Let me say this again:
The undhr is a ga resolution considered a constitutive document of the un. It defines the words 'fundamental freedom' and 'human rights' -- words that appear in the UN CHARTER itself.
The un charter is LEGALLY BINDING.
Yes, the Charter is supposed to be binding, I agree with this.
A ga resolution may be referred to the un security council for enforcement.
There are some mechanisms that must be done in order for this to occur, but then it would become a Security Council Resolution which we already established was binding. To date, I have no seen the Security Council declare that the UNDHR was binding.
The relationship between the undhr and the un charter is like the relationship of your declaration of independence and your constitution -- they are INTRINSIC PARTS of the body politic and are INSEPARABLE from one another.
Well the Declaration of Independence is not binding under American law, but that is not the issue here.
The point here is enforcement. I think most people would agree that murder is a violation of someones intrinsic right to life, however saying that and enforcing that are two distinctly different things.
What dishonest nonsense. The next paragraph of that link states:
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are legally binding human rights agreements. Both were adopted in 1966 and entered into force 10 years later, making many of the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights effectively binding. Conventions include the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (entered into force in 1951); the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (entered into force in 1969); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (entered into force in 1981); the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (entered into force in 1987); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (entered into force in 1990); and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (adopted in 1990, not yet in force).
It is not dishonest to point out that the UN does not recognize the UNDHR as legally binding.
Further, Conventions are simply international treaties between states that can be done away with at any time. Obviously there is a difference between a legally binding treaty and simply a "declaration." And to argue that a later treaty codified
many (not all) of the principles so therefore the original is legally binding is dishonest.
That said, the only members subject to these conventions are those who have signed on, and the reservations that they spell out play a large role.
For example, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does indeed have the United States as a signatory, however it has no real effect on US law.
For example, one of the reservations that the US included before ratifying the treaty was that it was not self-executing. So basically unless Congress acts to make this a domestic law (which they have not) it has no binding under US law, regardless of ratification. While you can technically argue the US is bound by it internationally, you would have no case in US court, and the US would simply not allow a world court to hear a case based on this, if it involved the United States. Hence the enforcement problem.
