The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[Dr.Who]

It's a worthwhile document but I doubt it will ever be more than an ideal written in paper. So are most issues that we discuss. We just write; those with power abuse their power freely, and we can't stop them from doing so.

We could stop granting them extra powers.

We could return to the constitutional ideal of a limited federal government.

We could restore our checks and balances.

 

[top gun]

Who was chosen to lead the world, and how? Did the world have an election, and choose a leader, when I wasn't paying attention?

How is citizenship to be earned? If a citizen of your nation doesn't measure up to your expectations, should he be forced to leave and find another nation to live in, or simply stay as a second class resident?

If the world has a leader, as you say, and that leader is able to persuade the rest of the world to enforce the declaration of human rights, why wouldn't it be legally binding?

Or is this leader you speak of one of the violators of human rights? I'm still not sure who you're talking about. Is it the coming economic powerhouse, China? They really don't have a great record in the area of human rights, do they?

You made great & important points here PLC1. You brought the documentation with you to nail down what is considered just on an international scale and has been agreed to... notably by the United States as well.

So well in fact I added to your reputation... which I almost always forget to do.

It's interesting the responses. For instance you can feel the stinging sensation from those on the Right. The words agreed to internationally including the United States and right and wrong are replaced with things like... Well it's not enforceable. Do you not join me in finding this interesting?

Why would that be I wonder? It's obviously...

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

These Articles in the agreement are condemnations of what backers of the Bush/Cheney administration cherished. The ability to both TORTURE and hold prisoners forever WITHOUT ANY KIND of a trial.

And they want citizenship "earned"... can't just be born there... one must do something on a national security or particular political ideology level to be a true citizen. Also very interesting but somehow missed in this senario... China & North Korea have just such a program. It would appear that type of forced compliance governance is appealing to some on the Right... though I doubt they'll like the obvious connection it has with these 2 Communist countries. And what that would really mean.

Then we get to the world leader issue. Who's the boss of the world? It obviously must be the United States... right?

I mean I'm sure the Russian people & all of Europe, Africa and South America... on & on & on and even the Chinese people of which there are massively more people than in the United States ALL want the US to be the World Police Force and tell them exactly what they must do?

So basically in some minds it goes like this:

We are not bound by our international agreements... if we don't want to be because no one has the ability to enforce our agreement on us.

We should indoctrinate people before we allow citizenship.

And... everyone does what we say or we will convert and/or destroy them because we are THE WORLD POLICE.

I'm just going out on a limb here but this may be why elephants are becoming an endangered species.

 

[Hobo1]

An historically interesting and quaint document written in the post-WW II euphoria when the West thought it had all the right moral values to set the rules for the entire world. As pointed out by Article 5, 6 and others, it is interesting to note how quickly the US abandons its moral high ground with the excuse that "anything is legal when it saves American lives".

These are the values I was taught when I was in grade school - but are obviously terribly naive when it comes time to actually put them into practice. Reminds me of the "love they neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" Christian ideals. They only apply when it is convenient.

 

[numinus]

Yes, the Charter is supposed to be binding, I agree with this.

As well as the various agreements, treaties and conventions signed by the us government.

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 undhr is NOT a ga resolution on some issue of global security. Why in hell should it be the subject of a security council resolution, hmmm?

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.

The declaration of independence gives SUBSTANCE to the us constitution. Without it, your constitution is nothing more than act of rebellion against your lawful king, and not the act of free men in free political association -- as it should be and actually is.

The fact of the matter is, the difficulty of enforcing a law IS NOT A REASON for not applying the law -- SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE IS SO MUCH WORSE.

It is not dishonest to point out that the UN does not recognize the UNDHR as legally binding.

Please read your own source. The un RECOGNIZES the constitutive nature of the undhr.

It is dishonest and you know it.

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.

I see you are still grappling with the relationship between a principle and its attendant law.

Your declaration explicitly states -- 'all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'

It is a fundamental fact stated explicitly. And your bill of rights is there precisely to put into law this fundamental fact. What's more, no state or federal law can be made that directly contradicts this fundamental fact on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.

Is there any sense, therefore, to say that the declaration is an irrelevant document on matters of law when everything in the fundamental law of the land is merely IT'S LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE????

Apply this reasoning to the undhr, a CONSTITUTIVE DOCUMENT of the un charter, and perhaps you would have an idea of what it really is.

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.

