| | |
|
NovikaIsharSecondPaper 4 - 27 Apr 2010 - Main.JonathanWaisnor
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
-- NovikaIshar - 17 Apr 2010
International Human Rights Law and the United States | | |
| |
>
> | Not necessarily problematic, because we don't seem to be suffering any trade embargoes or civil unrest. Probably more hypocritical. But then that gets back to the realism argument, that powerful nations can be hypocritical (why not?) or the justification proffered by the government, that the rights we don't recognize are not really rights in the American tradition. | | | Another criticism of these conventions is that they are toothless. Countries that are powerful enough to flout them do so at will, smaller countries still flout them secure in the knowledge that any penalties for doing so won't amount to more than a slap on the wrist (unless in doing so they piss off one of the big boys), and the so-called "civilized" nations pick and choose which rights are included (which are invariably rights they've long decided are fundamental and thus acknowledging them causes no social upheaval) and imposes them on the rest of the world, where there are serious political and cultural consequences in radically changing society to fit in with a Western worldview. Perhaps an example of a country that adopted one of the above conventions and then made a good faith effort to change society to conform to the provisions of those conventions is in order.
| | | In Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980), a U.S. federal court employed the Alien Tort Claims Act to claim jurisdiction over a dispute between two non-Americans for acts committed abroad in contravention of public international law or U.S. treaty agreements. In its opinion, the Court made reference to the UN Charter and the UDHR in recognizing torture as a crime.
| |
<
< | ACTA is an interesting law but I don't think this particular case is a good example because of the nature of the plaintiffs and defendant. Courts have no problem applying international treaties when dealing with a private dispute between non-citizens (especially non-citizens who tortured and murdered others), but I doubt that someone who suffered at the hands of Blackwater/Xe operatives in Iraq could seek the same protections, although that would be an interesting point for research. Is there a case where American courts have applied international law to American citizens/companies on a claim brought by a non-citizen? | >
> | ATCA is an interesting law but I don't think this particular case is a good example because of the nature of the plaintiffs and defendant. Courts have no problem applying international treaties when dealing with a private dispute between non-citizens (especially non-citizens who tortured and murdered defenseless people), but I doubt that someone who suffered at the hands of Blackwater/Xe operatives in Iraq could seek the same protections, although that would be an interesting point for research. Is there a case where American courts have referenced international law to American citizens/companies on a claim brought by a non-citizen? | | |
More recently, in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), the Court accepted an amicus curiae brief from international human rights lawyers in deciding to strike down juvenile death penalty. The majority noted that only the U.S. and Somalia had not ratified the CRD and seven other countries besides the U.S. allowed the execution of juveniles: Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the DRC and China. (Roper, 543 U.S. at 577) The Court concluded that there was a general consensus in moving away from the use of capital punishment in juvenile cases and reflected that this may be the mark of a decent society. | | |
| |
<
< | The second example you gave about Roper probably better fits with the main issue in this essay, which is the US's relative lack of participation in the international human rights regime. The issue in the future might be whether other nations will allow us to dictate human rights to them when we abstain from some of the human rights treaties. Another case highlighting a willingness of the court to apply of international law to an American party could be helpful. | >
> | The second example you gave about Roper probably better fits with the main issue in this essay, which is the US's relative lack of participation in the international human rights regime. The issue in the future might be whether other nations will allow us to dictate human rights to them when we abstain from some of the human rights treaties. Another case highlighting a willingness of the court to apply instruments of international law to an American party could be helpful. | | | Anyway, these aren't final edits. Tell me what you think of them and whether you think they divest too strongly from the main point of your paper.
|
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |