When necessary, we hope so.

Many administrations are perfectly comfortable ignoring the rights laid out in their own constitution. Why would they be hampered by the unenforceable suggestions of an international body?
Those governments that are bound by the demands of their population and the thinking of that population may be influenced by international ideals.
That's not subversion; that's democracy.

The problem has to do with the figure of the duty holder. In the presence of an international agency or commission enforcing the International System of Human Rights, we can underline a principle of subversion or even veiled conflicts of interests. It is something of important. Each Nation is the duty holder of the National Constitution. The International System of Human Rights must not have a duty holder because the latter would be dangerous for the integrity of the State and its enforcement of law and its legislative capabilities.

The International System of Human Rights must not have a duty holder because the latter would be dangerous for the integrity of the State and its enforcement of law and its legislative capabilities. — Ludovico Lalli

And as necessary, should be.

In the presence of an international agency or commission enforcing the International System of Human Rights, we can underline a principle of subversion or even veiled conflicts of interests. — Ludovico Lalli

What presence? There is no such agency interfering with the internal law-enforcement of any nation, except occasionally a military peacekeeping force to keep a civil war under control - when what you call the duty-holder of a state - that is, its constituted government - has already collapsed.


If a group of nations mutually agree to a set of principles by which they undertake to abide, each contributing to an oversight committee and/or international court, how then

we can underline a principle of subversion or even veiled conflicts of interests. — Ludovico Lalli

They all have the same interest: to protect the rights of their people. If one state doesn't subscribe to those principles, it can withdraw; the institution has no jurisdiction over it. That's why some governments can oppress and persecute their own citizenry: there is no international body with the power to stop abuses.

The problem has to do with the presence of a steady (perpetual) commission or agency using or manipulating the International System of Human Rights. The presence itself of an organism which is "superior" to the National states is inherently dangerous. There can be a process of devolvement within the legislative capabilities of the State.

Are International Human Rights subversive towards the constitutional freedom of the Nation? — Ludovico Lalli

Why 'subversive'? Why would one grant a nation powers to legislate contrary to human rights? Arguably they constitute basic freedoms and make sure the 'nation' does not rule contrary to the rights of individuals.

The presence itself of an organism which is "superior" to the National states is inherently dangerous. — Ludovico Lalli

Why is that? I would argue that the presence of a nation is inherently dangerous and the power it wields over its citizens should be limited. Why would we want a leviathan?

They all have the same interest: to protect the rights of their people. If one state doesn't subscribe to those principles, it can withdraw; the institution has no jurisdiction over it. That's why some governments can oppress and persecute their own citizenry: there is no international body with the power to stop abuses. — Vera Mont

That is not exactly true. A state that violates the most basic human rights like the prohibition on slavery and torture violates 'Ius cogens', the category of rights deemed so fundamental that they are considered to rank higher than national law. Violating such norms is a violation of international law. The question who is going to enforce that is a different question, but substantially it may be a violation of law.

The question who is going to enforce that is a different question, but substantially it may be a violation of law. — Tobias

It wasn't a question. There is no international body with the power to stop abuses.

No, there is not. Though it might be a line of argument to justify humanitarian intervention for instance. This route was more popular in the 90s though than it is now.

Basic rights are guaranteed by most of the Constitutions. It is not a world in which there is customary humanitarian crisis. Humanitarian crisis does appear as the aftermath of economic crisis, economic regression, or natural disaster. Also there is the problem of customary differentiation. A System of International Human Rights can be oppressive towards customary diversification and cultural freedom. In short, the System of International Human Rights is quite invasive.

Basic rights are guaranteed by most of the Constitutions. — Ludovico Lalli

Yes, I would think that is a good thing...

Also there is the problem of customary differentiation. A System of International Human Rights can be oppressive towards customary diversification — Ludovico Lalli

A System of International Human Rights can be oppressive towards customary diversification and cultural freedom. In short, the System of International Human Rights is quite invasive. — Ludovico Lalli

I have some qualms with human rights from a legal theoretical perspective so I can sympathize with your criticism to some extent. I find it hard though to think of 'customary diversification' as if there are customs that violate basic human rights and should be considered 'customary diversification' and be upheld as just. There are different ways to ensure human rights, states have margin of appreciation when it comes to clashes between human rights. There is indeed valid criticism of human rights regimes as they are sometimes used to badger states into enacting policies they do not want. A nuanced criticism has been offered by Makau Mutua for instance. States do have quite some freedom though and community obligations may also be included. They are for instance included in the Banjuls charter of African Human Rights. The way you frame your criticism though makes me defend human rights, because you juxtapose them against some sort of absolute conception of state sovereignty. I find that far worse.