shows that entrusting exclusively to individual States, with their laws and institutions, the final responsibility to meet the aspirations of persons, communities and entire peoples, can sometimes have consequences that exclude the possibility of a social order respectful of the dignity and the rights of the person.
the most effective strategy for eliminating inequalities between countries and social groups, and for increasing security.
[E]fforts need to be redoubled in the face of pressure to reinterpret the foundations of the Declaration and to compromise its inner unity so as to facilitate a move away from the protection of human dignity towards the satisfaction of simple interests, often particular interests. The Declaration was adopted as a ‘common standard of achievement’ ( Preamble ) and cannot be applied piecemeal, according to trends or
selective choices that merely run the risk of contradicting the unity of the human person and thus the indivisibility of human rights.
Some approach the “responsibility to protect” with skepticism, wondering whether the energy spent on pushing a new concept with a catchy acronym – R2P – might be better spent on working to strengthen the U.N. Security Council and other pre-existing mechanism that in the end would have to effect any such intervention. I’m among those skeptics , so too José Alvarez , Columbia law professor and immediate past president of the American Society of International Law. Despite disagreement on means, however, we all agree on the ultimate goal, greater enforcement of human rights. And so yesterday’s strong statement in support of that objective, from one of the globe’s premier norm-shapers, is welcome.
( cross-posted at IntLawGrrls blog)