Of course. Nothing here supports your assertion that the undhr is trivial.

What you conveniently do not mention is that the undhr also recognizes the cultural diversity of the human race and that member-states are, themselves, sovereign powers over their respective territories -- hence it is left up to these nations to enact laws upholding the principles stated therein.

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.

I am well aware of the problems arising in compliance with the terms of treaties and covenants. That is not the defect of the covenants themselves nor the undhr.

And yes, it is near impossible to bear diplomatic pressure on the us legislature -- which you take as a sign that the undhr itself is irrelevant. It is irrelevant only when irrational and vested interests are permitted to prevail.

 

[numinus]

I took your reply from the other thread and will reply here to keep it on issue.

Not everyone has to lead the world either.

Did you not bring this burden upon yourselves when you insisted PERMANENT membership to the un security council WITH VETO POWERS?

How many innocent people do you think suffered as a direct result of your ego-war with the former ussr?

You wanted all these because you wanted pax americana played out in all corners of the globe. And you vigorously projected your military power to protect your economic interests.

I do not believe citizenship is a right, I believe it is a privilege, but that is another thread as well.

The right to citizenship refers to that which you were BORN IN. If you want citizenship to some place else, then that definitely is not a right, but a privilege.

I do not wish to represent that, and if my comments were interpreted in that manner then I was not clear.

My point was this: I do not care what the relationship between a government and its people is. My point is simply that the UNDHR is not enforceable (in many cases due to the government sure) and that it is not legally binding.

I have repeatedly explained how the undhr is legally binding.

And your repeated assertions that it is not enforceable somehow doesn't deter your government using it as an impetus for some action on your rivals.

So what? We are all well aware (or should be) about Locke and Second Treatise, Voltaire, Machiavelli (which I like, as I am sure you could gather) the list can go on and on, but it is not the point. The point is simply that the UNDHR is unenforceable, not legally binding, etc etc. This is a major problem if you want to claim we need to enforce this around the world.

Voltaire and Machiavelli are not social contract philosophers.

And you are forgetting that one of the primary reasons for the un is to avert the situation prior to and during the 2 world wars -- the situation where vested self-interests drove geo-political dynamics.

That situation can only lead to the annihilation of the human race. It simply cannot be permitted. And we all have a stake in this.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages.

A blueprint for socialism, pure and simple, and the Nanny State to end all Nanny States.

I'll pass, thanks.

 

[Hobo1]

Does the words, "have the right" mean that somebody must provide it to them? I don't think that was ever the intention.

I think the term means that "no one shall prevent someone from ..." In other words no one expects that everyone in the world will attain these goals, rather no one should face insurmountable legal or governmental barriers that make the attainment of these goals impossible.

I live in Indonesia and I have paid for a young student to go to vocational school. In the last 5 years he has worked hard to learn English, German and Japanese language plus worked hard to make money in a very poor country. Thanks to the Internet he was able to find a job in Germany working on a cruise ship on the Rhine River and is on the way to becoming a productive member of the world community.

I also have seen students who have no motivation to even go to high school. All they want from life is to work in the rice fields and live a quiet life.

They both have equal rights, and no one has stood in their way from exercising these rights. But what they do with their rights is totally individual choice.

 

[BigRob]

Who was chosen to lead the world, and how? Did the world have an election, and choose a leader, when I wasn't paying attention?

You do not have to have an election to know who the dominant power in the world is.

If the world has a leader, as you say, and that leader is able to persuade the rest of the world to enforce the declaration of human rights, why wouldn't it be legally binding?

Or is this leader you speak of one of the violators of human rights? I'm still not sure who you're talking about. Is it the coming economic powerhouse, China? They really don't have a great record in the area of human rights, do they?

China does not have a great record no. Every nation can be accused of violating some human right. I am saying that the United States never has, and never will, really solely care all that much about human rights.

 

[BigRob]

You made great & important points here PLC1. You brought the documentation with you to nail down what is considered just on an international scale and has been agreed to... notably by the United States as well.

So well in fact I added to your reputation... which I almost always forget to do.

It's interesting the responses. For instance you can feel the stinging sensation from those on the Right. The words agreed to internationally including the United States and right and wrong are replaced with things like... Well it's not enforceable. Do you not join me in finding this interesting?

Which exactly international agreement are you talking about? In case you were unaware, the United States can ratify a treaty and it does not become legally binding in some cases.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Alright, you are talking about the UNDHR, which the UN even states is not a legally binding document.

