Below are the research questions you can consider:
1. How effective are international treaties in protecting against genocide in the post-World War II era?
– With the 1948 Genocide Convention as a backdrop, you can assess the effectiveness of international treaties in preventing genocide. A case study on a specific genocide that occurred after the adoption of the convention could provide insights into the successes and limitations of the international treaty system.
2. How do political ideologies influence the implementation of human rights in authoritarian regimes?
– Investigate the impact of political ideologies on human rights practices in authoritarian contexts, using Venezuela as a case study. This is for an exploration of how the government’s political stance affects its human rights record and international relations.
– Structure of the Paper:
- 1. Your introduction should briefly outline your topic, the research question, and your thesis statement, along with how you intend to prove this argument and how the paper is structured. It’s important to tell your reader exactlyi.e., saying “…this paper will explore whether human rights are universal or culturally relative…” doesn’t tell me what your argument is).
- 2. Next, there should be a theoretical section in which you explore the debate you have identified. Here you should cite specific scholars (e.g., saying things like, “Alan Kuperman (2017) argues that humanitarian intervention creates a moral hazard. By this, he means…”) and provide your readers with an overview of the existing literature on the topic (e.g., telling me what realist, liberal, and Marxist scholars argue about humanitarian intervention). This means outlining the most relevant theoretical and/or practical viewpoints on the question you are asking, and then telling me exactly what your argument is.
- 3. After that, the main section will draw from your case study to demonstrate how your thesis statement is true. Be sure to include relevant background information for your reader, but do not get bogged down by including unnecessary description that is not directly relevant to your narrow and specific argument.
- 4. Finally, your conclusion should re-state your central argument and the main points you’ve made to construct it.