Text 32044, 85 rader
Skriven 2016-04-02 03:56:19 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 32035 av Björn Felten (2:203/2)
Ärende: Trusting the US to follow previous agreements
=====================================================
Hello Björn,

 LL>> The UDHR is not binding in legal terms.
 LL>> It is not a treaty.  Just a document that
 LL>> defines human rights.

 BF> A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in
 BF> international law, namely sovereign states and international
organizations.

A General Assembly resolution (such as the UDHR) is not a treaty.
As such, the UDHR is not a "binding convention" of any kind.
It is, however, one of the best (if not the best) documents the
United Nations has ever produced in its entire existence.

 BF> So yes, according to international agreements (save for the USA obviously)
 BF> the UDHR is a treaty.

A resolution is not a treaty.

 BF> But I guess that only shows how relaxed the US take on international
 BF> agreements is?

If international agreements could only be so simple ...

The UDHR is more of a statement of principle(s) rather than
international agreement.  There is nothing legally binding on
any nation.  Some states can (and have) adopted it as binding
national legislation.

 BF> The treaty of Versailles for instance, that was the main reason for WWII,

That was one of the many excuses that Adolf Hitler used in getting
Germans to go along with his mad adventure.  Hitler also used other
excuses, such as Communists, and Jews, and blacks, and homosexuals,
the disabled, and many other scapegoats.

 BF> wasn't that a treaty either according to US interpretation?

A treaty that doesn't count for a hill of beans.
Whether a treaty has been signed and not ratified,
or never signed or sent to be ratified makes no
difference.  A treaty does not count unless it has
been signed and ratified.

 BF> Was it ratified by the US senate even?

Nah.  After WWI, the US went into an isolationist period.
Then came Pearl Harbor.  That woke up America.  Really fast.

 BF> Someone from the US signed it...

Just because somebody signed a document (treaty) does not mean
it has been ratified.  And just because a treaty exists does not
mean the US has signed it, much less ratified it.

Major international treaties the US has NOT ratified -

* International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
 (1966)

* Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
 Against Women (1979)

* Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)

* Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)

* International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All
 Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (1990)

* Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (2006)

* International Convention for the Protection of All Persons
 from Enforced Disappearance (2006)

Some of these have been signed by the US President, but not
ratified.  Others have never been signed or ratified.

This is just a short list.  For more, google can provide lots.

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
 * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)