International Convention on Human Rights (ICHR)

I agree with Ms. Palombo that the one of the prerequisites to any valuable discourse on universal human rights must be the education of human rights. For example, before I took the class LS 154 I knew little on international human rights and its movement. Sure, one may here about some of the violations of human rights like torture in the news on occasion, but you really cannot understand the gravity of the movement without actually learning about the roots of it, what direction it is going, and where the system is lacking. However, I would add that as many parts of the world do not even have basic education, it is difficult to image human rights education reaching across the world any time soon. Nonetheless, we don't even have human rights education in many of the institutions that can afford to have it. That must certainly change

The 2048 project is challenging and interesting. However, nowadays it will be very hard to accept a binding document everywhere in the world. A Universal Document which is only accepted in certain countries, will result in failure. The best choice would be to establish a document, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is non binding. This way, every country will accept it and step by step the human rights culture will increase throughout the world. The first reason why there are no human rights protection throughout the world is due to lack of education regarding human rights. In Europe, where the population is more educated than in other continents regarding Human Rights, the European Convention is applied in the domestic system even if is not binding. The actual issue is not whether or not the enforceability of a document will increase human rights, but whether or not the culture itself will increase the application of human rights in the countries domestic system. If people start to identify themselves with some basic human rights principles, then every country, little by little, will establish binding human rights in its domestic system.

The International Criminal Court is a positive advancement for human rights. Although there are many reasons the U.S. feels they should not ratify the Rome Statute such as:

-the statute is an infringement of national sovereignty
-the treaty is too vague/broad and there are unaccountable
powers
-the court has the possibility of prosecutions being
politically motivated
-the court has negative effects on peacekeeping and
humanitarian missions
-the prosecutors of the court have unreasonable powers

Even though there are numerous objections to the International Criminal Court, there are some good reasons why the United States would want to ratify the Rome Statute. One reason is that many of the cases that have been taken up by the ICC are also U.S. interests (such as Darfur and Uganda). President Bush has signed the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act which urged that the U.S. to assist the ICC efforts in Sudan. The U.S. has also expressed their support in the ICC’s investigations and prosecutions in Darfur. Another reason for the U.S. to join the ICC is that they “would be more directly impacted by the court’s next steps.” Because the U.S. is not a member country of the ICC, the court has turned down cases that involve the U.S. A conference is scheduled to take place in 2009 regarding the Rome Statute and possibly the definition of aggression. This could affect the U.S. in the future due to their involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the U.S. were in the ICC, they would be able to have a say in this definition and further issues regarding situations with America. I feel that the United States should ratify the Rome Statute and become a member of the International Criminal Court.

Rene Cassin, next to Eleanor Roosevelt, defended the Universality of Human Rights through the writing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He was a strong defender of the Universality. And he saw at first the development of regional systems as a limit it. but Isn't a necessary step to reach a global, "universal", enforceable system for the protection of Human Rights? We can dream of an agreement to live together, every big work was born from a dream, and dreamers to make it real. But it usually takes a long time, and in this case too, it will require many little jumps, many regional systems leading to the universal agreement.

It is noteworthy that one of these comments comes from Europe and the other from America. Both seem to indicate the expansion of human rights into regional instruments is a threat to domestic rights. Two points in response. First, the expansion of rights does not denigrate existing ones. Think of it like a candle in a room. If I have a candle and I light yours, mine does not give off less light. If Mr. O'Reiley is proud of rights that Americans, and many others, have fought for, then he should also be proud that these rights, like many good ideas, are now circling the globe.

Two, whether it is Europe, or the US, the expansion into regional instruments, particularly economic and social rights rights is in accordance with Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – regional documents are one prospect to meet the duty to make the rights in the UDHR “fully realized.”