The only person who’s invented something about “disputes between states” is you.
Er, no, I have said that states parties *can *bring complaints. Under Article 10.
If you knew anything about the history of the complaints mechanisms, or bothered to look it up, you would know that that is not merely my invention that the rest of the OP concerns complaints brought by non-states. In the early human rights treaties individual complaints were limited to the victims themselves - the ability to complain “on behalf of” was only introduced with the Convention Against Torture, which is obviously more likely to deal with situations where the victims themselves are not in a position to complain. The idea was to allow family members or other representatives such as friends or NGOs complain on the victims’ behalf, not to allow states to do so. States already had the ability to make complaints under the inter-state procedure, though none has ever showed an interest in making such complaints.
Although Article 2 and the comparable provisions in other OPs/Treaties don’t explicitly rule out the possibility of a state using them, probably because the idea that they might has never occurred to anybody other than you, it’s hardly likely that the monitoring body would allow them to do so given that there is already a specific procedure for inter-state complaints. And by no means could it be said that states using the individual mechanism to complain about other states is what the OP “aims” at.
Seriously, do some historical research on this. It’s not that hard to find.
Er, yes, that was my point.
Do you understand the difference between “create” and “interpret”?
Got that example yet of a cite you’ve accepted as evidence that someone else was right and you were wrong?
And still no cite, eh?
But let me guess, more absurdity so you can rationalize a stance where you’d like the US to be guilty of human rights violations for not giving charitable aid?
Yep, same level of bullshit the rest of your argument is founded upon. I pointed out that the OP set up the CESCR to serve as an arbiter between states, which it did. You pretended that I’d said that the Covenant was about disputes between states. And when I point that out, all of a sudden you forget what you yourself wrote, and start talking about the OP again.
And yes, rather obviously states can bring forth complaints about how people were treated, but you’re claiming that of course that can’t happen because, well, nothing in the OP says that but, well, it has to be another entity that brings those complaints. Because of course only a non-state could ever possibly bring forth a complain about how someone’s rights were violated. Because, your argument is founded on playing games.
In any case, it’s rather clear that you’ll never provide that cite to how it’s actually a human rights violation, in international law or custom, to discontinue charitable aid.
It’s also clear as to why you won’t offer up that cite.
Er, no, that wasn’t. In fact it was the exact opposite, that when a court cites another body’s reasoning, it’s saying that body has defined its own set of laws. To be fair, you were rationalizing, so of course your rationalization wasn’t actually reasoning, and wouldn’t carry over. But if you were actually reasoning from evidence to a conclusion, rather than starting from a conclusion and trying to rationalize support for it, then the principle you were using would mandate that when a court was deciding to cite a body’s opinion on a ratified treaty, that the court citing that opinion means that body has defined the nature of the ratified treaty to which that court is bound. That’s why you’ve only offered up transparent variations on ‘but but but, national laws aren’t international laws!’ instead of actually offering up a cogent, coherent path of reasoning as to why citing the CESCR establishes what their ratified treaty ‘really meant to say!’ but citing the SCOTUS doesn’t mean what their nation’s laws really are supposed to be. You’ve offered no guiding principle on just how nations citing a non-binding opinion from a functionally irrelevant group means that that group determines international law by fiat or is part of the legal process for any groups other than those who willfully choose to incorporate their decisions into their reasoning process.
Which is predictable, since there isn’t an actual principle at work except you trying to rationalize a charge of a human rights violation against a nation for not giving charity in perpetuity.
Yes, obviously you don’t. Nothing in the actual treaty says that a nation must give food aid in perpetuity if the reasons it might suspend it are political. That is not an “interpretation”, that’s a 100% created bit of “law”. If, ya know, the CESCR had any power at all instead of writing opinions that nations are 100% free to ignore.
So you’ve got that example of a cite yet, showing how it’s a violation of human rights in international law or custom? No? It’s been weeks upon weeks upon weeks, and you still can’t offer up a cite. I wonder why?
Let me guess, you’ve only got your dodge, refusing to cite your own claim but demanding that I cite other discussions I’ve had where someone was right and i was wrong, so not only can you spread a bit more bullshit, but you can get some of your ad hominem nonsense in and try to poison the well too, while you’re at it.
Funny, that. I’m sure the fact that you’ve been wrong about literally every single thing since the start of the debate, and no error has forced you to modify your conclusion, at all, even discovering that the US hasn’t even ratified the actual treaty in question, is just a coincidence.
But as you’ll never actually provide that cite it seems, we both know what purpose this dance serves.
So if you actually ever want to provide an argument as if it’s in GD and not IMHO, please feel free to provide a cite to international law or custom showing that your claim is valid.
We all know why you haven’t, won’t and can’t provide such a cite, however. So feel free to try to change the subject as per standard operating procedure. Folks will know what that means, too.
Which it didn’t. Your continually asserting it as fact doesn’t make it fact, it just shows that you really have no understanding of how the complaints mechanisms were meant to operate and how they actually do operate. It’s been pointed out to you that
[ul]
[li] The OP was not originally intended to allow for inter-state complaints at all[/li][li] The reason for this is because no state ever had (or still ever has) complained about another under a UN human rights treaty[/li][li] The individual complaints clause was based on the other human rights treaties, some of which don’t allow anyone but the victim to complain[/li][/ul]
And still you insist that not only are states able to circumvent the inter-state dispute mechanism and use the individual mechanism instead, but that allowing inter-state disputes is in fact what the OP “aims” to do. Of course you’ve provided absolutely no evidence for this, except for that, well, Article 2 doesn’t explicitly say they can’t.
The gap between “The OP doesn’t say they can’t do it” and “it’s what the OP aims to do” would be wide enough anyway, even without all the contrary evidence. But keep on insisting. You’re only digging a deeper hole for yourself.
It’s a pretty simple request. Show me a time where you’ve accepted a cite as proving you wrong. You’ve rejected every cite I’ve given, on anything, so you ought to at least be able to point me to a time when you’ve accepted one.
This is coming from the guy who has continually insisted that the CESCR was “set up” by the OP, that individual complaints are part of the reporting process and that inter-state disputes are what the OP “aims” to allow. That speaks for itself really.
What a surprise, you’re still mistaken about pretty much everything and using absurd semantic gamesmanship to nitpick, and still no cite for your claim. And now fresh, new nonsense about how I’ve “rejected every cite you’ve given” when you haven’t given even a single cite on how it violates international law or international custom to suspend charitable aid. Just more of your factual errors that you refuse to admit while trying to nitpick semantics.
Something tells me you’ll never provide a cite, and I’m done trying to get you to do so. Readers can judge for themselves just why it is that the only thing you’ve been able to cite is a non-binding opinion for a body with no legal authority, that doesn’t represent international custom. And why instead of correcting that error you’ve preferred to argue as to whether or not the process of things being reported is really part of some sort of ‘reporting process’ or if that betrays unspeakable ignorance, of if something that sets up a body with totally new powers has “set it up” or something that allows any group to speak on behalf of victims but doesn’t explicitly say that states can’t really means that, secretly, states can’t.
The unifying factor between all of your digressions, naturally, is that each one is an attempt to avoid providing a very simple cite to support your claim that in international law or international custom, it’s a violation of human rights to suspend charitable aid you’re giving to another nation.
You won’t provide a cite, obviously. They reason why you won’t is obvious. As is the reason why you’re now demanding that instead of you providing a cite, that I have to discuss other threads in which there have been factual disagreements. Because of course that’s highly relevant to your inability to cite your own claim. Ever. Of course. It’s been months, and you’ve provided not one cite substantiating your claim in international law or international custom, and I’m done asking you to.
To summarise, in my very first post I cited an international human rights treaty and an interpretive opinion of that treaty’s monitoring body. In subsequent posts I cited evidence from the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights and from a number of national and international courts as to the authority of that body to interpret the treaty. You don’t accept these cites, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t provided them.
At the same time, you’ve claimed that that body, which had existed for years, had suddenly been “set up” by a Protocol which in fact it drafted itself; that that Protocol dealt with a process it doesn’t actually deal with; and that its aim was to be used in a manner in which it had no expectation of ever being used. All of these claims are demonstrably wrong, but when I’ve pointed to clear evidence that they are wrong, you either ignore that evidence completely or hide behind accusations of “nitpicking”.
I can only assume there’s a reason you won’t point to a cite you’ve accepted as proving you wrong. Unlike you, I’m not particularly bothered by what the small number of other Dopers still reading this thread think. But I imagine they’ll draw their own conclusions about that, too.