Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Clean environment could become U.N. human right

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 152 posts

Re: Clean environment could become U.N. human right

#121

Post by iszomer »

fellodip wrote: post #50
bamboozled wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. The US is not flying bombers capable of carrying nuclear warheads at large populations just to intimidate them.

https://apnews.com/article/europe-europe-air-force-russia-7f... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/russia-mig-31-... US does these things, its just not highlighted front page material in American press when it happens, so it goes unnoticed to American populations unlike when adversaries like Russia fly bombers near Alaska. Also US conducted similar maneuvers as what China did to Taiwan but to Iraq preceedi…

Tit for tat or a part of a consistent NATO combat exercises? If this is the new norm for a Chinese excercise, they clearly are overcompensating: a fleet of them versus a trio of bombers.

Re: Clean environment could become U.N. human right

#122

Post by mgbmtl »

JasonFruit wrote: post #97
mgbmtl wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All rights subjective and temporal. Just take the question of freedom of speech, and how that evolves in time, how it varies between countries (even between allied countries, such as the US and Canada). One could argue that the desire for an increased level of comfort of one set of people should not happen at the detriment of the right to clean water, for example, of another set of people. Many countries will have th…

There's a difference between a right, which is an expression of an ideal — what a person may not be deprived of by virtue of being human — and how protection for that right is implemented in practice under different governments. That is, the varying extents to which governments respect a given right doesn't mean the right differs by country, only that those governments disagree on how to infringe on it.

We might then agree that "the protection of rights is subjective and temporal". I think the basic argument still holds: such topics should be debated :)

Re: Clean environment could become U.N. human right

#123

Post by chinathrow »

a_diplomat wrote: post #73

Hi. Diplomat working with UN issues here. The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself. It's the fact that opening up human rights to "new" rights sets a precedent. And that precedent will be used by other countries to shift the language on human rights in a more authoritarian direction - or dilute human rights as such. So it's basically about using one set of issues, which in substance are hard to fight,…

> The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself.

Is this a joke? If there is no issue with the resolution itself, then we for sure should accept it.

Re: Clean environment could become U.N. human right

#124

Post by refurb »

croes wrote: post #48
_hilro wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because sovereign nations and their citizens aren't going to kowtow to some unelected supranational organisation? 7 billion people in the world and they should all be ruled by a bunch of bureaucrats??? I hope that day never comes.

Sure, how to you explain the WTO and the IMF? 7 billion people in the world are already ruled by a bunch of bureaucrats. But it's ok if it's for profit and not human rights, I guess.

Well IMF is entirely voluntary. They can recommend courses of action but the country can decide to pursue that course or not.

For WTO, no army is going to invade because you didn’t remove tariffs.

Re: Clean environment could become U.N. human right

#125

Post by a_diplomat »

shrikant wrote: post #108
a_diplomat wrote: post #73

Hi. Diplomat working with UN issues here. The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself. It's the fact that opening up human rights to "new" rights sets a precedent. And that precedent will be used by other countries to shift the language on human rights in a more authoritarian direction - or dilute human rights as such. So it's basically about using one set of issues, which in substance are hard to fight,…

> It's the fact that opening up human rights to "new" rights sets a precedent. Does this mean no new human right can ever be established? And by extension, that the set of human rights currently in the UDHR are "complete"? (I don't have a strong opinion yet, just found this framing curious...)

It doesn't mean that they can never be established, it just means that in the current international political climate, there is very little interest from democratic states to open it up, since the consequences could be so vast. If the world was nicer and everyone were friends it would be easy.

Re: Clean environment could become U.N. human right

#126

Post by a_diplomat »

tgb wrote: post #84
a_diplomat wrote: post #73

Hi. Diplomat working with UN issues here. The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself. It's the fact that opening up human rights to "new" rights sets a precedent. And that precedent will be used by other countries to shift the language on human rights in a more authoritarian direction - or dilute human rights as such. So it's basically about using one set of issues, which in substance are hard to fight,…

Interesting. Can you expand on an example of a 'new' human right that would be authoritarian in nature? I don't really understand the "right to development" example. It looks like it was adopted by the UN already in 1986 and I'm not sure if the authoritarian implications. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/righttod...

It wouldn't be so much about the rights themselves being authoritarian, but that opening up the framework for renegotiation would weaken existing norms. You could, for instance, almost be certain that some countries would like to put more limits to freedom of expression.

Re: Clean environment could become U.N. human right

#127

Post by a_diplomat »

refurb wrote: post #117
mcdonje wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Confused about how that works. I believe the part about authoritarians trying to trojan horse bills that erode our rights disguised as unobjectionable bills. We see it all the time with bills that restrict our right to privacy disguised as anti-child porn legislation. People who come out in favor of the 4th amendment are painted as vile criminals. That said, I don't see how it works in this instance. Care to elaborat…

Democracies criticize authoritarian country for torture which violates human rights. Authoritarian country criticizes democracies for environmental “crimes” which violates human rights. Says they have no right to criticize since they also violate human rights. Massive whatsboutism that detracts from the important issues.

Yup. And also, authoritarian government uses to open up the framework for negotiation and weaken existing norms.

Re: Clean environment could become U.N. human right

#128

Post by a_diplomat »

chinathrow wrote: post #123
a_diplomat wrote: post #73

Hi. Diplomat working with UN issues here. The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself. It's the fact that opening up human rights to "new" rights sets a precedent. And that precedent will be used by other countries to shift the language on human rights in a more authoritarian direction - or dilute human rights as such. So it's basically about using one set of issues, which in substance are hard to fight,…

> The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself. Is this a joke? If there is no issue with the resolution itself, then we for sure should accept it.

There are horizontal issues to every resolution, and every resolution is written in a context. If you open up for environmental crimes, then some country will want to open up for "illegal speech" directed towards the state.

Re: Clean environment could become U.N. human right

#129

Post by a_diplomat »

tomrod wrote: post #77
a_diplomat wrote: post #73

Hi. Diplomat working with UN issues here. The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself. It's the fact that opening up human rights to "new" rights sets a precedent. And that precedent will be used by other countries to shift the language on human rights in a more authoritarian direction - or dilute human rights as such. So it's basically about using one set of issues, which in substance are hard to fight,…

Sounds like this is why we can't have nice things! I'm pretty clueless when it comes to diplomacy. What is the drive for authoritarians? How do you negotiate with them, or otherwise limit their influence? (and is that desirable?).

Legitimizing their own models of governance, both internationally and domestically, would be their main driver in multilateral settings. In some cases, such as the ITU, it could also be about getting technical norms approved that mirror their state goals (https://www.justsecurity.org/75741/chinas-dystopian-new-ip-p...)

Re: Clean environment could become U.N. human right

#130

Post by a_diplomat »

reillyse wrote: post #104
a_diplomat wrote: post #73

Hi. Diplomat working with UN issues here. The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself. It's the fact that opening up human rights to "new" rights sets a precedent. And that precedent will be used by other countries to shift the language on human rights in a more authoritarian direction - or dilute human rights as such. So it's basically about using one set of issues, which in substance are hard to fight,…

Maybe also working for the US or the UK? If everyone in the UN is in agreement what is the problem? If In the future you don’t agree with other human rights then don’t approve them but don’t claim that you’d love to vote for this resolution but that would somehow force you to also vote for another one down the line, that is not how it works.

We could vote against another proposal, but opening up the framework of human rights for renegotiation would be a substantial thing to do, and would set a precedent. Not working for the US or the UK.
Post reply on HN