Inmates at Guantánamo
But as hazy things that exist in precedent instead of law the rights created by the UDHR provide a diplomatic tool, one that can be used to pressure or cajole states into respecting the rights of their citizens.
But because these rights can be questioned and can be ignored by the powerful they’re scarcely rights at all. International law is extremely weak. It has been flouted by the powerful and enforcement has been piecemeal. Dick Cheney or Paul Wolfowitz will never face criminal prosecution for the CIA torture regime they ordered be set up. No British leader who supervised or participated in the US rendition programme will see any consequences either. War crimes are only war crimes if you lose.
There is no universal enforcement authority. There is no way to guarantee equal protections for rights. There is no way to restrain all governments equally, nor their employees, nor the privileged in society. This is why America can commit war crimes at will.
18 June 2015
This is why much of our chocolate is produced with child slavery in Western Africa. The powerful and the privileged aren’t restrained by international law. This is because these laws are based on precedent and custom, rather than the rule of law.
The Tories have announced they intend to eliminate the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. This is extremely dangerous.
Dick Cheney or Paul Wolfowitz will never face criminal prosecution for the CIA torture regime they ordered be set up. No British leader who supervised or participated in the US rendition programme will see any consequences either. War crimes are only war crimes if you lose.
The British state is an ancient peculiarity. That it functions at all is no miracle. The power and the privilege of those involved with it depend on its continued functioning so great care is taken to preserve it. This is the only reason the institution of parliament survives without a written constitution. In most other democracies a written constitution enables and constrains the government. Without that legal basis precedent becomes the main guide for politicians.
A government that changes human rights legislation whenever a new parliament comes into session is playing a very dangerous game which could permanently undermine the rights of the British people.
Too many institutions exist only as a matter of precedent. The constitution itself is unwritten. Like international law it is a set of customary precedents but it lacks even the firm statutory basis created by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the other human rights conventions set out by the UN. At least the customary law of the UN has a solid foundation of written documents. The British system doesn’t.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100