The United States and human rights

1985 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-89
Author(s):  
Christopher Brewin

These excellent books mark the reception in American thinking of the doctrine that economic and social rights (Shue, Brown/Maclean, Hoffmann, Vogelgesang, Falk) are at least as important as the civil and political rights of Henkin's ‘International Bill of Rights’. The English contribution to this literature, the collection of documents edited by Brownlie, makes no distinction between sets of rights; and by reprinting work by Prebisch and Figueres, Brownlie promotes the thesis that development and human rights go together. However, it is worth noticing that all these authors ignore the efforts by the majority of countries in the UN General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights to assert the related concept of rights to development, notably in GA Resolution 32/130 (1977).


1968 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 889-908 ◽  
Author(s):  
José A. Cabranes

On December 16, 1966, the General Assembly approved three agreements designed to establish a global system of enforceable treaty obligations with respect to fundamental human rights. These agreements are the second part of the “international bill of rights” proposed at the San Francisco Conference. Eighteen years separated the adoption of these agreements—the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—and the approval in 1948 of the first part of the projected United Nations program for the protection of human rights, the non-binding Universal declaration of Human Rights.



1995 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 540-553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis B. Sohn

Too much has been written lately about the limited approach to human rights at Dumbarton Oaks, the struggle at the San Francisco Conference, and the great flowering of declarations, conventions, covenants and instruments to implement them in the last fifty years. Instead of adding another retelling of these more than twice-told tales, this essay tries to look at the origin of two less known contributions to the law of human rights—the broad nondiscrimination clause which added a more practical meaning to the vague “human rights and fundamental freedoms” phrase; and the bold addition of economic and social rights to the more traditional civil and political rights.



1996 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret De Merieux

The decision of the Human Rights Committee in Kindler vs. Canada1 marked its first substantive decision on the subject of the violation of human rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) consequent upon extradition by a State Party, and making the extradition itself a violation of Covenant obligations. Two cases have followed — Chitat Ng vs. Canada2 and Cox vs. Canada.3 The requesting State in all cases was the United States and given the increase in the numbers of requests for extradition between Canada and that country, from 29 in 1980 to 88 in 1992 and the enthusiasm of Canadian lawyers for proceedings before the Committee, ‘litigation’ in this area is likely to form a significant part of the Committee's work in the future. The ensuing comment analyses the decisions and the issues raised.



1997 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 271-290
Author(s):  
William Korey

While the United States is now an international leader in the fight against genocide and human rights abuses, it only recently ratified the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide– forty years after the convention's unanimous adoption by the UN General Assembly. Korey provides a description of the long struggle for ratification of the Genocide Convention, detailing decades of work by a committee of fifty-two nongovernmental organizations lobbying the Senate and the American Bar Association, the treaty's key opponent. Despite the public support for the United Nations and human rights by the United States, failure to ratify the Genocide Convention stemmed primarily from the fear that international covenants were threats to U.S. sovereignty. The United States finally overcame this fear with the ratification of the Genocide Convention in 1988, which opened the door for U.S. leadership.



Half a century ago, on 16 December 1966, the UN General Assembly adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). While the adoption of the twin Covenants was celebrated all over the world, their fiftieth anniversary has received very little attention from the international community. This book marks this anniversary by taking stock of the first half-century of the existence of what are probably the world’s two most important human rights treaties. It does so by reflecting on what the Covenants have achieved (or failed to achieve) in the years that have passed, determining and comparing their current influence in the various regions of the world, and assessing their potential roles in the future. The book contains papers presented during a symposium held in Zurich in 2016, which brought together experts and stakeholders from a range of disciplines and world regions. Some fundamental issues addressed by the contributors are as old as the two Covenants themselves. They concern, for example, the division of human rights into first- and second-generation rights, and the question of whether there should be one central monitoring body—possibly a world court—or more than just one. Other important questions dealt with are how the Covenants should be interpreted and who is bound by them. However, the contributors go beyond such questions, which have been explored before; they develop new answers to old questions and point to new challenges.



