>It's one, amongst many, of the tragic contradictions of
>international human rights law that it can be cynically
>used as a cover for interventions which occur for other
>reasons. Then again the onus is on those who think human
>beings will behave with greater decency and respect for
>one another in a world of complex technologies where/when
>a discourse of rights and duties is wholly absent.
Right.
The best part of the common law tradition is that decisions "here" can affect decisions "there."
And if the law of England said some poor folk can resist the big shots because they have a right based just in their "being," then that also applies to the rest of the world.
As to the US using "human rights" as a trojan horse for economic interests... so it goes. Nothing new.
Doesn't take away from the value of trying to make the rest of the world aware they should think they have an automatic piece of the global pie.
We all do.
Ken.
-- ... the fear of facing the world, including its works of literature, without an intellectual narcotic at hand.
-- Frederick Crews