If a country is signatory to a human rights treaty & it violates human rights what is the likely consequence?

Question

Like just say a country is a signatory to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, & it is found that this country is violating human rights (even though these human rights may not be implemented into their law), can people -within the country or outside - take action against the country?
International court?

or when a country signs a human rights treaty, does this just mean that the country will try to implement these human rights into their law?

Answer 1

It depends on the treaty. For many human rights treaties and conventions, the text of the treaty is incorporated into the statutes of the ratifying country, and the country is expected to enact whatever further legislation will be necessary to put the treaty into effect.

If the country is violating a treaty that it is ratifying, the solution once again depends on the specific treaty. The text of the treaty will generally provide for the possibility of referral by any signatory of any other signatory to an international tribunal, such as the International Criminal Court or the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The International Court of Justice won't take any part in cases of an individual against a state.

In some cases, if the courts of the signatory states will not act to enforce the treaty, the individual may bring a case to the court of a fellow signatory state if such a remedy is provided for by the treaty itself or if that state's courts take universal jurisdiction over human rights violations wherever they occur.

Answer 2

It depends on how much real power a country has. For instance, if the United States does this, it will be verbally abused by many, but not much will be done about it beyond rhetoric and public outcry. If a third world country does this, they will likely feel the millitary might of the United States or some other offended country. Read history back from the establishment of the United Nations, to the present. Also note: when Kofi Annan ascended to the position of Secretary-General of the UN, he rewrote most of the UN charter. So, it is educational to read the new charter, and compare it to the old; paying special attention to the scope of the UN over its history, and how it's being interpreted and applied in recent times.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

Answer 3

Most international treaties are meant to be mutually beneficial. In these sorts of circumstances, if one party breaks the agreement, the other countries are not bound to it. For example, if every country agrees to have only 5 nuclear weapons, then one country builds six, the other countries can try to work with the 6 country, but if not, will build a sixth themselves.

In this situation, human rights agreements are supposed to ensure every citizen will be safe in other agreeing countries. By breaking it, there isn't really a consequence.

Answer 4

Some other country will mention this in a UN debate. End of story (ie, lips will flap but nothing will happen other then possibly being allowed to become a member of the UN agency that oversees human rights).

Answer 5

Pick any Muslim country, women have no rights in those countries.Gays have no rights in those countries. And to the idiot who said the United States he is a liar, and obviously has no clue what human rights violations are .

Answer 6

They'll get a scathing letter from the UN.
Not much will happen, in most cases.

Answer 7

its all depends
if its a strong country or got strong friends no one will do them any thing

Answer 8

They should be nuked.