1973 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. 82-86
Author(s):  
Bert Lockwood ◽  
Beatrice Brickell

I would like to address myself to international outlaws and what domestic procedures are available to arrest their activities. While at first glance the nexus between domestic justice and international justice may seem tenuous, I wonder: Is it surprising that the same administration that is so insensate over the deprivation of the human rights of blacks in Southern Rhodesia is the same administration that proclaimed early in its tenure that if you have seen one slum you have pretty much seen them all, and hasn’t visited another since? Is it surprising that the same administration that evidences so little concern over the political rights of the majority in Rhodesia is the same administration that “bugs” and sabotages the political process within the United States?



ADALAH ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Latipah Nasution

Indonesia sebagai negara yang berdasarkan hukum (rechstat), mempunyai konsekuensi yakni adanya supremasi hukum. Ini artinya, setiap tindakan administrasi negara harus berdasarkan hukum yang berlaku, selain harus memberikan kepastian hukum (asas legalitas). Sistem demokrasi yang berlandaskan hukum dan berkedaulatan rakyat menjadi dasar kehidupan dalam berbangsa dan bernegara. Demokrasi sebagai sistem pemerintahan yang dianut oleh Indonesia menyatakan bahwa suatu pemerintahan dipimpin oleh rakyat, dari rakyat, dan untuk rakyat. Bentuk pengejawantahan dari sistem demokrasi adalah diselenggarakannya Pemilu secara langsung. Adapun landasan dasar dilaksanakannya pemilu adalah pasal 22 E ayat (1) Undang Undang Dasar 1945 yang telah mengamanatkan diselenggarakannya pemilu dengan berkualitas, mengikutsertakan partisipasi rakyat seluas-luasnya atas prinsip demokrasi yakni langsung, umum, bebas, rahasia, jujur dan adil melalui suatu perundang-undangan (Handayani, 2014: 1). Pemilihan umum sebagai sarana pelaksanaan kedaulatan rakyat yang dilaksanakan secara langsung, umum, bebas, jujur, dan adil dengan menjamin prinsip perwakilan, akuntabilitas dan legitimasi dalam Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia berdasarkan Pancasila dan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.  Dinamika pada pemilihan umum seringkali diwarnai dengan isu mahar politik oleh para kontestan politik, sebagaimana dipublikasi diberbagai media di Indonesia. Praktik mahar politik dapat dipahami sebagai transaksi dibawah tangan yang melibatkan pemberian sejumlah dana dari calon pejabat tertentu untuk jabatan tertentu dalam pemilu partai politik sebagai kendaraan politiknya (Susilo, 2018: 155). Pemilihan umum sejatinya merupakan sebuah arena yang mewadahi para calon kandidat dalam kontestasi politik yang meraih kekuasaan partisipasi rakyat untuk menentukan pilihan dan sebagai penyalur hak sosial dan politik masyarakat itu sendiri (Simamora, 2014: 2).Pelaksanaan pemilu memberikan harapan rakyat dengan lahirnya seorang pmimpin yang mampu menyejahterakan dan membahagiakan rakyat dengan beberapa kebijakan yang dibuatnya. Namun dalam proses pemilu seringkali dicederai oleh beberapa oknum dari para calon kandidat beserta tim suksesnya yang mengunakan segala cara untuk memenangkan kontestasi politik, selain mahar politik, money politic juga kerap menjadi isu hangat dalam kontestasi politik. Terjadinya politik uang bukan hanya pada pasangan kandidat, namun juga karena masyarakat yang berpikir instan seringkali tertarik dengan politik uang. Penegakan hukum dalam kasus ini perlu diperhatikan guna melestarikan pesta demokrasi yang bersih dari tindak pidana dalam pemilu (Hadi; Fadhlika; Ambarwati, 2018: 398).Prinsip demokrasi dan keadilan dalam pemilihan umum (electoral justice) adalah keterlibatan masyarakat merupakan hal yang mutlak. Hak masyarakat sangat mendasar dan asasi sifatnya. Hal ini diamini, sebagaimana dimuat dalam Universal Declaration of Human Right 1948 yang telah dijamin juga dalam konvenan dan turunannya, terlebih dalam Convenan on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Cultural and social Rights atau yang lumrah disebut dengan International Bill of Human Rights.  