money, safety… The article states countries have taken to the sea to deter refugees. Is this approach a reflection of human rights violations due to lack of belief in the right to migrate, or knowingly executed with the intent to hide the violation?

Perhaps countries execute these actions under the justification for the human right to security. Each side calls ethics into question. Are countries willing to relent possible security for the safety of millions of displaced people? Refugees do not bring crime, but the growing fear or crime and xenophobia begins to explain the reluctance of open borders.

Even with these factors in play, it seems clear that the threat to life of migrants is more urgent than the small possibilities of compromised security. So perhaps it really comes down to fear and the power of many in the hands of few. If human rights are being violated, the question of why must be posed. If fear for life is the driving force behind those that want to close the borders, but fear of life is also the driving force behind refugees fleeing war, poverty, ect. then how can these be balanced?

I think in the end the ability to stop the violation of human rights depends firstly, on addressing the fear of those that hold power and privileges to change the circumstances.