#1
What do you think about the obligatoriety of international treatises on human rights?

I've got a small paper coming up on this subject and I wanted the pit's thoughts. Yes, I am inviting you to a rip-throat debate on politics. You can do what you always wanted, pitlings.
Dead bull with the life from the low
I'll be massive conquistador
Give me soul and show me the door
Metal heavy, soft at the core
Gimme toro, gimme some more


Steam: Mengsk
MAL
#2
China, Iran and a lot of countries aren't following them really. I think there should be a war now.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#3
Nuke everyone.

/America
My band, Escher
My progressive rock project, Mosaic

Quote by Lappo
clearly, the goal is to convert every thread into a discussion about BTBAM

BTBAM IS ALWAYS RELEVANT
#4
God damnit your sig is huge
Dead bull with the life from the low
I'll be massive conquistador
Give me soul and show me the door
Metal heavy, soft at the core
Gimme toro, gimme some more


Steam: Mengsk
MAL
#5
Some countries don't follow them, there are almost shit-all repercussions other than countries sending you letters...they're really not that obligatory.
#6
Well seeing as the US effectively polices the world and gives money and weapons to countries with horrific human rights records (and therefore making it unlikely they will police those countries), I don't see where the "obligatory" part comes in....
Last.fm


"Art is always and everywhere the secret confession, and at the same time the immortal movement of its time."


#7
Personally, I think it's time for the UN to die off and allow a new organization to rise in it's stead; just it's predecesor did. But I digress...

Don't you think they should be at least morally obligatory? I think them long-term convenient, but that's just me.
Dead bull with the life from the low
I'll be massive conquistador
Give me soul and show me the door
Metal heavy, soft at the core
Gimme toro, gimme some more


Steam: Mengsk
MAL
#8
The discourse of universal human rights is entirely flexible and subservient to Western foreign policy objectives. Free speech (unless you live in a regime which sells us vast amounts of oil, such as Saudi Arabia), free elections (unless you elect a socialist government hostile to the US, such as the Sandinistas in Nicaragua), innocence until proven guilt (unless you're not white, male and young, in which case you're statistically many more times likely to be arrested, falsely imprisoned or deported), right to life, liberty and security (unless you live in a regime whose dictator threatens the West - in which case, expect to be invaded, displaced and interned - eg, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc), I could go on, but you get the point Western countries are the biggest violators of their own 'universal' rights - it's pure Orwellian Doublespeak.
Last edited by Kumanji at May 30, 2011,
#11
The United Nations, and more generally the international community, does a fine job when it comes to creating fair, reasonable treaties and 'legal' documents. They aren't obligatory, and I doubt they ever will be. National sovereignty plays a role. A United Nations which has an incredibly inefficient and unjust bureaucracy plays a role. The sheer myriad of major factors which prevents any international document on human rights (and far beyond just human rights) from becoming 'obligatory' is astounding.

That being said, they do play a role. A lot of countries base their policies heavily off these international documents. For example, the CHRC (Canadian Human Rights Commission) is greatly influenced by international documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Canada's nuclear policy is compliant to a t with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. When we had our little incident with India in the 70s and they refused to follow the treaties and international law, trade dipped to almost nothing between the two countries for decades.

At the same time, countries like Pakistan, India, North Korea, Iran, etc choose not to follow certain aspects of international law. International law has no actual power, but wields considerable influence. It for the most part represents the ideals in regards to specific issues of the international community and provides a framework for international relations, and the policies of nations (both on the national and international level).
#12
Quote by UncleRemus
Well seeing as the US effectively polices the world and gives money and weapons to countries with horrific human rights records (and therefore making it unlikely they will police those countries), I don't see where the "obligatory" part comes in....
Don't forget when they aid these countries, the human rights violations increase considerably.
#13
These are pretty good, since I'm taking the opposition on a debate. I'm waiting for trueamerican to drop in and give the other side of the story, as he always does. Remember that this is about their obligatoriety not about the content of the treatises themselves.
Dead bull with the life from the low
I'll be massive conquistador
Give me soul and show me the door
Metal heavy, soft at the core
Gimme toro, gimme some more


Steam: Mengsk
MAL
#14
Quote by Flagon
These are pretty good, since I'm taking the opposition on a debate. I'm waiting for trueamerican to drop in and give the other side of the story, as he always does. Remember that this is about their obligatoriety not about the content of the treatises themselves.

