|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ANNOUNCEMENTS and ARTICLES: http://pnews.org/art/art.shtml ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[I should have mentioned that Ben Scotch was former chief counsel of the Vermont Supreme Court and Executive Director of the Vermont Civil Liberties Union. Peter Juviler (Barnard) is co-director of the Columbia University Seminar on Human Rights. Each is well informed on these specifics. Ed]
Dear Ed,
Indeed the U.S. was among the 48 countries voting for the UDHR (8 abstained, none against) in the U.N. G.A. December 10, 1948. The U.S. ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1992 but with several reservations or understandings. One reservation: Article 7 "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment....The U.S. Senate specified a reservation that the U.S. not be bound by the word "degrading." That of course widens the boundary of what the government takes to be permissible--to the extent that any of this matters!
Peter
> >> Dear Ed -- >> >> Minor technical point: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights >> (UDHR) -- I think -- need not be ratified by the United States or any >> other country. The Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly, but >> was not passed as a resolution. The terms "ratification" and "signing" >> are only used for treaties. In international law, you need to >> distinguish between the declarations that do not have, in principle, >> binding force, and conventions and treaties which do have binding >> mechanisms. Signing and ratification only apply to the second category >> of document. Signing is the first act of engagement of a convention and >> ratification forces the integration of the signed convention into the >> national law of the country. The UDHR is not a binding convention. It >> was neither signed nor ratified, but rather adopted by the UN. >> >> But Ed, your main point stands: Since the adoption, the UDHR has >> acquired the status of customary international law. And in that spirit, >> the US should have ratified three related conventions, which would have >> binding force once ratified. These are International Covenant on >> Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Elimination >> of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the >> Rights of the Child. Equally relevant at the moment, the US should >> adhere to customary international law for a myriad of reasons, and >> should incorporate a training component regarding the treatment of >> prisoners and others before sending troops into a foreign country (aside >> from the question of whether the war is lawful under customary >> international law and tenets of good sense). >> >> Best -- >> >> Ben -- "A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy) -- Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
--- / o o \ PNEWS Topic Specific Portals (Vortals) ===OO=====OO================================================= http://pnews.org/vortal/ New World disOrder and Myth Busters http://g0lem.net/vortal/ Insane Planet and Wacko World http://g0lem.net/portal/ Bad-Ass Truth and TheGolemsPortal http://pnews.org/portal/ Naked Truth and PNEWS Portal ============================================================= \_/ \_/
