Jimmy Carter and human rights abuse by the US.

[ruadh]

@FinnAgain

Carter claimed it was a violation of human rights to not give charitable aid, not to suspend a program of charitable aid.

In a context where a program had been suspended. Maybe you don’t think that was relevant to the point he was making. I do.

Still waiting on a cite of actual international law or actual international custom to back that up. So far you’ve provided the non-bindings views of a group that wasn’t created by an actual treaty and whose ability to actually arbitrate disputes over international human rights law, simply, does not exist.

And whose views, nonetheless, are regularly cited by jurists and scholars as evidence of international human rights law. You think you know more than they do. Fine. We should all accept the opinion of one angry man on a message board over theirs. Fine.

the very fact that nations can 100% safely ignore anything and everything they say means that their views do not reflect international custom.

Nations can 100% safely ignore pretty much anything other nations say, international custom or not. That’s the nature of international law.

You are fooling virtually nobody, and neither are you maintaining plausible deniability. If someone says “Person A is a liar who cannot be trusted” and you response “Ah hah! Of course someone like you would think that.”, then of course that’s a denial (coupled with a charming personal insult).

It was an observation rather than an insult. I assume most politicians lie at one point or another. I also assume people are more likely to believe that a politician is lying if they are ideologically opposed to that politician. Those aren’t exactly incompatible positions.

Now back to nitpicking rationalizations, I see.

You’re never wrong, you’re just nitpicked at.

Yet again, most folks understand that the Secret Service that protects the president is not the same body that only acted to counter crimes against the US Treasury. Most folks understand that the United States federal government is not the same thing as the Continental Congress. Most people understand that setting up an entirely different role for a group to fulfill means that the group has been set up in a new incarnation.

Most folks understand that the UN Human Rights Committee didn’t cease to be the UN Human Rights Committee, and become a totally different body, which just happened to also have the name “UN Human Rights Committee”, when the ICCPR’s first OP came into effect. Most people understand that giving a body additional functions, while it retains its name, its structure, and all its pre-existing functions, is not abolishing the old body and creating a new one. And most people understand what “set up” means.

I discussed how the OP would set up a different procedure for reporting violations of the relevant treaty and you’re trying to nitpick that into… something. Your argument has now actually devolved to a semantic game whereby reporting alleged violations isn’t part of reporting, because they’re complaints. For serious.

If you actually understood what “reporting” meant in a UN human rights treaty context you wouldn’t even try to make this argument. Individual complaints aren’t part of the reporting process. They’re a different process altogether, and no one familiar with the system would make that mistake.

Anyway, when you first made that error you did so in reply to me talking about the actual reporting process, not the individual complaints. It was quite clear that you thought the OP had something to do with the process I was talking about. Which it doesn’t.

Naturally, while denying that the OP “aims to set up the CESCR as an arbiter of disputes between states” you have to ignore that a huge chunk of the OP is all about how the CESCR will be set up and function as an arbiter of disputes between states.

Have you actually even read the OP? One Article is not a “huge chunk”. The OP wasn’t even originally intended to include that Article, and it was eventually included notwithstanding expectations that it would never be used. Those facts make your assertion that inter-state disputes are what the OP “aims” to do demonstrably false.

One would hope that you’re aware that other nations have long cited decisions of the SCOTUS.

I’m glad to know *you’re *aware of that. The way you’ve been arguing that “not binding” = “irrelevant” suggested otherwise.

However, only someone who had absolutely no clue, at all, would claim that a SCOTUS decision determined international law.

And of course, you can’t see the difference between one nation’s court citing interpretations of (usually domestic) law by another nation’s domestic courts, and a domestic or international court citing the interpretations of an international human rights treaty by that treaty’s monitoring body. They’re exactly the same thing. Not that anybody else in the world seems to see it that way, but you do. So that’s how it is.

[FinnAgain]

@ruadh

We should all accept the opinion of one angry man on a message board over theirs

Ah, just more flaming in GD. Yet again, do you have a cite for international law or international custom whereby a nation is bound to give charitable aid and/or once it starts giving charitable aid, must have its reasons certified if it ever wants to stop? It’s reasonably clear that you don’t, or you’d have presented it by now, but surprise us all. Show an actual cite to back up your claims.
Because so far all you’ve provided is a body, with no regulatory authority at all, which has provided an interpretation, that the US isn’t bound to read let alone recognize, of a treaty that the US hasn’t even ratified.
It’s sure beginning to look like other than rationalizations, nitpicking and evasions, your argument doesn’t have a single fact to back up the claim that the United States can be extorted to provide charitable aid to North Korea lest it be guilty of “human rights violations”.

@ruadh

It was an observation rather than an insult.

Mmm hmmm.
Your new dodge aside, why don’t you touch on the actual issue, which is that Jimmy Carter is a proven liar who has shown himself willing to falsify, distort and outright invent ‘factual’ claims if he believes they will support a political narrative that he’s trying to sell. And, as such, he has no credibility when he makes claims, especially if they’re contradicted by governments’ actual positions.

@ruadh

And most people understand what “set up” means.

Indeed, which rather forcefully presents the question as to why your argument requires you to nitpick and distort rather than accepting the fact that the CESCR that existed prior to the OP is not the same CESCR that exists after it, and a new body with different powers, behavior and relevance was set up, although it hasn’t yet come into effect as the OP is still not in effect.
Just like it would be quite interesting to see why someone was wrong, if the DEA was disbanded and the FDA started kicking doors down and seizing drugs. And after being proven wrong on a series of tangential factual matters, that person repeatedly tried to change the subject and claimed that they weren’t really-no-backsies-double-secret-wrong because when the FDA was set up to have SWAT teams, it wasn’t really set up.

@ruadh

If you actually understood what “reporting” meant in a UN human rights treaty context

So again you’re proven wrong, and rather than admit it, you’re again trying to play nitpicking semantic games rather than simply admitting, that you are, yet again, wrong. Again this rather strongly presents the question as to why your argument requires you to focus on these irrelevances. As usual, someone who wasn’t using a rationalized, bullshit argument to avoid admitting error would most likely understand that reporting alleged violations to an agency that can serve as an arbiter of disputes is, indeed, reporting.
This reminds me of semantic games played by children on car rides after they’ve been told not to touch their siblings “I’m not touching him I’m poking him!”
‘It’s not part of the reporting process, it’s just a report that’s provided as part of the process of reporting things!’
(Funny, you still don’t have a cite for international law or international custom to back up your claims, but you’d like to spill lots of ink about how the act of reporting violations has nothing do with the process of reporting. Curiouser and curiouser.)

@ruadh

Have you actually even read the OP?

We’ve been over this. I pointed out its existence to you at the start of this thread when you still didn’t know it existed, thought that the original treaty was ratified by the US, thought that the opinions of the CESCR bound the US and South Korea to interpret the original treaty a certain way, etc…
But I see that, yet again, your argument is reduced to manufactured “errors” on my part and the new dodge is that sure a huge chunk of the OP deals with exactly what I said it does, but you’d prefer to quibble on exactly how large that chunk it. Perhaps it’s a “large” chunk, perhaps a “substantive” chunk, but what’s clear is that little Billy is not touching little Petey, he’s “poking” him, or maybe he’s not “poking” him, he’s “hitting” him, and if perhaps his parents object to that he’s not really “hitting” him because, why, he’s “smacking” him. And so his parents are totally wrong, and, oh, yeah, Finn’s wrong too: that chunk is totally smaller than “large”.

@ruadh

So that’s how it is.

And yet again, we see that your argument has been based almost entirely on nitpicking, dodges and rationalizations, and you still can’t show why courts citing the reasoning process used by the CESCR means that their opinions determine what is or is not a human rights violation in terms of international law. You haven’t even cited those decisions or shown how they used that reasoning, and for some reason you’ve rather curiously tried to handwave away courts citing the SCOTUS. Evidently when a court cites the CESCR that’s because the CESCR determines (unilaterally, and by fiat, neat!) what international law is. But when a court cites the SCOTUS, that’s* hey look over there zomg!*
But more ‘Blargh, you say it and I have provided an uncited counter-assertion based on sloppy reasoning anyways, so the entire world agrees with me and it’s just your say-so that stands against me! Victory!’

*Yet again, do you have a cite for international law or international custom whereby a nation is bound to give charitable aid and/or once it starts giving charitable aid, must have its reasons certified if it ever wants to stop? *

[ruadh]

Your new dodge aside, why don’t you touch on the actual issue, which is that Jimmy Carter is a proven liar who has shown himself willing to falsify, distort and outright invent ‘factual’ claims if he believes they will support a political narrative that he’s trying to sell. And, as such, he has no credibility when he makes claims, especially if they’re contradicted by governments’ actual positions.

That might be your actual issue (actually, I suspect it’s more to do with Israel but that’s neither here nor there). It’s not something I particularly care about, one way or the other.

Just like it would be quite interesting to see why someone was wrong, if the DEA was disbanded and the FDA started kicking doors down and seizing drugs. And after being proven wrong on a series of tangential factual matters, that person repeatedly tried to change the subject and claimed that they weren’t really-no-backsies-double-secret-wrong because when the FDA was set up to have SWAT teams, it wasn’t really set up.

Apart from the fact that I doubt many people would actually say that the FDA was “set up” in that scenario, rather than simply being given an additional role, it’s a poor analogy. Nothing was disbanded as a result of the Optional Protocol. The CESCR is still here and doing exactly what it’s done since its creation. Which is again why it’s obvious you didn’t know it existed before the OP. You’ve tried to argue, simultaneously, that the CESCR doesn’t do anything (since the OP isn’t in force yet) and that it stopped being the body it used to be because it’s now doing something else. Can’t have it both ways.

'It’s not part of the reporting process, it’s just a report that’s provided as part of the process of reporting things!

The more you repeat yourself the more you make clear that you don’t understand what the reporting process is. It is about states submitting periodic reports to the relevant treaty body on their compliance with the treaty. Individual complaints are not part of that process. Just because, in the English language, it is possible to describe someone who submits a complaint as “reporting” that complaint, does not make that complaint part of the reporting process. If you understood what the reporting process was, you first of all wouldn’t have made that error, and secondly would not have been surprised at me pointing out that error, because at the very least you would have understood why isn’t the right word to use in relation to individual complaints.

But you didn’t know what the reporting process was, so you didn’t understand that, and now you’re reverting to what you always do when your mistakes are pointed out - saying it’s just “nitpicking”.

and the new dodge is that sure a huge chunk of the OP deals with exactly what I said it does

Erm, no. A huge chunk does not deal with what you said it does. *One *Article deals with it. And that Article was added as an afterthought and without expecting it would ever be used anyway. In no way, shape or form does that Article represent what the OP “aims” to do.

what’s clear is that little Billy is not touching little Petey, he’s “poking” him, or maybe he’s not “poking” him, he’s “hitting” him, and if perhaps his parents object to that he’s not really “hitting” him because, why, he’s “smacking” him. And so his parents are totally wrong, and, oh, yeah, Finn’s wrong too: that chunk is totally smaller than “large”.

Leaving this in just for laughs. It really speaks for itself as to the quality of your attempt to get out of this obvious error.

You haven’t even cited those decisions

Erm, I linked directly to them.

and for some reason you’ve rather curiously tried to handwave away courts citing the SCOTUS. Evidently when a court cites the CESCR that’s because the CESCR determines (unilaterally, and by fiat, neat!) what international law is. But when a court cites the SCOTUS, that’s* hey look over there zomg!*

Why might the view of international human rights law by an international human rights treaty body be of greater relevance to a domestic court’s decision about an international human right than the view of foreign domestic law by a foreign domestic court would be to its decision about its own domestic law? Hmmm… can’t think of any reason.

Yet again, do you have a cite for international law or international custom whereby a nation is bound to give charitable aid and/or once it starts giving charitable aid, must have its reasons certified if it ever wants to stop?

I have shown a cite for the argument I actually made. You don’t accept it because you don’t accept the authority of the body that made it. That’s fine. Equally, I don’t accept that your view about that body’s authority carries more weight than OHCHR’s, the many courts who have cited that body’s opinions as evidence of international law and the even greater number of human rights experts and academics on whose view mine is based.

I’m actually a bit tempted, just for kicks, to submit a draft of my dissertation on an international socio-economic right without making any mention of what CESCR has to say about it … or just to stick it in a footnote saying “sure their opinion doesn’t matter anyway”. What sort of mark do you think I would get for that?

[FinnAgain]

@FinnAgain

*Yet again, do you have a cite for international law or international custom whereby a nation is bound to give charitable aid and/or once it starts giving charitable aid, must have its reasons certified if it ever wants to stop? *

Still no cite, eh?
I wonder why that is.
Surely, it’s because of how correct you are.
(Please, elevate your argument just a little bit here. The customary dodge of ‘well you just don’t accept the evidence!’ really still doesn’t cut it when the evidence you’ve provided is the non-binding opinion of a body that doesn’t even have the legal ability to act as an arbiter. Yes again, evidence, not something you dearly wish was evidence and might be for the nations that ratify its existence as an arbiter, if that ever actually happens.)

