I disagree with using "the Auschwitz rule of interpretation". The first reason is that it's the rhetorical equivalent of comparing someone to a Nazi. It immed

I disagree with using "the Auschwitz rule of interpretation". The first reason is that it's the rhetorical equivalent of comparing someone to a Nazi. It immediately escalates the discussion to a comparison with one of the worst things humanity has done. The second is that it is either pointless, or creates a mess of international affairs. It disregards national sovereignty, so either we're going to do something about it every time another nation encroaches on what we consider natural rights (probably meaning war), or we're not going to do anything about it in which case it was a pointless exercise. Your text actually says "treaty" though, which implies an international context. It makes more sense in that context because national sovereignty still exists.