These Articles in the agreement are condemnations of what backers of the Bush/Cheney administration cherished. The ability to both TORTURE and hold prisoners forever WITHOUT ANY KIND of a trial.

These articles are part of a document that has no legal standing.

And they want citizenship "earned"... can't just be born there... one must do something on a national security or particular political ideology level to be a true citizen. Also very interesting but somehow missed in this senario... China & North Korea have just such a program. It would appear that type of forced compliance governance is appealing to some on the Right... though I doubt they'll like the obvious connection it has with these 2 Communist countries. And what that would really mean.

Who is demanding forced government service for "citizenship"?

Then we get to the world leader issue. Who's the boss of the world? It obviously must be the United States... right?

While we are the dominant power, yes.

I mean I'm sure the Russian people & all of Europe, Africa and South America... on & on & on and even the Chinese people of which there are massively more people than in the United States ALL want the US to be the World Police Force and tell them exactly what they must do?

It depends on the issue. In regards to Russia and China, they obviously are not fans of US hegemony and are are clear peer competitors. China more so than Russia, as Russia is in decline.

We are not bound by our international agreements... if we don't want to be because no one has the ability to enforce our agreement on us.

That is not the argument at all. We are not bound by these documents when they never were legal documents to begin or when the US wrote in reservations before signing to make them meaningless.

We should indoctrinate people before we allow citizenship.

No one is saying that.

And... everyone does what we say or we will convert and/or destroy them because we are THE WORLD POLICE.

Not sure who is saying that either.

I'm just going out on a limb here but this may be why elephants are becoming an endangered species.

Perhaps it is because people like you who completely misrepresent or do not understand the entire platform.

 

[BigRob]

As well as the various agreements, treaties and conventions signed by the us government.

If they are ratified with no reservations and are deemed to be self-executing.

The undhr is NOT a ga resolution on some issue of global security. Why in hell should it be the subject of a security council resolution, hmmm?

the UNDHR is a GA resolution. GA Resolutions (according to the UN) are not legally binding. The only binding GA resolutions are those of budget.

The declaration of independence gives SUBSTANCE to the us constitution. Without it, your constitution is nothing more than act of rebellion against your lawful king, and not the act of free men in free political association -- as it should be and actually is.

The Constitution was not even written until after the English King admitted defeat and recognized the United States. The Constitution can stand on its own without the Declaration of Independence.

The fact of the matter is, the difficulty of enforcing a law IS NOT A REASON for not applying the law -- SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE IS SO MUCH WORSE.

Well enforcement is a major problem, however the law is not applied because it is not a real law.

Please read your own source. The un RECOGNIZES the constitutive nature of the undhr.

Great, after stating that is has no legal authority. So therefore we get following agreements coming out of the UN that the US assigns reservations on and thus do not become law under US domestic law, meaning, at least here, it does not mean much of anything.

I see you are still grappling with the relationship between a principle and its attendant law.

Your declaration explicitly states -- 'all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'

It is a fundamental fact stated explicitly. And your bill of rights is there precisely to put into law this fundamental fact. What's more, no state or federal law can be made that directly contradicts this fundamental fact on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.

Because of the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. If the Declaration of Independence did not exist, the Bill of Rights would still stand. However, there is no case in the Supreme Court that has been decided based on the Declaration of Independence. The reasoning being, it has no legal authority.

Is there any sense, therefore, to say that the declaration is an irrelevant document on matters of law when everything in the fundamental law of the land is merely IT'S LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE????

Apply this reasoning to the undhr, a CONSTITUTIVE DOCUMENT of the un charter, and perhaps you would have an idea of what it really is. [/quote]

What it is is a non-binding GA resolution.

Of course. Nothing here supports your assertion that the undhr is trivial.

The UN states it is not binding. You can argue that it set some foundation for another document all you want, but that in no way binds anyone to the UNDHR.

What you conveniently do not mention is that the undhr also recognizes the cultural diversity of the human race and that member-states are, themselves, sovereign powers over their respective territories -- hence it is left up to these nations to enact laws upholding the principles stated therein.

It does not matter what it says because it has no legal authority.

I am well aware of the problems arising in compliance with the terms of treaties and covenants. That is not the defect of the covenants themselves nor the undhr.