You can, however, make your argument look even sillier by claiming that reporting things totally isn’t part of the reporting process, because after all there are both regular updates that are reported and specific grievances that are reported, so obviously nobody knows nuthin’ and that just proves you don’t actually have to provide a cite for international law or international custom to back up your claims.
Or, if you prefer, you can ignore the fact that Jimmy Carter is a proven liar, and still use him as a decent source for describing the behavior of the United States government in an administration, that he is not a member of, a quarter century after his failed one-term-administration was ended. ‘What do you mean my source isn’t a credible witness? Um… Israel!’ That’s pretty funny too.

Oh, and just because I really don’t want the, by now, characteristic errors that define the quality of your argument to fool people, I’ll point them out

@ruadh

Erm, no. A huge chunk does not deal with what you said it does. *One *Article deals with it.

Yet again, please learn about a subject before you debate it. It’s bad enough that you didn’t know about the OP before I told you about it, or that the US wasn’t bound by the original treaty let alone the CESCR’s non-binding interpretation of it. This is just getting silly, as it seems that you haven’t read the OP either. I’m not sure what website you read that says that only one article deals with its ability to serve as an arbiter between two parties, but again, please learn about and read the relevant documents before you make statements about them. Thank you.

Article 1 deals with the CESCR’s ability to receive communications.
Article 2 deals with the nature of those communications, making it clear that individual grievances are included.
Article 3 deals with the admissibility of those communications
Article 4 deals with situations in which the CESCR can ignore communications.
Article 5 deals with interim measures that the CESCR can take while determining the merits of a communication.
Article 6 deals with how the CESCR should notify the state who has had a report submitted about it.
Article 7 deals with how the CESCR can serve as the venue for coming to friendly settlements.
Article 8 deals with how the CESCR can analyze a state’s response to the report.
Article 9 deals with how the CESCR can then make recommendations.
Article 10 deals with reporting protocols as well as how a state that’s ratified the OP can report a state which hasn’t.
Article 11 deals with the inquiry process. It also contains the interesting procedural notes about how a state can declare that it recognized the competence of the CESCR to arbitrate matters and, at any time, revoke that recognition. (Truly an iron-clad cite you’ve brought to the table, btw).
Article 12 deals with the post-inquiry process and the responses taken to it.
Article 13, okay, that actually has nothing to do with the reporting/arbitration process.
Article 14 deals with the transmission of the CESCR’s recommendations to resolve matters that have been reported to it.
Article 15, this also does not deal with the reporting/arbitration process directly, and is instead about how the CESCR will talk about its annual goings on in its annual report.

Etc…

@ruadh

I linked directly to them.

Also fictional. As you’ve somehow accidentally snipped away the actual comment I made and that you responded to, for a non-representative snippet, I’ll quote the whole thing to make clear what games your argument is engaging in.

@ruadh

@me

And yet again, we see that your argument has been based almost entirely on nitpicking, dodges and rationalizations, and you still can’t show why courts citing the reasoning process used by the CESCR means that their opinions determine what is or is not a human rights violation in terms of international law. You haven’t even cited those decisions or shown how they used that reasoning,

I linked directly to them.

Have you, in fact, shown “courts citing the reasoning process used by the CESCR means that their opinions determine what is or is not a human rights violation in terms of international law.”

Checking on Kuric v. Slovania, for example, what actually happened was the case is that the CESCR was included in the section on International Texts and Documents, and their recommendation is given, not any law that they have instituted. To educate you on the purpose of that section, you should be made aware that another bit included was the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, also a body with non-binding advisory power only. In the section on the UN, they discuss a treaty which Slovenia has not ratified, and is thus not-binding and does not determine the laws Slovenia must follow.
You were not asked to provide a cite of decisions which included citations of the CESCR’s opinions, but cites for where "the reasoning process used by the CESCR means that their opinions determine what is or is not a human rights violation in terms of international law. "

To be fair you did offer other cites, but they seem to be the result of google vomit and I’m not going to comb through the others to see if your argument distorts them int he way it did this one.

Yet again, do you have a cite for international law or international custom whereby a nation is bound to give charitable aid and/or once it starts giving charitable aid, must have its reasons certified if it ever wants to stop? No, not a cite for where the CESCR wishes that was the case but nobody is actually bound by it and it’s not law.
Any time now.

[ruadh]

@FinnAgain

You can, however, make your argument look even sillier by claiming that reporting things totally isn’t part of the reporting process

Individual complaints aren’t part of the reporting process. And the more you insist they are, the sillier you make yourself look.

I’m not sure what website you read that says that only one article deals with its ability to serve as an arbiter between two parties

Oh, so now it’s “between two parties”, is it? This is what you actually said:

yet again I’d ask you to read the actual OP, which aims to set up the CESCR as an arbiter of disputes between states.

