THe UN's Obligation To protect Human Rights ought to be Valued above its obligation to national Sovereignty???

Question

i need arguments oppising this and affirming this....please anything will help!!!

Answer 1

You don't need our help. You just need to realize that "human rights" is a term that has no single definition. All you have to do to make arguments for and against is to define this term in a way that makes the balance obvious.

For example, if you presume human rights are forfeited by those that are traitors to their own governments, there is no human rights violation in the case of torture, voila, national sovereignty wins.

On the other hand, if you want to presume that human rights extend to the unborn, then countries like China and the US are ripe for UN invasions because of human rights violations.

Control and alter the definition of the terms based on which side you are writing for.

Answer 2

Human Rights are basic rights that everybody has, such as the rights to clean air, clean water and peace.

I believe that every country has the obligation to provide for and protect the rights of their citizens and the countries that do not provide their citizens human rights should have sanctions enforced against them but not to the extent were the citizens of the sanctioning country or countries have to deny their own citizens or their human rights.

The victims of 9/11/01 had their human rights taken away and the USA has failed to provide an independent honest investigation. Almost 6 years after and human remains are still being found in NYC. The UN passed a Resolution that calls on all nations to help in the search for the terrorists.
The real terrorist are the Bush Administration. Please help us.

Free 9/11 video downloads are at:http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm

Answer 3

National Sovereignty trumps all else unless that nations leaders ask for intervention...The UN is a hollow shell incapable of doing anything useful....if it cannot function in a primitive country,then it cannot be allowed to enter into an advanced country and try to subdue the citizens...when it can go into Rwanda and stop the violence or Sierra Leone and stop the trade in blood diamonds then they can see about doing something in the US....but not until and Ill go out on a limb and say not even then

Answer 4

i think of so,and that i think of all of us concurs,different than governments with appalling human-rights information. the only questions are how and how a lot,which skill skill and degree - of intervention. look at Israel's scientific care of this is Palestinian minority; this is aggression in direction of this is associates. Carves off a bite of Syria. Carves off a bite of Egypt. Carves off a bite of Jordan. Invades Lebanon and occupies it for 18 years,leaving it devastated. perfect chum: U.S. What to do? complicated to declare. the ecu would desire to point a commerce boycott however the U.S. might make up the style. Diplomats have been agonizing over matters like this on the grounds that Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931. initiate a dialogue board for this in this internet site; i will participate. the region is in basic terms too in touch for one posting.

Answer 5

The UN is a worthless organization, The USA should get out of it and kick it out of the United States.

Answer 6

Ask the poor people in darfur about all the UN help...remember Rwanda!!! Read up and see what the UN did for them..NOT!!!!

Answer 7

National sovereingty is absolute, this cannot be infringed under any circumstances by the UN