Two key issues that struck me after the read: Universality and International Law

Universality:

                All the declarations are founded on one premise: that the statements contained therein are all common sense. They are composed of ideals that are obvious rights or wrongs but for some reason or another –a war, evil counselors, genocide, etc.—have been abused or neglected and therefore must now be written down as a reminder to humanity. These ideals by default must be considered “universal” – they are an attempt to establish a universal morality and respect for humanity that is bound in both honorable agreement and universal law.

                Problems:

              The mere fact these declarations exist means that these ideals were obviously not so commonsensical at one point or another. That there was a point in history where these ideals were NOT understood as universal.  The roles of individual [and by ‘individual’ I mean individual people as well as states and organizations] subjectivity and interpretation seem to be glossed over within the framework of many declarations.  They tend to be interpreted differently in different contexts as understood by different people and entities. This becomes problematic when we are posed with vague definitions and non-descript statements within declarations ESPECIALLY when accusations of abuse are brought into the legal realm. Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” – defining ‘torture’ or ‘cruel’ or ‘inhuman’ is not addressed. This opens up space for interpretation by declaration signatories and allows for loopholes whereby instances such as those in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay occur.

Which brings me to the relationship between Law and Human Rights…

                It is foolish to think that any Universal declaration of Human Rights can be upheld on a system of honor and agreement.  Without an international enforcement mechanism or international legal system [ICJ maybe?], international law is of little use. It depends on the resources and legal systems within individual states to upkeep and incorporate these international ideals as part of their domestic legal framework.  This is unrealistic as many states lack the resources and infrastructure to put into effect the legal system that is required to adhere to the protocols set forth in many declarations—Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal….” The point here is that law is nothing without enforcement and we have yet to establish a legitimate international enforcement/punishment/repercussion mechanism.  [[ This is not taking into consideration the International Court of Justice mostly because I am not very well read on the topic ]]

Random thoughts:

-       *  I think the French Declaration of the Rights of Man is my favorite – Concise, to the point, legible and well-defined.

-       *   The English Bill of Rights: King James the II and his evil employees- how dare they. 

I had never read The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But out of the list of readings for this week, I saw the word Universal and decided that is should be an interesting read. A universal declaration, must mean that it is something that applies to everyone, right? Now, I’m not so sure. I wish “real life” was as simple as this universal declaration makes it seem. When I finished I imagined a cartoon that depicts states/countries dancing around holding hands in a circle, singing about universal rights. Then I scoffed at myself, bringing myself back to reality and thinking about the scale of problems around the world from famine, the drought in Africa, disease, war, poverty, animal cruelty, environmental abuses by corporations and the list goes on. It seems to me that nobody else has ever heard of this document. And after a few depressing moments, I started to think about the why’s.

Why isn’t it that simple? Could it ever be? And as trivial as it is, why can’t we all just get along? I mean can it really be as simple as to treat others the way you want to be treated?

Following the 10 year anniversary of the “terrorist” attacks in New York, Article 5 jumped out at me, as I was remembering the controversy regarding if the united states had used interrogation techniques such as water boarding to gain information on terrorists (I’m NOT claiming to know anything about this just that I saw something in the news about it  and article 5 reminded me of it).

I thought Article 23 was interesting in thinking about migrant workers that have come to Canada and get taken advantage of, and similarly people with disabilities who are often marginalized in the workplace. Also, for so many years men were paid more than women for the same levels of work although they have the same universal rights. In the end, for as many UN official documents and covenants declaring rights as there are, the universe still seems as complicated as ever. People and nations are marginalized and the world seems to operate on a hierarchical scale when all these documents seem to say that everyone is equal, in a brotherhood and should behave as such. I have to say, I don’t think it will be much longer until I’m on Jon’s side; What’s the Point of Universal Human Rights, or Declarations of Independence or otherwise when there is so much tragedy happening all over the world?

I also thought about Article 13 and that next time I go to Seattle for some shopping when the border agents ask me the purpose of my visit to reply simply that it is my universal right and see what happens.

As several others have pointed out, it seems that all these manifestos on the self evident rights and fundamental freedoms people are entitled to are made to preserve social order.  Everyone of these documents were created by a state, in the interests of the state.  This from the onset proves that the motive is something entirely different than trying to bestow upon one another endowments of benevolence and harmony. These are made with interests at hand that ultimately have been constructed from the top-down.  Everything in the documents is totally fine, they all sound good to me given the context of the time period and what the ruling class saw a socially acceptable, hence the anti-Semitism in the magna carta. But do we really trust the state to act in the name of social justice?

As Jon mentioned last week, these documents are not revolutionary, they are conservative in their goal to maintain the peace.  Peace in this case is coupled with complacency. When people are safe, when they are not being directly trampled upon, or directly persecuted, when they do not starve, then complacency is widespread.  People do not think about power shifting, which is ultimately what would needs to happen if society is to truly be democratic.  Its no secret that we live in one of the nicest societies in the world, where wealth is so widespread and so bountiful.  That’s clearly at the expense of many peoples, but i’ll save that for another day.  We don’t protest over anything meaningful, and we seldom take our dignified rage to the street.  When protest comes against something sociopolitical or economic, like the 2010 Olympics or the Toronto G20, then we get beat down by the cops, because they are manifestations of people organizing to show that the state is acting in interests that oppose the desire of the majority.  In sum, documents like this are diametrically opposed to the powers of people, especially dissenting organized people.  This is what makes Anarchism the “A” word in society.  Without structures, without hierarchy, without oligarchy, I think a society such as Canada’s, with its deeply entrenched notion of hyper-order and classism, would crumble if power shifters took over. Shame.

One note that struck me, in going through the Universal Declaration of  Human Rights, was Article 15 – “Everyone has a right to a nationality.” At first, I thought it was a slightly strange thing to have a right to since a Nation is technically a cultural group. Essentially, it seems to infer that everyone has a right to an identity.

In contrast, there isn’t an explicit ‘right to citizenship’ within the declaration. There are a few instances of people having rights “in his country” or “in the country where he belongs.”  All of these things imply citizenship, but they never quite grant you a passport.

In fact, the word ‘citizen’ never appears in the document. Which is interesting because often in debates over human rights abuses the question of who should be protecting people often comes up. Therefore, using the wording of his or her country rather than the country of his or her citizenship is problematically vague from a legal standpoint.  For a country is technically a geographic region, but not necessarily a sovereign state. If you are defining what or who should be protecting a person from human rights abuses, using these definitions, it seems to me that responsibility could be passed off quite a bit.

Another point on the “right to a nationality” is that when you think about it this ‘right’ seems to be integral to most of the Human Rights documents. Often a nation is defined as a group of people who share common social values, such as religion, language and way of life. More or less all of these broad categories are covered in every document with rights like “freedom of religion.” Are these documents really protecting rights to identity?

This seems to be a very ‘Western’ way of viewing the world to say that everyone has this right to a nationality aka a right to an identity. However, the identity also seems very fluid in a “you can be anything you want to be” type of way. All of which really seems to be founded on everyone being “born free.” However, I would argue that not everyone is “born free,” or, perhaps, that there is a grey scale of freedom. One might be born free to make choices, but different advantages give some people choices that others may never obtain.

My overall questioning is of what it is that we value, is it citizenship or nationality? For it seems that in these documents identity is held in high regard. However, in practice it often seems that what passport you hold really defines a lot of your human rights.