Monday, April 23, 2007
Human Rights and the UN
A LOT of optimism attended the birth of the UN Human Rights Council, created last year by a 170-4 vote of the General Assembly. Whereas the United States kept on the sidelines (and confirmed this month it would stay away), many Western states saw the new body as an improvement on the discredited Human Rights Commission it replaced. I was wondering if anyone knew why the United States would not want to be involved with this new body. Why would we shy away from a International Human Rights Commission? I am Stumped?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
War against Euphoria
Hate Hope and Human Rights At least that's what the addicts describe it as. In 2020 alone, an estimated 9.5 million Americans, just A...
-
The United States has consistently tiptoed around Chinese human rights issues. An American politician may occasional issue a condemnation ...
-
Dowry is a gift of money or valuables given by the family of the bride, to the family of the groom at the time of marriage. Though initially...
1 comment:
The main reason I see the US not backing or agreeing with the UN is that the United States legislation hates to loose power in any way. The reason why the US did not sign with the first League of Nation was the fact that the US government did not want to submit to any overseas power of any sort. It is true that this approach is somewhat bogus but think if it his way, if the US signed to the new Human Rights Council the US would be forced to abide by the UN’s resolutions. Even resolutions that would lead the US into sending troops to a foreign country. The US constitution only allows the president and approved by congress to send troops into a foreign country and does not allow a foreign power to change that. In essence if the US signed on to the Human Rights Council, even though it would be a good idea, would be ignoring parts of the constitution.
Post a Comment