And yes, it is near impossible to bear diplomatic pressure on the us legislature -- which you take as a sign that the undhr itself is irrelevant. It is irrelevant only when irrational and vested interests are permitted to prevail.

You can bear pressure on the United States legislature, and the fact that it is not able to be enforced is a problem, but that is not why the UNDHR has no bearing. It has no bearing because it has no legal standing. If you went to court and argued a case based on the UNDHR your case would be thrown out.

 

[BigRob]

Did you not bring this burden upon yourselves when you insisted PERMANENT membership to the un security council WITH VETO POWERS?

Well there would not be a UN otherwise.

How many innocent people do you think suffered as a direct result of your ego-war with the former ussr?

Who else was going to stand up to the Soviets? Europe? NATO could muster barely 40 divisions in Europe (many of which were American.) The Soviets had 400 combat divisions ready to storm the continent. Our "ego-war" saved you. (I assume you are in Europe)

You wanted all these because you wanted pax americana played out in all corners of the globe. And you vigorously projected your military power to protect your economic interests.

I see no problem with this.

I have repeatedly explained how the undhr is legally binding.

If anything you have argued that conventions coming out of the UNDHR are binding. And they are, if states agree to it, however, this does not make the UNDHR binding, and as I have pointed out the United States often inserts reservations into these conventions.

And your repeated assertions that it is not enforceable somehow doesn't deter your government using it as an impetus for some action on your rivals.

In no case have we made the legal argument that someone is in violation of the UNDHR and had that be the deciding factor. It is not enforceable, which is a huge problem, but more importantly, it is not enforceable because it has no legal bearing.

And you are forgetting that one of the primary reasons for the un is to avert the situation prior to and during the 2 world wars -- the situation where vested self-interests drove geo-political dynamics.

That situation can only lead to the annihilation of the human race. It simply cannot be permitted. And we all have a stake in this.

I still think self-interests drive geo-political dynamics. I do not agree that self-interests will inherently lead to the annihilation of the human race however.

 

[PLC1]

You do not have to have an election to know who the dominant power in the world is.

I see. It is China, then, beyond a doubt. Maybe we can use our influence to try to improve its record on human rights, but only if we remain a credible voice.

China does not have a great record no. Every nation can be accused of violating some human right. I am saying that the United States never has, and never will, really solely care all that much about human rights.

Really? Despite those inalienable rights that the creator endowed all men with?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Does the words, "have the right" mean that somebody must provide it to them? I don't think that was ever the intention.

The "intention" can be whatever it wants. But you'll have to tell it to the judge, if this dreamy document ever becomes law. And the judge is fairly likely to find against you.

For most "rights", the idea is that it's illegal to interfere with your acquisition or exercise of them (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, ownership of property, exercise of religion etc.). But there are a few in this country, which people DO have to actively provide them for you... and thus, their "right" becomes an obligation YOU must fulfill. The classic example, is an accused person's right to trial by a jury of his peers. It is the rare exception. And its purpose is purely to prevent government from abusing you.

But if this document becomes law, that exception won't be rare any more. "Right" to medical care, "right" to a job with a decent income, "right" to an education, and all the rest... people must stop what they are doing, and go to significant effort to provide all of those things for you. It is, in fact, a perscription for socialism, where much of your effort is required by government, to go for the good of others, with no incentive for you other than the fear of punishment by that government. Or, to use a more arcane term, it's a perscription for slavery.

No thanks. I'll pass.

 

[BigRob]

I see. It is China, then, beyond a doubt. Maybe we can use our influence to try to improve its record on human rights, but only if we remain a credible voice.

How exactly do you quantify power? Economics? China's economy is about half the size of ours. Military power? China is unable to project power worldwide militarily. They are just now taking steps towards a blue water navy. So where exactly do you get off stating the Chinese dominate at this point?

Really? Despite those inalienable rights that the creator endowed all men with?

Yes, despite the rhetoric, the United States overlooks human rights abuses worldwide because other issues are more important.

 

[PLC1]

How exactly do you quantify power? Economics? China's economy is about half the size of ours. Military power? China is unable to project power worldwide militarily. They are just now taking steps towards a blue water navy. So where exactly do you get off stating the Chinese dominate at this point?

Does China owe us billions of dollars, or is it the other way around?

Sure, economic power trumps military might in today's world.

Yes, despite the rhetoric, the United States overlooks human rights abuses worldwide because other issues are more important.

Unfortunately, the first part of that statement is correct.