The rights of man

[Glomin]

Man has the right of liberty.
Except where he has forfeited this right through criminal actions, has given up his liberty (i.e. those in governmental service) or must be confined for his and the greater good (i.e. those that are mentally ill or dangerously contagious).

Man has the right of Freedom of Conscience.

[Union]

Except where he has forfeited this right through criminal actions, has given up his liberty

As in the provision of the International Peace Charter draft.

[Delfos]

But this is a good project to explore, i hope your submit a project for the 1st of November about the elaboration of the human rights. If you don't, I'll do it, but not this time.

[Glomin]

I just thought if we agree on vague human rights we can then use it as a basis for building other treaties.

[Feniexia]

The Enlightened Empire will not sign any human rights threaties. We have such rules already in our law texts, and they work perfectly.

[Delfos]

the problem is the violation of them in other countries, imagine one of yours goes to a foreign country with primitive or no human rights at all...

[Glomin]

The point of this discussion is to work out generally accepted human rights on which specific international treaties can be worked out using them as a frame of reference.

If your nation wishes to exceed these or not sign up to the treaties that is fine but bear in mind this initiative is so that other nations cannot go "well this is how we treat people here" which if you have no common standards of treatment then they have every right to do so.

[Delfos]

"this is how we always treated people here"



Dignity, Privacy and Life itself is the strongest human rights, it comes with the right to a shelter, and right to choose their way and other strong rights, but as i understood, Glomin wants a general treaty of human rights as someone agreeable to everyone, but the details will have to be discussed. Maybe it will be eternal as in no consensus of specific human rights. This is a strategy for a globalized human rights, to appeal to everyone, we must generalize and start what it will be discussed further, and there are no turning backs. If Mankind has the right to privacy, there's no way you can say they don't, but the treaty won't specify exactly what is private what is not, and that will be subject of governmental interest until a more specific clause for the treaty is created.

[Xyrael]

The Empire vehemently opposes any international law which imposes globalist westernized values on foreign cultures. Your doctrine of cultural imperialism and ignorance deciding who deserves what based on your opinions will only serve to anger those you do not understand.

The Empire warns that should any such law be imposed upon it by an international body, the Empire will not hesitate to use force in defense of it's cultural values. We will govern our people as we see fit.




OOC: As a point of discussion, the rights of man heralded modern democracy. Any true Imperial power would despise this as part of international law. In fact, I would be willing to bet a war similar to the French Revolutionary Wars would be fought against this kind of blind idealism. Even the current United Nations Charter does not go this far, even the simple right to water and right to life is argued over.

The Empire provides for it's native citizens in every way possible, and doesn't require some sort of formality and international watchdog to tell it to do what it does. It also doesn't need an international watchdog waggling it's finger at it. Actually, if I were the Sudanese government and there were some reporters in Darfur I'd go ahead and shoot them too. My country, my law, those people don't like it they can move and rebel somewhere else.

[Glomin]

OOC: I realize that a war might have to be fought over this kind of thing, I'm hoping to form some sort of power block to oppose the current hegemony's. 

IC: My friend this treaty would be entirely voluntary and it is to protect all our peoples not to impose anything upon them.

[Khem]

the only right that any man has is the right to choose. which is something no govornment can take away.

[Pachamama]

It seems to me that we have a misunderstanding here.
First
This treaty is not about "Forcing ANYTHING on ANYONE"
First of all it is there for those who wish to sign it. If you sign it fine. If you don't sign it fine too.

Second
This treaty is not about how you handle your people in your country it is also about how other people that visit your country are treated by you and how your people are treated in other country's.

OOC People don't seem to understand that some treaties work in both ways.
If this treaty goes down I will be rich.
"We always club and roll foreign people for their money here. It's part of our cultural tradition."

[Xyrael]

I do club and roll many foreign people. That is... there are many bars and dance clubs and tourist shops with exaggerated prices.

Pachamama, Rights are guaranteed by governments, Liberties are not. There are only a few Rights of Man, and in the real world even the United Nations does not recognize any Right of Man. Argueably the only Rights which could possibly be extended by an international treaty are the following:

Right to Life
Right to Property
Right to Food
Right to Water
Right to Shelter
Right to Justice
Right to Healthcare

Beyond these you are beginning to stretch the imagination. You could say Right to Vote, but that severely limits the number of nations that will join. You could say Right to Bear Arms, but again who gets to own it? The main problem with Rights is the government has to take drastic steps to ensure these rights are always upheld, and is held accountable in instances when they can not be upheld. Should a village suffer a drought, the Human Right to Water is being violated and the government is held accountable for not providing water. The Right to Healthcare would go against capitalism. The Right to Life goes against the Right to Justice in cases where the punishment is death. A Geneva Convetion-style treaty, ascertaining the rights of POW's would have a better chance of being clear rather than a general Rights of Man treaty. I'm not trying to be harsh in shooting down this idea, but while at a conference for Model UN we discussed this idea and the world is a realistic not idealistic place. Rights of Man simply are too difficult to ensure.

[Myroria]

Add "The right to bear arms" or Myroria will not accept any worldwide definition.

[Delfos]

  ahahaha never. keep living in the uncivilized world.