“… one reason why governments found it possible to accept the principle of international concern for human rights [the Universal Declaration of Human Rights] was the expectation that the UN would respect the domestic jurisdiction of states by refraining from intervention in their internal affairs. The declaration, which lacks provisions for implementation and in any event does not have the legal force of a treaty, was compatible with this expectation: it professes to state ‘a common standard of aspiration,’ not a set of enforceable commitments”1.
We like to talk about human rights a lot, but we do not know what should be done when a country does not fulfill its duty and respect the rights of its citizens. The problem, as things stand, and as detailed as I can put, is this:
- Every human being has inalienable rights.
- Because of the existing world-system, there exists states.
- Every human being is FORCED TO have a citizenship, i.e. a legally binding relationship, with (at least) one of these states.
- Theoretically we assume that we need states for order and security. Therefore states are assumed to protect (first and foremost) bodily integrity of its citizens.
- Yet, as mentioned at #1, human beings have more than only the right to life.
- The states are supposed to not only protect but also provide each and every right human beings have.