That's not a word
#15
Quote by Kumanji
That's not a word


Obligatoriousness*
My God, it's full of stars!
#16
Quote by Kumanji
The discourse of universal human rights is entirely flexible and subservient to Western foreign policy objectives. Free speech (unless you live in a regime which sells us vast amounts of oil, such as Saudi Arabia), free elections (unless you elect a socialist government hostile to the US, such as the Sandinistas in Nicaragua), innocence until proven guilt (unless you're not white, male and young, in which case you're statistically many more times likely to be arrested, falsely imprisoned or deported), right to life, liberty and security (unless you live in a regime whose dictator threatens the West - in which case, expect to be invaded, displaced and interned - eg, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc), I could go on, but you get the point Western countries are the biggest violators of their own 'universal' rights - it's pure Orwellian Doublespeak.

This man has no idea what he's talking about.
Current Gear:
Peavey Zodiac DE Scorpio (Bass)
Yamaha RBX-170 (Bass)
Boss ODB-3 (Overdrive Pedal)
Line 6 LowDown 150 (Amp)
#19
Quote by Kumanji
Feel free to argue against me, rather than just stating 'you're wrong'.


In recent threads you didn't do that either. Not that I did not agree to some extent with your post this time.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#20
Quote by Neo Evil11
In recent threads you didn't do that either. Not that I did not agree to some extent with your post this time.

Was probably mid-revision. As I am now, but I'll try and debate as fully as pos
#21
Quote by Kumanji
Was probably mid-revision. As I am now, but I'll try and debate as fully as pos


Fair enough. Sounds like there is only one thing left to do. Which is ofcourse to let TS know, that he OR she has to do his OR her own homework. Have a fine evening everyone.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
Last edited by Neo Evil11 at May 30, 2011,
#22
Well, Kumanji,

I think we could argue that Western countries are on average richer and possess more advanced weapons. Therefore, when my U.S. conducts wars, more innocent people die. I think the U.S. is often ruthless in the pursuit of our perceived national interest. But this is true of most countries. Yet, we do not behead our opposition, kill journalists, have an official sanction to rape the population of the countries we are fighting, etc. These are things done by the Taliban, Sudanese, and Lybians. I would therefore say that the U.S., while not always just in our actions, are far from the biggest violators of human rights.

As far as human rights inside the U.S. and other Western nations, I think people enjoy liberties and rights that would be unthinkable in other parts of the world. My family immigrated from the USSR when I was 7. I have been raised on stories of what it was like there - people not being able to go to school or live in the city of their choice because of their race, not being able to practice religion, people would vanish, be arrested, or forcibly committed to a mental institution for speaking out against the government, etc. These are some of the things you will find in non-Western countries.

As for having human rights be mandatory - there is no way to enforce this without actually occupying a country. We can try to cajole countries into following these treaties through trade and sanctions. This is what is currently happening with Russia - as Russia wants to do more business with the U.S. and Europe, it is beginning to adopt some international standards. However, this is a very slow and painful process.
Please view my first ever recording on my profile - Tangerine by Led Zeppelin

Guitars:
Schecter C-1 Classic
Ibanez EW20ASE acoustic

Amp:
Peavey XXX EFX 40
#23
Quote by Neo Evil11
Fair enough. Sounds like there is only one thing left to do. Which is ofcourse to let TS know, that he OR she has to do his OR her own homework. Have a fine evening everyone.


His. And I'm just fishing for ideas here, the pit generally has very diferent ideas about the same subject. I could pick up and argument or two, maybe a counterargument. The pit is generally a good source of inspiration on many subjects; even when it doesn't know what it's talking about.

Do you guys think said treatises should be enforced?
Dead bull with the life from the low
I'll be massive conquistador
Give me soul and show me the door
Metal heavy, soft at the core
Gimme toro, gimme some more


Steam: Mengsk
MAL
#24
Quote by Flagon

Do you guys think said treatises should be enforced?

