5 ms·

Hi. Diplomat working with UN issues here. The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself. It's the fact that opening up human rights to "new" rights se

• eli_gottlieb 5y ago
  > Hi. Diplomat working with UN issues here. The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself. It's the fact that opening up human rights to "new" rights sets a precedent. And that precedent will be used by other countries to shift the language on human rights in a more authoritarian direction - or dilute human rights as such. You mean sorta like... the past 50 years or so?
• tomrod 5y ago
  Sounds like this is why we can't have nice things! I'm pretty clueless when it comes to diplomacy. What is the drive for authoritarians? How do you negotiate with them, or otherwise limit their influence? (and is that desirable?).
  • a_diplomat 5y ago
    Legitimizing their own models of governance, both internationally and domestically, would be their main driver in multilateral settings. In some cases, such as the ITU, it could also be about getting technical norms approved that mirror their state goals (https://www.justsecurity.org/75741/chinas-dystopian-new-ip-plan-shows-need-for-renewed-us-commitment-to-internet-governance/ https://www.justsecurity.org/75741/chinas-dystopian-new-ip-p...)
• mensetmanusman 5y ago
  Where are there any reports that discuss concerns such as these? E.g. why is it hard to find the argument for why environmental rights could be at odds with civil rights?
• Veen 5y ago
  I'm always curious how diplomats and politicians regard the "rights" in the U.N. declaration of human rights. They don't conform to a defensible set of natural rights (even if it's agreed that such things exist), so are they considered a goal or a declaration of how the UN thinks people should live? Does it matter that few UN members conform to them? Or that they represent quite a specific ideological viewpoint in many cases. Or that some rights seem to conflict with other rights? In short, what's the point of a lengthy declaration of "rights" that almost none of the members seems committed to.
  • user3939382 5y ago
    > Does it matter that few UN members conform to them? Does anything the UN does matter? I don't mean that in a flippant/sarcastic way. The "teeth" of the UN is ostensibly the UN Security Council, which runs on vetoes by interests that are practically never aligned. It seems to provide cover for US policy, and when it can't serve that purpose the US does what it wants anyway either with NATO or by itself.
  • 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
    > In short, what's the point of a lengthy declaration of "rights" that almost none of the members seems committed to. The stated point of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is to prevent the need for constant Declarations of Independence through violent revolution.
• tgb 5y ago
  Interesting. Can you expand on an example of a 'new' human right that would be authoritarian in nature? I don't really understand the "right to development" example. It looks like it was adopted by the UN already in 1986 and I'm not sure if the authoritarian implications. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/righttodevelopment.aspx https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/righttod...
  • realityking 5y ago
    There‘s an explanation, with a particular view point, here: https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/escr/pages/areescrfundamentallydifferentfromcivilandpoliticalrights.aspx https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/escr/pages/areescrfundamenta... The history is that western democracies generally emphasized civil rights while poorer countries social rights. This “evened the playing field” to play off rights against each other. For example one can claim that it’s been necessary to to limit certain civil rights to improve the situation of social rights. (Take away the farms and give them to the workers).
    • imtringued 5y ago
      > (Take away the farms and give them to the workers). Why not just adopt the damn land value tax or just do plain old ground leases? Come on. Why does everything have to be solved with some stupid repossession thing where people get free shit that they don't want to take care of?
  • throwaways885 5y ago
    The Right to Freedom from Misinformation.
  • Veen 5y ago
    > Can you expand on an example of a 'new' human right that would be authoritarian in nature How about a right to live in a community free of external interference—a stronger version of the right to self-determination? You could argue that it would prevent acts of external aggression, but it could also be used to prevent aid when a nation's people are being oppressed.
• otrahuevada 5y ago
  I do not understand this framing. Not joking, it's just... how exactly does proposing a right to not live drenched in poison present a slippery slope like the one you're proposing? Procedurally, I mean. Presumably the same mechanisms used to vote for/against this could be used to prevent terrible people from pushing for terrible things?
  • Kilonzus 5y ago
    Hey I'm not a diplomat but I believe the problem with this specific problem is that in the the case of 'right to clean environment' how to you protect your rights? Do you sue your neighbor for litter or the company down the street for emissions? How do you prove that emissions are out of control? Also how do developing nations who may not have the legal strength who are just as affected by pollution from developed nations exercise their rights? Now the question of a slippery slope could be that with a right to clean environment developed nations could stifle growth and innovation in developing nations citing clean environment worries (maybe Nigeria and oil). This could go way deeper than oil however as any country trying to harvest any sort of natural resource can face scrutiny and potential action. In an extreme example developed nations could then say 'we will mine these resources because we can do it less intensively' robbing nations of potential nation building revenue. How would you combat this? Maybe a 'right to develop' and boom rights dilution and authoritative in nature. Perhaps am extreme example but extreme isn't too far with people involved.
    • otrahuevada 5y ago
      This being the UN, I don't think there's going to be many legal intricacies because it's mostly a debate forum with little to no strings attached. Even ICC rulings serve more of a ceremonial/PR role than an actual court ruling: The world has judged you and very publicly found you guilty of stuff, but it's really up to the Security Council countries' own governing bodies to do something about that. As things stand, what this decision does is make it look like the UK has a vested interest in polluting the world, which makes exactly 0 sense to me from a foreign policy POV: this is not something countries want to look like they stand for. Hence my asking, I just can't make the decision or the arguments behind it make sense?
• gowld 5y ago
  It's all wankery anyway. A member of the UN only care about "human rights" (or anything else the UN votes on) until it conflicts with the member's self-interest. The UN is a diplomatic discussion forum and place to organize joint projects. It's an anarchy, not a not a government.
• reillyse 5y ago
  Maybe also working for the US or the UK? If everyone in the UN is in agreement what is the problem? If In the future you don’t agree with other human rights then don’t approve them but don’t claim that you’d love to vote for this resolution but that would somehow force you to also vote for another one down the line, that is not how it works.
  • a_diplomat 5y ago
    We could vote against another proposal, but opening up the framework of human rights for renegotiation would be a substantial thing to do, and would set a precedent. Not working for the US or the UK.
• shrikant 5y ago
  > It's the fact that opening up human rights to "new" rights sets a precedent. Does this mean no new human right can ever be established? And by extension, that the set of human rights currently in the UDHR are "complete"? (I don't have a strong opinion yet, just found this framing curious...)
  • a_diplomat 5y ago
    It doesn't mean that they can never be established, it just means that in the current international political climate, there is very little interest from democratic states to open it up, since the consequences could be so vast. If the world was nicer and everyone were friends it would be easy.
• mcdonje 5y ago
  Confused about how that works. I believe the part about authoritarians trying to trojan horse bills that erode our rights disguised as unobjectionable bills. We see it all the time with bills that restrict our right to privacy disguised as anti-child porn legislation. People who come out in favor of the 4th amendment are painted as vile criminals. That said, I don't see how it works in this instance. Care to elaborate?
  • refurb 5y ago
    Democracies criticize authoritarian country for torture which violates human rights. Authoritarian country criticizes democracies for environmental “crimes” which violates human rights. Says they have no right to criticize since they also violate human rights. Massive whatsboutism that detracts from the important issues.
    • a_diplomat 5y ago
      Yup. And also, authoritarian government uses <insert reason> to open up the framework for negotiation and weaken existing norms.
    • mcdonje 5y ago
      Do you have an example of this? I mean, there's a pretty good case to be made that the US and the companies it supports and enables are guilty of some serious environmental crimes that majorly contribute to climate change and negatively impact people's health. Climate change is an existential issue. How do we decide that other countries are engaging in whataboutism by bringing things like that up as opposed to us engaging in whataboutism to distract from our refusal to take meaningful action on environmental issues that directly impact people across the globe?
      • rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
        You complain to the authorities about your (poor) neighbor because he beats his children in the front yard. He complains to the authorities that you fly on a jet a few times a year, contributing to climate change. He never flies, you see (because he can't afford it). He promises to stop beating his children once you stop flying. The authorities are forced to admit that this is a fair proposal, as both beating children and flying on jets are violations of human rights. No deal is struck, you continue flying on jets, he continues beating his children, knowing that what little leverage the neighborhood had over him has been lost.
• puglr 5y ago
  > The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself. It's the fact that opening up human rights to "new" rights sets a precedent. And that precedent will be used by other countries to shift the language on human rights in a more authoritarian direction - or dilute human rights as such. It occurs to me that this same argument can be used against anything that ought to be enshrined at the UN as a human right. An obvious example being loving who you want without regard to sex or gender.
  • abduhl 5y ago
    Take the right you just proposed. Why is it limited to a “who”? Why is it linked to sex or gender? Is this a singular love or is polygamy a human right? Does love need to be reciprocated? What’s the fundamental human right? Shouldn’t we be worried that these so-called human rights are being newly discovered relatively recently?
    • puglr 5y ago
      > Why is it limited to a “who”? "Who" implies a human. The topic is human rights. I'm not sure I follow what this particular question is trying to get at. > Why is it linked to sex or gender? Pro answer: It isn't. We've known this since prehistoric times. Con answer: Because only a man and a woman can create a new human life on their own. > Is this a singular love or is polygamy a human right? Age differences would have made for a better example here. But my answer would be that this question is that it frankly doesn't matter for my example. I.e., one does not need to answer the question of "how many people should we allow someone to marry" to answer the question of "should people be allowed to marry someone with the same genitals as themselves". Indeed, our global reality reflects that. > What’s the fundamental human right? What I previously stated: "loving who you want without regard to sex or gender". Notice that it does not say "without regard to singular vs plural love" or "without regard to reciprocation" or anything else. > Shouldn’t we be worried that these so-called human rights are being newly discovered relatively recently? That's... how it works. We (or at least Western society) don't enshrine rights into laws and constitutions until we realize something we ought to be allowed to do freely is being unduly infringed upon. That's a process that doesn't stop. We should be worried when we stop "discovering" new rights, not the other way around. Humanity has yet to produce a generation that "has it all figured out" with respect to fundamental rights, and there is no reason to assume we ever will.
• chinathrow 5y ago
  > The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself. Is this a joke? If there is no issue with the resolution itself, then we for sure should accept it.
  • a_diplomat 5y ago
    There are horizontal issues to every resolution, and every resolution is written in a context. If you open up for environmental crimes, then some country will want to open up for "illegal speech" directed towards the state.
    • chinathrow 5y ago
      I see where this is going, are there no incentives for countries to stop engaging in whataboutism?