2

It's been mentioned in a recent question here that in Guatemala offspring can be disqualified from running for office for the deeds of their parents, specifically for [parental] insurrection. (As pointed out by Obie below, that's Article 186 of the Constitution of Guatemala, and it seem to extend to 4 generations.)

But what I want to ask here, is such a law not contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Granted, since there's no ultimate arbiter of the latter (as is the case with most international law), opinions may vary, but has the topic (of "corruption of blood") been addressed by scholars of international law from a UDHR perspective?

(I could find one article on the US libertarian FEE website, which lambasts the UDHR for lacking such explicit prohibitions.

Ironically, it seems the 4th Geneva Convention does have something that would more obviously apply, perhaps,--the prohibition of collective punishment: "No protected person may be punished for any offense he or she has not personally committed." But for the Convention to apply, there needs to a war or war-like situation first...)

9
  • 4
    Even assuming that there existed a single government that viewed the Universal Declaration of Human rights as more than a general guideline, which clause do you think it would violate? You could argue that it is cruel punishment under Article 5, but that is not explicit.
    – Obie 2.0
    Jan 11 '21 at 0:04
  • 2
    By the way, the law is the third inciso of Article 186 of the Constitution of Guatemala: "Los parientes dentro de cuarto grado de consanguinidad y segundo de afinidad del Presidente o Vicepresidente de la República, cuando este último se encuentre ejerciendo la Presidencia, y los de las personas a que se refiere el inciso primero de este artículo;" since the first inciso says "El caudillo ni los jefes de un golpe de Estado, revolución armada o movimiento similar, que haya alterado el orden constitucional, ni quienes como consecuencia de tales hechos asuman la Jefatura de Gobierno;"
    – Obie 2.0
    Jan 11 '21 at 0:11
  • 1
    Whether it violates the UDHR or not, it looks like a bad clause to me. El cuarto grado de consanguidad is mean to include cousins but it would also include great-great-grandchildren! The segundo grado de afinidad could be the grandparents of your spouse!
    – Obie 2.0
    Jan 11 '21 at 0:16
  • 1
    @Obie2.0: well, it's clear that the intent of that f Article 186 was to prevent some kind of quasi-dynasty in establishing itself at the top of the political pyramid in Guatemala. (N.B. The FEE article is hardly recent. I misread the date somehow. It was written in 1998. Also FEE seems to be libertarian.)
    – Fizz
    Jan 11 '21 at 0:20
  • 3
    By the way, it is actually four steps in any direction, not four generations. So for instance, my mother (one step), my mother's parents (two steps), my mother's parents' children (three steps), my mothers' parents' children's children (four steps)—that is, my cousins.
    – Obie 2.0
    Jan 11 '21 at 1:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .