[Munglik]

The declaration of human rights was made to define the rights of every human. Does the creation and signing of this declaration imply that the signatories are morally obligated to make other countries enforce them?

[Autumnleaf]

The document implies that the leaders who signed it want their constituents to look favorably on the fact that they signed it. Assuming anything beyond that would be reading too much into the situation.

[politea]

Are founding fathers morally obligated to enforce compliance with the U.S. constitution?

[Munglik]

	Originally Posted by politea To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Are founding fathers morally obligated to enforce compliance with the U.S. constitution?

No. The government of the US, however, is obligated to enforce it in their country.

[Tinpusher]

My take on human rights is like one of those
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Put the word "Rights" in the middle of it, and on the three corners you have respect, responsibility, human.

Hence if either of those words/concepts is not adhered to then, quite honestly, f**k your rights you haven't earned them.

[Valiyn]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds no legal power. However, it has set the stage for many of the international treaties that followed like the ICCPR and is still a fundamental "quick-look kind of way" of determining if "crimes against humanity" are happening for the International Court to hear a case. Think of it like the Declaration of Independence for the US. No legal power, but still politically important at the time until treaties (or amendments in this example) come forth to give legal ground.

[Eridal]

The Universal Declaration of Rights as mentioned by Valiyn has no legal power and I for one am very glad it doesn't because while some parts of it are decent there are other very questionable provisions which would infringe on the sovereignty of the US. Personally I strongly disapprove of parts of articles 1, 23-27, & 29

[mieu]

It's a UN document, isn't it? If a country that has a seat in the UN decides to violate the declaration, then they should be held accountable for it. To me, that means booting them the hell out of the UN, but there's also the question of the innocent people that had their benefits implicit as citizens of a UN member compromised by the mean ol' baddies in power. Is the UN a collective identity where countries care for the citizens of other UN member states as if they were their own? That's about as ideal--and intangible in practice--as the concept of 'brotherhood of humanity.'

I feel like the motivation behind military intervention has two edges. Up front, it's about squelching the 'crimes against humanity'--that's what you hear from the horse's mouth when countries decide to intervene. On the other hand, it's about making sure the 'right people' (those who respect the declaration and are therefore willing members--friends--of the UN) stay in power. That being said, I'd much rather the UN than a group that governs by the crushing of rights, because despite its flaws, it realizes that a gentle hand and the illusion of fairness and freedom keeps the populace not only tame, but loyal.

[FruitLoop]

	Originally Posted by Munglik To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The declaration of human rights was made to define the rights of every human. Does the creation and signing of this declaration imply that the signatories are morally obligated to make other countries enforce them?

Humans' rights were already plainly evident before anyone "declared" them. This document does more to erode human rights, since it states that somehow it is a governing bodys job to uphold them. Plainly stated, governments are usually the main culprits abusing human rights so you should ask yourself why they would like to present a persuasive document like this?