Naturally, while denying that the OP “aims to set up the CESCR as an arbiter of disputes between states” you have to ignore that a huge chunk of the OP is all about how the CESCR will be set up and function as an arbiter of disputes between states.

I suppose when you said “between states”, you really meant “between two parties, one of which is a state”, and it’s just … let me guess … nitpicking of me to point out that in fact, only one of the Articles actually deals with disputes between states?

You were not asked to provide a cite of decisions which included citations of the CESCR’s opinions, but cites for where "the reasoning process used by the CESCR means that their opinions determine what is or is not a human rights violation in terms of international law. "

Actually, you only brought in this new rationalisation for what the cites had to show to meet your approval after I already provided them. Which I stated I was doing to show that its views were seen as persuasive authority in a number of jurisdictions, in contrast to your constantly repeated view that they carry no authority whatsoever. Moving goalposts again I see.

Incidentally, the ECHR case I thought I was linking to wasn’t *Kuric v Slovenia * but Kiyutin v Russia.

[FinnAgain]

Got that cite yet?
No?
I wonder why.
It must be because of how correct you are.

@ruadh

Oh, so now it’s “between two parties”, is it?

Absolutely unbelievable. Now your argument is actually reduced to futile nitpicking over the fact that things are being reported, but by gum you refuse to admit that it’s part of any sort of process.
And now, even more pathetically, that pretty much the entire OP deals with the process of serving as an arbiter between two parties (which you didn’t know because you’ve never actually read it) but I used the word “parties” instead of “states”, so you can again try to change the subject with these transparent, pathetic games you seem to enjoy. Sure, pretty much the entire OP is about how the CESCR can serve as an arbiter, and you claimed it was only one article, but look look, parties! Parties! And when caught in yet another one of your errors, you claim that sure the CESCR is totally irrelevant in terms of international law and international custom, but you tried to pull a fast one and substitute the fact that some courts enjoy their reasoning as if that made their opinions law or custom… and you actually have the comedic timing to accuse me of “shifting the goalposts”
I almost wish that you were joking.

So, got that cite yet?
No?

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Chronos

We (the US and South Korea) do accept any refugees who manage to make it out of North Korea, right? As long as we do that, then I think our moral obligations are covered. Yeah, it’s hard to make it out of North Korea, and that sucks, but unfortunately, there’s not really anything we can do to help anyone who’s still in North Korea.

Seems to be easy enough to get in though.

And then get arrested

[ruadh]

@FinnAgain

Now your argument is actually reduced to futile nitpicking over the fact that things are being reported, but by gum you refuse to admit that it’s part of any sort of process.

Actually, what I said was:

They’re a different process altogether

Which they are. I could point you to the treaty bodies home page at the OHCHR site, which makes this very clear, but I’m sure you’d either discover you really meant to say something else, or deny that the UN knows more about its own procedures than you do. Anything but admit you got it wrong in the first place.

@FinnAgain

but I used the word “parties” instead of “states”

No, you used the word “states” instead of “parties”:

@FinnAgain

yet again I’d ask you to read the actual OP, which aims to set up the CESCR as an arbiter of disputes between states.

Naturally, while denying that the OP “aims to set up the CESCR as an arbiter of disputes between states” you have to ignore that a huge chunk of the OP is all about how the CESCR will be set up and function as an arbiter of disputes between states.

Still not willing to admit that you got this wrong and that only one Article deals with disputes between states?

@FinnAgain

you claim that sure the CESCR is totally irrelevant in terms of international law and international custom

Nope, I claim that the CESCR is relevant, which is demonstrated by (among other things) the fact that national and international courts point to its General Comments and other materials when interpreting international socio-economic human rights law. Like that ECHR decision from yesterday, which included the CESCR’s interpretation of an ICESCR clause in the section titled “Relevant International Material”. But sure if you think it’s not, in fact, relevant, that’s worth more than the ECHR’s view. I mean what would they know anyway.

[FinnAgain]

So, found a cite yet to show how a nation is obligated to continue providing charitable aid if it starts and then doesn’t have a proper reason to stop?
International law or international custom will do.
It’s quite odd that you’ve gone quite so long without providing a cite.

@ruadh

only one Article deals with disputes between states

Again, I expect your argument to trade in error and ignorance, but this is really getting a bit much. I already cited and described the OP for you. You no longer have any excuse not to have read it. Here, you are again simply making things up. And yet again it’s an irrelevant nitpick, and one you happen to be wrong about. Not only does the article 1 refer to “state parties” (Oops, eh? Eh?), but article 2 makes clear that while non-state parties may submit complaints, that the complaints process is not limited to non-state parties. That is, the party submitting a complaint can be either a state party, or a non-state party. And as I already pointed out, the vast majority of the OP deals with how the CESCR can serve as an arbiter in disputes between parties.

