Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe: are you laughing yet?

By James Allan - posted Friday, 25 May 2007


You see, these treaty bodies are staffed with people making all sorts of highly debatable calls. To give but one example, does spanking infringe eternal, timeless human rights? The issue divides people who are smart, reasonable and nice. It should be left to the voters, full stop.

The body overseeing the Convention on the Rights of the Child disagrees. The experts think they have a pipeline to God on this one. They point to Article 19 and say it prohibits spanking. But this is pure poppycock. Remember, this convention had to be phrased in incredibly general, amorphous terms in order to get the world's Chinas and Egypts to sign up. So it said no such thing in explicit terms. If it had done so, no country save Sweden (and maybe New Zealand) would have signed up. But these "experts" use a souped-up interpretation-on-steroids power to foster a sort of rule by the democratically illegitimate.

It's a bit like really bad judicial activism, save that it takes place outside the glare of publicity. And when solid democratic countries ignore the views of these self-styled experts, that is characterised as being "against international human rights standards".

Advertisement

So it's either the politicised UN agencies and bodies or the preening, smug, "expert"-driven and highly democratically illegitimate treaty bodies that tell us what these indeterminate treaties mean: treaties that I should note were entered into in Australia under the prerogative power, meaning they never had to be passed through parliament and voted on by elected representatives.

I think we can be sceptical of both these things. If you randomly drew 100 names from the phone book, those people would be a better guide to how to draw the many debatable and contentious rights-respecting lines that need drawing than anything likely to emerge from the UN or "the international community".

Call me sceptical.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

First published in The Australian on May 22, 2007.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

23 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

James Allan is Garrick Professor of Law at the University of Queensland.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by James Allan

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of James Allan
Article Tools
Comment 23 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy