question on human rights topic? (1 Viewer)

[muffinscribble]

if a state does not have a particular human right ratified in their domestic law, but that human right is covered by international law, then is the state required to ratify that law into domestic law? I was reading a human rights issue on child marriage, but i was thinking, how could it be a human rights issue if that particular issue is not covered by domestic law? Child marriage was a major issue in the country but it did not have laws in place to make that a crime or human rights issue. The state would be exercising its state sovereignty, but if all states did that then whatever is covered in international law is not very effective..? sorry for the long question but im really still unclear about human rights and i need help desperately.

 

[InsoulvencyReaper]

That's the problem with international law - it's not enforceable because of state sovereignty.

This means leaders of a nation are not required to make international law applicable to their nation.

However, to be recognised as a "state" by the UN - they must to an acceptable extent recognise and enforce international laws outlined in the Declaration of human rights.

But yeah... Some human rights are hard to enforce. Especially those associated with traditions upheld in certain cultures.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[muffinscribble]

thanks for your reply

so whether the state is violating human rights depends on its party to the UN or international treaties? and if they were party, would they be subject to potential conviction by the ICC?

 

[InsoulvencyReaper]

I'm a little confused about your first question but here's a bit on the criminal court.

The international criminal court is also another story.

A country may recognise the UN and be on general assembly but may not recognise the ICC.

You would need to ratify that too.

Even if the ICC recognises that a country has committed genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes they have no power to convict them if the country they are trying to convict doesn't recognise their jurisdiction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[muffinscribble]

ooh okay that makes sense. So a country would have to recognise a jurisdiction for it to be liable under particular international laws? So in the end we have all these international laws and human rights, but ultimately they would only apply to states who recognise them in their domestic laws..
That would mean even if there are countries who violate international laws, if they don't recognise the jurisdiction under which that law is contained, the international community can't do anything about it?

 

[InsoulvencyReaper]

Yes, that's right!

Pretty much can't do anything about it.

The UN has tried to develop it's doctrine on R2P - right to protect - but it's still a bit sketchy.

In theory it should allow military/non-military intervention in recognised states that do not uphold human rights.

Do a little research on it, it's quite interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[muffinscribble]

thanks so much that helped a lot!
i'll do a bit more research now and hopefully it'll all make better sense