@ruadh

Nope, I claim that the CESCR is relevant, which is demonstrated by (among other things) the fact that national and international courts point to its General Comments and other materials when interpreting international socio-economic human rights law.

I’m truly curious as to why you’re not grokking the very basic dynamic here. The CESCR’s opinions are not international law. They do not inform international law. They do not inform international custom. That some nations/courts choose to cite their reasoning is their prerogative. I’m not sure why you think that makes it relevant to a discussion of whether or not the United States actions violate human rights. I realize it’s difficult for an argument to be cogent if it’s a series of rationalizations to back up an error-and-ignorance-based claim, but that’s substandard even for dodges. Just like you can’t explain why, when courts cite the SCOTUS’reasoning/precedents, that doesn’t mean that the SCOTUS determines their laws any but when courts cite CESCR reasoning, that means they’ve really determined what a human rights violation is.

And of course all of that is merely your error-laden dodge to get out of providing a cite for international law or international custom that shows that the US violated human rights by not continuing to give charitable aid to another nation.
So got a cite, finally?

Or are you just going to do your best to pretend that the CESCR gets to make up international law by fiat?
Do I have to ask?

[ruadh]

@FinnAgain

Not only does the article 1 refer to “state parties” (Oops, eh? Eh?)

Are you actually under the impression that the phrase “State Party to the Covenant” means that the Covenant is about disputes between states? Oh, dear, this is worse than I thought.

but article 2 makes clear that while non-state parties may submit complaints, that the complaints process is not limited to non-state parties. That is, the party submitting a complaint can be either a state party, or a non-state party.

Article 2 says nothing of the sort. This is what it says in full:

Communications may be submitted by or on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals, under the jurisdiction of a State Party, claiming to be victims of a violation of any of the economic, social and cultural rights set forth in the Covenant by that State Party. Where a communication is submitted on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals, this shall be with their consent unless the author can justify acting on their behalf without such consent.

Absolutely nowhere does it say that the party submitting a complaint can be either a state party or a non-state party. It says that a complaint can be submitted “by or on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals”. I suppose what you’re trying to suggest here is that it can be a state that submits a complaint “on behalf of”, but that’s not what it says and that’s not what it means. If states could complain about each other under Article 2 there would be no reason to include a separate Article 10 for inter-state complaints.

Again, have a look at the treaty bodies home page which clearly distinguishes between individual and inter-state complaints. (It discusses the treaties and covenants currently in force, but most of them also say “by or on behalf of” in the individual complaints Article, so there’s no reason to think the same interpretation wouldn’t apply to OP-ICESCR.)

In short, you’re wrong again: only Article 10 deals with inter-state complaints.

The CESCR’s opinions are not international law. They do not inform international law. They do not inform international custom. That some nations/courts choose to cite their reasoning is their prerogative.

The reason they are citing the CESCR is because they believe that its opinions do, at the very least, “inform” international law. In several of those cases (and I’m aware of a few others, incidentally, but I have them in paper references with no links) the court explicitly cited an ICESCR clause, cited a CESCR interpretation of that clause and declared a rights violation accordingly. Once again, it is your prerogative to say that the CESCR’s view was in fact entirely irrelevant, but clearly the courts in these cases did not see it that way.

Just like you can’t explain why, when courts cite the SCOTUS’reasoning/precedents, that doesn’t mean that the SCOTUS determines their laws any but when courts cite CESCR reasoning, that means they’ve really determined what a human rights violation is.

Is it really that difficult to understand the difference between citing a foreign domestic court’s interpretation of foreign domestic law, and citing an international human rights treaty monitoring body’s interpretation of that treaty? Really?

[ExTank]

@Shodan

The ones starving the Norks is Kim Jung-whatever the latest one is. Howcome Mr. Peanut isn’t ragging on him?

Kim steals the food and feeds his army. Therefore it’s our fault because we aren’t helping him do it?

**Hasn’t Carter learned anything from the last time the Norks suckered him? **

Regards,
Shodan

What’s that definition of insanity? Something about doing the exact same thing over and over and expecting different results?

[Commissar]

@ruadh

Are you actually under the impression that the phrase “State Party to the Covenant” means that the Covenant is about disputes between states? Oh, dear, this is worse than I thought.