No. Do your own work you lazy son of a bitch.
#25
How is this not my work? I'm fishing for diverging opinions on a subject for a debate. I'm investigating . This is my work!
Dead bull with the life from the low
I'll be massive conquistador
Give me soul and show me the door
Metal heavy, soft at the core
Gimme toro, gimme some more


Steam: Mengsk
MAL
Last edited by Flagon at May 31, 2011,
#26
Basically, they're unenforceable. Until a quasi-global government exists, with its own sovereignty, constitution, and army, any "legislative" body is purely titular.

Whether or not a global government SHOULD exist is another point entirely. One I'm not sure of.
#27
Quote by Flagon
How is this not my work? I'm fishing for diverging opinions on a subject for a debate. I'm investigating . This is my work!

Or you could develop some opinions and arguments based on the wide array of information available yourself. You lazy fuck
#28
Well, so far lot's of material for me. Thanks guys.

Do you think an international goverment of sorts should be erected to police the world?
Dead bull with the life from the low
I'll be massive conquistador
Give me soul and show me the door
Metal heavy, soft at the core
Gimme toro, gimme some more


Steam: Mengsk
MAL
#29
Quote by Flagon
Well, so far lot's of material for me. Thanks guys.

Do you think an international goverment of sorts should be erected to police the world?


He said "erected".


And to that question: yes, a lot of problems are not stopping at the border. Therefore governments higher than the national level (like the EU) are required. A global government is just the next logical step.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#30
As a serious response, a blanket guideline of Human Rights is fundamentally a good idea but it fails to take into account cultural differences which are much better off being policed at a level that is relevant to any given culture rather than a blanket coverage that is based on western ideals and forcing them upon everyone.
#31
What do you propose then, if it's not a "blanket" over the world? Maybe a world goverment constituted of both westerners and easterners? I would be a bit concerned about granting an army to such an institution; and coercibility would still be a problem as soldiers might refuse to fight their own countrymen, and the army has to come from somewhere. Where would the funding come from? How would the new leaders be elected?
Dead bull with the life from the low
I'll be massive conquistador
Give me soul and show me the door
Metal heavy, soft at the core
Gimme toro, gimme some more


Steam: Mengsk
MAL
#32
Quote by Kumanji
The discourse of universal human rights is entirely flexible and subservient to Western foreign policy objectives. Free speech (unless you live in a regime which sells us vast amounts of oil, such as Saudi Arabia), free elections (unless you elect a socialist government hostile to the US, such as the Sandinistas in Nicaragua), innocence until proven guilt (unless you're not white, male and young, in which case you're statistically many more times likely to be arrested, falsely imprisoned or deported), right to life, liberty and security (unless you live in a regime whose dictator threatens the West - in which case, expect to be invaded, displaced and interned - eg, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc), I could go on, but you get the point Western countries are the biggest violators of their own 'universal' rights - it's pure Orwellian Doublespeak.


Communist.


I'm sorry, Chinese auditors. Go Mao.
Quote by Athabasca
My ex did the same. Cheated on me and then acted like I'd given her sister a facial. Women are retarded.
#33
There will never be a global government. Nationalist interests are very much part of the contradictions of capitalism - continual competition which will never be resolved by governmental intervention.
#34
The state is a concept which is inherently oppressive and unjustified as far as I see it. Giving the state more influence and power via a single, international entity is not a good idea.
#35
Quote by Kumanji
The discourse of universal human rights is entirely flexible and subservient to Western foreign policy objectives. Free speech (unless you live in a regime which sells us vast amounts of oil, such as Saudi Arabia), free elections (unless you elect a socialist government hostile to the US, such as the Sandinistas in Nicaragua), innocence until proven guilt (unless you're not white, male and young, in which case you're statistically many more times likely to be arrested, falsely imprisoned or deported), right to life, liberty and security (unless you live in a regime whose dictator threatens the West - in which case, expect to be invaded, displaced and interned - eg, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc), I could go on, but you get the point Western countries are the biggest violators of their own 'universal' rights - it's pure Orwellian Doublespeak.


Quote by the_white_bunny
your just a simpleton that cant understand strategy apparently.

Quote by the_white_bunny
all hail king of the penis sucking(i said balls. you said dick for some reason?) Isabiggles