Timeline for Why can we have human rights declared by ECHR but no environmental "rights"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:20 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jul 24, 2019 at 21:31 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | Yea, I think this discussion goes a bit too much into the details of that specific convention. Instead, there are more fundamental differences between the two that may explain why some are more hesitant to join in, even if they would benefit a lot in the long run. I put that in an answer, I guess such an angle is more what you're looking for? | |
| Jul 24, 2019 at 21:28 | answer | added | JJJ♦ | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jul 24, 2019 at 21:25 | history | edited | JJJ♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 55 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Jul 24, 2019 at 21:15 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jul 24, 2019 at 21:25 | |||||
| Jul 24, 2019 at 20:59 | comment | added | CuriousIndeed | @JJJ Sure a nation can withdraw from a treaty. As you state it won't be without any consequences. I still don't see why we should not grant environmental laws this same privilege as we do with human right laws. | |
| Jul 24, 2019 at 20:57 | comment | added | CuriousIndeed | "“Treaty provisions which define the rights and obligations of private individuals and lay down general principles for the guidance of military, naval or administrative officials in relation thereto are usually considered self-executing. " law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-2/… | |
| Jul 24, 2019 at 20:49 | comment | added | CuriousIndeed | "Article 1 simply binds the signatory parties to secure the rights under the other Articles of the Convention "within their jurisdiction". " From your link. It depends if your consider human rights "self executing right". Wikipedia does: "Most human rights contained in the main human rights treaties are self-executing and can be invoked by individuals in a national courtroom, although this is the case more for civil rights than for economic and social rights. " (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-executing_right) | |
| Jul 24, 2019 at 20:20 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | @CuriousIndeed no, see article one of my link. The convention is to secure those rights nationally. If a country withdraws, it won't be without any consequences, but as a sovereign nation one can obviously choose to do so. Sure, other countries will condemn it, but it's not like they can go to the principal's office and have your country status suspended. See also this answer. | |
| Jul 24, 2019 at 19:46 | history | edited | CuriousIndeed | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 138 characters in body; edited title
|
| Jul 24, 2019 at 19:45 | comment | added | CuriousIndeed | is of bigger concern and there is not so much ambiguity if it is dangerous or not. See for example: scientificamerican.com/article/… | |
| Jul 24, 2019 at 19:44 | comment | added | CuriousIndeed | @JJJ ECHR is a convention, so it is international law binding to parties who ratified it. You cannot pass national laws which violate the convention. My main point is, that I'm unable to see why we can have a convention on human rights but not on environmental "rights". The climate agreements are a joke because "No mechanism forces a country to set a specific target by a specific date." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement). Additionally one might argue that poisoning the foodchain with microplastic. | |
| Jul 24, 2019 at 19:33 | history | edited | CuriousIndeed | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 87 characters in body
|
| Jul 24, 2019 at 19:30 | comment | added | CuriousIndeed | @Nuclear Wang Let me clarify. If we have human rights, why can't we do the same for environmental laws? Arguably you could still change them. However empirical evidence suggests that there are no laws passed which violate human rights, at least not in the EU. I believe there can be fundamentals which are agreed on (like no polluting the environment with plastic) which are non-negotiable once passed. Maybe technocracy would be a better fit? | |
| Jul 24, 2019 at 19:26 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | If you are referring to the ECHR, and I should point out I'm not a lawyer, it seems to me that those rights are just part of national law, agreed upon by a lot of countries. In that sense, I think a country could withdraw from the EHCR (and be kicked out of the EU and more probably) as part of its sovereignty. I don't see how it's different from countries drafting their own laws, possibly together, on climate. And that seems to be what the climate agreements are about. Please clarify if I didn't understand correctly. | |
| Jul 24, 2019 at 19:22 | comment | added | Nuclear Hoagie | Of course we can pass laws that violate human rights - the UN could tear up the Bill of Human Rights tomorrow if it so chose. Subordinate bodies can't pass laws that violate it now, but there's nothing that says the overriding law couldn't change. I can't imagine any example of a law that can't be repealed or overwritten in perpetuity. I'm also a bit confused by all your talk about consensus and agreement, which is irrelevant for a dictatorship. | |
| Jul 24, 2019 at 19:17 | comment | added | CuriousIndeed | I compare it to human rights because these rights are non-negotiable. Similar protection should be for environmental laws which are passed. "Do you mean that there is some authority that assess whether new laws are in accordance with human rights?" Yes at least in the EU you cannot pass laws which violate human rights. | |
| Jul 24, 2019 at 19:15 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | It's still not clear to me why you compare it to human rights. Do you mean that there is some authority that assess whether new laws are in accordance with human rights? If so, by what virtue is that assessment done? I'd guess that'd be some constitutional requirement. If that is what you mean, then such framework would have to be put in place for environmental regulations as well. Why and how that can be achieved seems better suited country-specific or are you asking if that can be done through the EU, if so in what way? | |
| Jul 24, 2019 at 19:15 | history | edited | CuriousIndeed | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 147 characters in body
|
| Jul 24, 2019 at 19:07 | history | edited | CuriousIndeed | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 129 characters in body
|
| Jul 24, 2019 at 19:03 | comment | added | CuriousIndeed | "How can you make a law and then say it cannot be repealed by the body that created it" => We cannot pass laws which violate human rights so environmental laws should be at least equal to human rights. | |
| Jul 24, 2019 at 19:01 | history | edited | CuriousIndeed | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 129 characters in body
|
| Jul 24, 2019 at 18:58 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | Please try to clarify that in your question. Especially explain what you mean by non-negotiable. Depending on the country that might be hard of course, how can you make a law and then say it cannot be repealed by the body that created it? In most cases, that would require a constitutional change, I think, the exact rules of which vary per country. | |
| Jul 24, 2019 at 18:51 | comment | added | CuriousIndeed | You are right about human rights. Why don't we agree (or better let scientist) decide on environmental laws which are non-negotiable once in effect. Arguably environmental laws should be valued higher than human rights because without the environment humans will not survive. | |
| Jul 24, 2019 at 18:46 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | Human rights were also achieved by consensus, not necessarily by a unanimous majority. I'm not sure how the environmental rules you talk of differ from other laws. Other laws have opposition too, yet when they are passed they apply to those who opposed it as well, until such time that the law is repealed (by some qualified majority). | |
| Jul 24, 2019 at 18:43 | comment | added | CuriousIndeed | In a multiple party system you would always have people to oppose such common sense regulations as "not to have plastic enter the environment" for various reasons. Therefore I believe the only way to solve the problem would be to scientifically determine "common sense" rules, in analogy to human rights which are non negotiable. Or at least not by politicians or voters. | |
| Jul 24, 2019 at 18:38 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | I don't think the word dictatorship really fits what you mean, basically, those would be simple national or European regulations, right? | |
| Jul 24, 2019 at 18:35 | review | First posts | |||
| Jul 24, 2019 at 18:38 | |||||
| Jul 24, 2019 at 18:34 | history | asked | CuriousIndeed | CC BY-SA 4.0 |