1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Discussion in 'World Politics' started by PLC1, Jan 6, 2009.

  1. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,934
    Likes Received:
    495
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
  2. Dawkinsrocks

    Dawkinsrocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,329
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Earth
    Excellent post.

    Ity would take too long to go through all the violations by supposedly democratic nations like the US and UK

    Which is very sad.
     
  3. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    I don't put to much faith in this document. It is a GA resolution with no binding force of law. It is simply a feel good document that means little outside of that.
     
  4. TruthAboveAll

    TruthAboveAll Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Further North than I'd like
    I'd not read this in years. Re-reading it now, it has an incredibly hollow ring to it. I don't remember viewing it as such when I first read it, possibly affected by my own naive altruism.

    It is amazing that an organization such as the U.N. has only been able to only formulate a concept in 60 years. Largely, the U.N. has only been effective with the disproportionate support of the United States. And while giving our treasure and blood in support, we've received nothing less than ridicule and derision from this global body.
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. HankHill

    HankHill New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    With your mom
    We're a looooong way off until we are at the "Star Trek" years my friend.

    But, while you wait, here.... Have some kool-aid to quench that thirst... :D
     
  6. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    Unrealistic goals set by a powerless and ridiculous organization which themselves cannot live up to any reasonable standards of common sense.

    By the way, reading a few parts of that abortion would clearly be a violation since rights are conferred to all humans and not merely to persons, it even goes on to say that everyone is a person regardless of various statuses such as birth.
     
  7. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    I have no doubt that the US and the UK do violate aspects of that. Partly because we and no one is perfect. And partly because no document coming out of the UN could be logically consistent.

    Neverthless, I have no doubt that the US and the UK stand head and shoulders above many many other countries that you have no interest in tearing down.
     
  8. Kenneth

    Kenneth New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Appalling treatment of British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, could be written off as another example of the Obama administration’s incompetence. Visit www.JoyTiz.com for more on the failures of the Obama administration
     
  9. samsara15

    samsara15 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Moonbase 2B
    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.
     
  10. numinus

    numinus New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,525
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you find it necessary to spread the same lie everywhere?

    What exactly in 'constitutive document of the un' or the 'basis of common international law' you find difficult to comprehend, hmmm?
     
  11. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    As I point out continually and you continually ignore, there is no enforcement mechanism for this.

    How about this (from the UN website).
    Seems even the UN does not agree with you. Further, ratifying something is not the same as voting on it in the General Assembly.
     
  12. numinus

    numinus New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,525
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.

    A ga resolution may be referred to the un security council for enforcement.

    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.

    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).
     
  13. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Yes, the Charter is supposed to be binding, I agree with this.

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  14. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    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.

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

    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.

    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.
     
  15. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,934
    Likes Received:
    495
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State

    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?
     
    1 person likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page