Heh. The thing you have to keep in mind about FinnAgain is that he really is clueless on the topic of international law. This is the same person that spent numerous pages of another thread arguing that the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea is a binding treaty, as well as that the Rome Statute puts the burden on national governments to prove that they did not engage in crimes against humanity. This latest facepalm moment of his is almost mild by comparison.

[FinnAgain]

@Commissar

This is the same person that spent numerous pages of another thread arguing that the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea is a binding treaty, as well as that the Rome Statute puts the burden on national governments to prove that they did not engage in crimes against humanity.

Readers should note that this is some truly wild fiction on both counts. I pointed to the Sam Remo manual as a manual on customary international law, and pointed out to numerous times that I was not citing it as a treaty, let alone a binding one. How Commissar has forgotten this fact is anybody’s guess. I also stated, correctly, that the Rome Statute could apply even to nations which were not signatory nations, should they violate the RS in regard to a signatory nation, despite Commissar’s strident denials of that fact. I proved that fact via textual citation of the RS, by the way, with no retraction from commissar. The claim that I " the Rome Statute puts the burden on national governments to prove that they did not engage in crimes against humanity" is so thoroughly at odds with reality that I am at a loss to understand what actual statement Commissar has so wildly misunderstood, or how he managed to do so.

Readers are, of course, free to come up with their own explanation for the wildly factually inaccurate claims, especially as the facts have been explained many times with ample citations. Ah well.

@ruadh

Are you actually under the impression that the phrase “State Party to the Covenant” means that the Covenant is about disputes between states? Oh, dear, this is worse than I thought.

Wow, you really are trying hard to change the subject. Caught in yet another basic factual error, this time claiming that the vast majority of the OP does not deal with the CESCR serving as an arbiter for disputes, you’ve invented nonsense about the covenant being “about disputes between states” and then bravely hacked down that strawman. And still utterly unwilling to admit your error, you still can’t answer the differences between citing the SCOTUS reasoning and the CESCR reasoning, and yet again are trying your traditional dodge or claiming that, why, the reason is clear but, um, *hey look over there! Good show.

But, of course, you are again changing the subject and trying to avoid answering a very, very simple question. It’s been weeks and weeks, and you still haven’t, so I think everybody reading along knows why that is, but still: do you or do you not have a cite in international law or international custom whereby the United States is guilty of human rights violations for not maintaining charitable aid to North Korea?
The answer is rather obviously “no” at this point, but I think it’s quite intersting that you’d evidently prefer to discuss just about anything other than the reason you hold an opinion on such a serious issue as human rights violations, but you have absolutely no factual support for your position, at all.*

So, got that cite yet?
Or would you prefer to nitpick some other non-error?
No cite, eh?

[Magiver]

[quote=“Commissar, post:19, topic:580037”]

[quote=“Scot_Dutch, post:14, topic:580037”]

The bottom line is that it is not the fault of the US or SK that NKs are starving.

Sure, on an intuitive level, this statement seems to make sense; some North Koreans may be starving, neither the US nor the South Koreans are actively making them starve, and hence the latter have no duty to the prior…

Except for the fact that the world is not that simple. Why are some North Koreans starving? True, you can flippantly dismiss this question by blaming the leadership… But is there more of relevance here? How about the fact that the North Koreans had to fight tooth and nail for their very existence? How about the fact that they have one of the most powerful and violent armies in the world permanently camped out on their doorstep? How about the fact that they have an increasingly belligerent South Korea constantly trying to see how far it can push them with its military shenanigans?

I maintain that North Korea is, by and large, a product of the forces that made it what it is. It has always had to worry about its survival, so it invested very heavily in its military deterrent. Agriculture came a distant second, and so North Korean civilians have suffered. Since it is US and South Korean belligerence that have made the North so paranoid, I believe that they must share much of the blame for the starving North Koreans. So, yes, you do have a responsibility to feed them – unless you’re content being heartless violent savages. Your call. Just don’t blame Carter for holding a mirror to your faces.

South Koreans are free to engage in commerce and can travel to other free nations. They are capable of feeding themselves. North Koreans are prisoners in their own country and despite having the same resources, cannot feed themselves. The only people starving North Korea is Kim Jong Ill and his communist party prison wardens.

[ruadh]

@FinnAgain

you’ve invented nonsense about the covenant being “about disputes between states”

Remind everyone again, who was it that invented nonsense about disputes between states? Here’s a clue:

@FinnAgain

yet again I’d ask you to read the actual OP, which aims to set up the CESCR as an arbiter of disputes between states.

Naturally, while denying that the OP “aims to set up the CESCR as an arbiter of disputes between states” you have to ignore that a huge chunk of the OP is all about how the CESCR will be set up and function as an arbiter of disputes between states.