Dengan dicantumkannya hak dasar dalam pelaksanaan pemilu, maka berlaku pula prinsip-prinsip integritas pemilu  yang mensyaratkan adanya pemantauan masyarakat yang independen dan penyelenggaraan pemilu yang transparan dan akuntabel. Hal ini serupa pentingnya dengan prinsip lain yang juga harus ditetapkan oleh institusi penyelenggara (KPU) dengan memiliki standar perilaku dan beretika, serta mampu menerapkan aturan secara adil tanpa pandang bulu.Untuk menjamin agar pemilu berjalan sesuai dengan ketentuan dan asas pemilu, diperlukan suatu pengawalan terhadap jalannya setiap tahapan pemilu. Dalam konteks pengawasan pemilu di Indonesia, pengawasan terhadap proses pemilu dilembagakan dengan adanya lembaga Badan Pengawas Pemilu (Bawaslu). Pengawasan dari Bawaslu adalah bentuk pengawasan yang terlembaga dari suatu organ Negara.Terlepas dari aturan tentang pemilihan umum yang diatur sedemikan rupa untuk memberikan kedaulatan bagi rakyat itu sendiri dalam penyelenggaraan pemilihan umum, pada prakteknya terdapat banyak permasalahan yang pada akhirnya mengurangi, merampas, dan meniadakan kedaulatan rakyat dalam penyelenggaraan pemilu. Pemerintahan yang seharusnya berasal dari rakyat, oleh rakyat, dan untuk rakyat berubah menjadi pemerintahan yang berasal, dari, dan untuk kepentingan kelompok tertentu. Hal yang paling mencolok terjadi dalam pemilihan presiden dan wakil presiden yakni Black Campaign. Permasalahan penyelenggaraan pemilihan umum yang berakibat pada  kedaulatan rakyat seperti money politic, budaya money politic marak terjadi dimana – mana dan bukan lagi merupakan rahasia umum. Praktik politik uang terjadi pada saat pengusungan calon yang dilakukan partai dan pada saat pencarian dukungan langsung dari rakyat. Rakyat dibayar, disuap, untuk memilih calon tertentu. Dengan demikian, rakyat dalam menentukan pilihannya tidak lagi dalam kehendak bebas, kesadaran akan bangsa dan negara, maupun dalam pengendalian penuh atas dirinya. Money politic meniadakan prinsip kedaulatan rakyat dalam pemilihan umum. Suara yang diberikan tidak berdasarkan prinsip jujur dan adil.



2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 268-275
Author(s):  
Eda Seyhan

Abstract In response to the rise of ‘populism’ and the perceived threat to human rights that it represents, human rights advocates have argued that NGOs must speak to the economic anxieties of majority populations by increasing work on economic and social rights. In this essay, I present a counter-argument to this proposal, drawing on insights from the COVID-19 pandemic and my experiences working at Amnesty International and monitoring emergency powers during the pandemic for Covid State Watch. I argue that international human rights NGOs should retain a focus on civil and political rights for three reasons. The COVID-19 pandemic has (1) revealed and reinforced the vast repressive power of the state and consequent serious risks to civil and political rights in the global North and (2) demonstrated that human rights NGOs are often alone in challenging restrictions to civil and political rights, especially during crises. I further suggest that, in contrast to the civil and political rights sphere, (3) human rights NGOs offer little ‘value added’ in the field of economic and social rights in the global North. I conclude by proposing that human rights serve their most useful function when they protect those who few others are willing to defend, such as the vector of disease, the terrorist and the criminal.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document