# Northern Arizona University/Philosophy of Law/Discussion of Online Texts/Week 14

Inter-American Court of Human Rights
It is my understanding that this court was set up in order to help secure the inalienable human rights that all humans are supposed to have. Through the discussions in class, it is evident that this court has its purpose, but at the same time is fairly useless when it comes to other matters, such as dealings with the United States. This is because the United States is considered to be very adept at protecting human rights. Therefore this courts real purpose is to protect human rights in countries that are not as developed or seem to disregard human rights. These countries are often in anarchy, in constant flux, or ran by whoever has the most guns. This raises a question.
If this is truly this court’s, as well as others like it, function, than will simply admittance of the countries violations are enough to make any sort of lasting effect? This is a greater concern when you consider that many times the admittance of guilt comes a great deal after the act. This would seem to entail a loop hole in which tyrannical governments could get away with whatever they want, than 30 year later (whether that government is in power or not) admit that they messed up and pay a small fine. This would hardly seem to work against countries that have to real concern for the well being of its people.
One supposed answer to this is that the admittance does work. They claim this because when the country admits to its wrong doings they are conceding that they messed up and are being open and honest about it, thus giving them s softer image in the eyes of the world. Should they not admit, they will always be seen as an undeveloped primitive country and no other states will do business with them. This would work if the countries were not often in control of some dictator or madman who has no real vision past being in control of their own desolate lands. The countries that are often in such violation of human rights would seldom care what the rest of the world thinks, and even if they did they would only have to admit that they made a mistake and walk away a nicer place in the world’s eyes. This court would hardly seem effective in stopping human right violations.
QLucas
On Inalienable human rights
Upon considering the court cases, charters, and institutions that are associated with human rights, certain aspects of the nature and origin of the rights themselves must be considered. Frequently the rights that are trying to be protected are described as being basic, universal, and inalienable. Basic in this case would mean the simplest, most primitive form of rights that exist regardless of the time place or circumstance. Universal would mean applying to everybody, across the globe with the same force. Inalienable would mean that they cannot be taken away of infringed upon.
Here is where matters of interpretation arise. First of all many of the rights that are listed in the Universal Declarations of Human rights hardly seem to be basic. Such rights as the right to join a union, the right to vacation, and others should not qualify as basic. In addition, some rights that would in general be considered basic do not seen included, at least not outwardly. The right to defend yourself is not included for example. Basic hardly seems a fitting word. Universal gives rise to further problems, many of which stem from the lack of the rights being basic. Some of the more complicated rights seem highly relative to social factors like region and social status. Inalienable does not present much of a problem since I believe its use here is supposed to be forming the ideal state of these rights. Furthermore, who decided upon these rights? Was it merely the first lady’s whims? Or was some divine tablet sent down form on high, and if so from who’s God? These questions, among others, should arise any time you consider human rights or the protection thereof. Yes there are basic human rights and they should be enforced, but more attention needs to be paid either to the wording or the nature of these laws before we try to make them universal.
QLucas
CQ #6: Response to Class Discussion 4/26/07: Inter-American Court of Human Rights
The US government acted as a main proponent of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights yet declined to join ranks with the 22 countries that signed on. The US claims that they have no need of joining since the US court system is the superlatively operating model for the court of human rights and that US citizens have enjoined a 200 year record of finding justice in the US system. Therefore, giving up any US court jurisdiction to the newly created human rights court might undermine the amount and quality of justice given to US citizens heard in that court.
This seems to me to be very reasonable ground for declining to join the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. However, I am wondering where the court system of the US is to look for further improvement and perfection if we are resistant to any outside pressures. By not participating in international systems such as these, America might be cultivating a bad habit and creating a vacuous justice system. The forefather of the Constitution took a gamble by creating a new system which has remarkable lasted for over 200 years. Why do we not, in this formative time for international law, also take bold steps in creating a system that challenges our status quo with prospects for improving to the highest degree all human rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For, it must be noted that, not yet do all American citizens, enjoy those rights. For example, persons who are extremely poor find themselves in situations of modern day slavery. Making only enough, if they are lucky, to eat and have a roof over their head. They are bound to their jobs, with no hope of finding a better one due to their overtime schedule, just so they may eat from day to day. This, under various interpretation, is violating a vested human right to be free from slavery.
Why does America not recognize that we still have problems that must be further worked out if we are to serve as example to the rest of the world? Why do we not take another bold step and raise the bar of standards that we must live up to in the hopes that the rest of the world will also attempt to do so?
-Karlie Knudtsen]