Ready to admit you were wrong here yet?

you still can’t answer the differences between citing the SCOTUS reasoning and the CESCR reasoning

One concerns domestic law. The other concerns international law. Boy, it was hard to work that difference out.

So, got that cite yet?

Perhaps you might point to an occasion on which you accepted someone’s cite as proof that they were right and you were wrong. Just so I have some idea as to what type of evidence meets your high standards.

[Commissar]

@Magiver

The bottom line is that it is not the fault of the US or SK that NKs are starving. South Koreans are free to engage in commerce and can travel to other free nations. They are capable of feeding themselves. North Koreans are prisoners in their own country and despite having the same resources, cannot feed themselves. The only people starving North Korea is Kim Jong Ill and his communist party prison wardens.

Matters aren’t quite that simple. The DMZ is the most heavily militarized border in the world, and the Peninsula is constantly at the brink of war. This requires the commitment of a great many resources - resources that could otherwise have been used for more productive ends.

With that in mind, note that the South has been able to farm out much of its military investment to its larger and wealthier puppet master. The North has no such luxury; in order to minimize the risk of annihilation, it must invest in military might, and it must do so largely without foreign largess. Hence, by contributing to the constant atmosphere of hostility in the Peninsula, the US and South Korea do indeed share no small amount of responsibility for the North’s woes.

While I am no fan of the Kim dynasty, I will not demonize them for reasonably choosing to protect their nation by standing up to capitalist arrogance and aggression.

[gonzomax]

@Grumman

Wrong. Carter believes that a nation has an obligation to help another nation’s people who are starving, and “help” in this case means “give food to the organisation that is oppressing them”.

He does not pretend to be religious. He is. He is not selective about gods children. If you believe in god, then there really are no borders. Just children of god around the world.

[FinnAgain]

Found a cite, finally for international law or custom showing that suspending charitable aid is a violation of human rights?
Still no cite?
Funny, that.

@ruadh

Remind everyone again, who was it that invented nonsense about disputes between states?

Yet again, your argument is thoroughly deceptive and goes to great lengths to avoid admitting even basic errors. You were the one who invented who the Covenant was about “disputes between states”, then you demolished that nifty strawman. The OP is all about how the CESCR can serve as an arbiter in disputes, your invention that because it says non-state parties can bring complaints that state-parties cannot is your argument’s normal evasion.

@ruadh

One concerns domestic law. The other concerns international law.

This is pathetic, even by the standards of your argument. I hope you understand that when nations’ courts are citing the SCOTUS’ reasoning, they aren’t actually saying that have the SCOTUS creates their domestic laws. Now, you’re welcome to (finally) actually show how the CESCR has the power to create new intentional laws, by fiat, but something tells me you’ll make yet another error and try to nitpick it before finally supporting the major premise that your entire fallacious bit of argumentation is based upon. Because if you were actually willing to substantiate your claims, it would make for one hell of an interesting factoid. Why, here we’d have an organization that’s simply part of the reporting process and has no legislative, judicial or executive power, and yet they can say “nah, what international law really says on this subject is thus and such” and all of a sudden every nation that signed a document that’s been amended in that fashion is suddenly bound by those totally new laws. That’s a revolutionary and totally novel way to construct international law, and if what you say is at all true, surely someone else has noticed this and other nations have agreed to it.

In any case, got that cite yet?
Should be pretty easy. You’ve claimed that the US not continuing to give charitable aid to NK is a violation of human rights. Should be pretty easy to show that’s the case in international law or custom, assuming you didn’t just make it up because it sounded good and you wanted to rationalize a way to support your position that the US should give charitable aid whether or not it’s illegal to stop doing so.

[Magiver]

@Commissar

Matters aren’t quite that simple.

It is that simple. The Communist government of NK restricts people and commerce down to the street level and spends a ridiculous amount of human resources maintaining the world’s largest jail. It’s a bit of a misnomer to compare it to a jail because prisoners in any western country are better fed and have more access to information than a North Korean.

[ExTank]

@Magiver

It is that simple. The Communist government of NK restricts people and commerce down to the street level and spends a ridiculous amount of human resources maintaining the world’s largest jail. It’s a bit of a misnomer to compare it to a jail because prisoners in any western country are better fed and have more access to information than a North Korean.

Well, if they weren’t enemies of Progress and working in conjunction with the oppressive, imperialist West (and their running-dog jackal puppet-regime in Seoul) then they wouldn’t be in prison now, would they?

Would they?