[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 88.89.219.147 (talk) at 10:04, 4 May 2016 (→Unclear sentence in "Article 15": new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Canada

Was Canada's implementation of the War Measures Act in 1970 a violation of this Treaty?

Update map to include Cuba

I don't know how to update the map on this page, but it should now include Cuba's signature of the treaty which took place in February 2008. [1] Pexise (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and Taiwan

Same goes for Taiwan/Republic of China which ratified it last year.--77.213.191.134 (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current map shows Cuba as having signed but not ratified, which is what this source supports. That source includes an objection from China, saying "The signature that the Taiwain authorities affixed, by usurping the name of “China”, to the [Convention] on 5 October 1967, is illegal and null and void." I've added info on that to the article but have not changed the map.

attitudes underlying U.S. reservations

It may be considered unfortunate, but it's a fact that many people in the U.S. greatly prefer the protections of their own Constitution and Bill of Rights to agreements like this one, which are perceived as basically having been created by European socialists to restrain 3rd-world dictators, and therefore lacking any meaningful relationship to the legal and political traditions of the United States... AnonMoos (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The United States Senate ratified the ICCPR in 1992, with 5 reservations, 5 understandings, and 4 declarations.[3] Some, such as Eleanor Roosevelt, have noted that with so many reservations, that its implementation has little domestic effect.[4]"

Why exactly is Eleanor Roosevelt who died in 1952 mentioned as having reservations on something ratified 40 years after her death? The link [4] sighting it is a dead link.

She actually died on Nov. 7, 1962, but point well taken. Pr4ever (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link worked for me and takes you to an organization applying and spreading Eleanor Roosevelt's writings and philosophies. It is not her own words, nor is there a clearly cited author of the statement made. Rather than remove the line in entirety, I will just snip the direct reference to ER. - casual reader -

Just to add some info, this page on that cited ER Papers site and this nps.gov page say, "... As a result, it was only in 1992 that the U.S. finally ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but even then it was accomplished with so many attached reservations that its implementation would have little domestic effect." (not represented as ER's words), citing supporting sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted from this section the concluding sentence, "At this point, the United States certainly appears to be a signatory in name only," which seemed to be there solely for the purpose of stating the original editor's opinion. If anyone can cite an outside source holding this same opinion, feel free -- otherwise, it seems like this would be original research. ESentinel (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two members of a three-judge First Circuit Court of Appeals panel suggested last Nov. 24, 2010 in Igartúa v US, No. 09-2186, Nov. 24, 2010 that an en banc court revisit whether the ICCPR is indeed non-self-executing, in light of what Judge Lipez states at page 41: "The Supreme Court has recently confirmed that determining whether a treaty is self-executing 'is, of course, a matter for [the courts] to decide' Medellín, 552 US at 518. The case is at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=09-2186P.01A Comments? Pr4ever (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge anyone to demonstrate how the following statement is not ridiculously biased: "As such, the Covenant has been rendered ineffective, with the bone of contention being United States officials' insistence upon preserving a vast web of sovereign, judicial, prosecutorial, and executive branch immunities that often deprives its citizens of the 'effective remedy' under law the Covenant is intended to guarantee." There is quite simply no way that sentence can be construed as neutral. Particularly noteworthy is how various protections enshrined in American law are referred to as a "vast web" as if the "officials" mentioned in that quote are involved in some grand conspiracy to undermine the UN and are hiding behind the Constitution in order to accomplish that objective.74.138.44.11 (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supplying further info re the text you quote in your challenge, that text was added in this January 2008 edit, citing an unreliable source (a Wikipedia article) in support. Considerable additional material was added in that edit. No edit summary was provided. 02:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I must agree that the tone of this section is quite biased. Although the Committee is an authoritative source, its views are its own and are not necessarily the authoritative interpretation of the treaty. Treaty interpretation is governed by the VCLT, and subsequent state practice is quite important to determining the "real" meaning of a treaty. Moreoever, the US policy is to ratify treaties only after being substantively in compliance. Thus, it begs the question to say that the US is noncompliant because no subsequent law was passed to implement the treaty's provisions. To be sure, there are issues with the US position on the ICCPR, especially pertaining to its reservations, but the noncompliance section is completely biased and needs to be drastically reworked Jmedlong (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a section could be written on the legal force of the Covenant and how this can be applied within international law. For example, is it possible for individuals to bring a case against the state where their CP rights have been violated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.169.174 (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-

yes it is, provided his case has been exhaustively tried in local courts or if the local courts refuse to listen to him. but i dont think there is enough material in this topic to justify a separate heading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Source001 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate place for such material would be on the page for the First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The OP has led to an extensive jurisprudence on the interpretation and implementaiton of the ICCPR, and it deserves a large section. --IdiotSavant (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who were the Signees of the ICCPR?

Hi,

Who signed the treaty for each nation?
I am personally interested who signed for Iran,
but it would make a nice addition to the article.

Jangirke (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en, linked from the article, gives dates of signing and ratification, but does not identify signing individuals. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

Could whoever it is who is adding an exhaustive list of the contents of the Convention to the intro please stop. This material is already in the body of the article, and it does not need to be reproduced in the introduction. The intro should introduce, not replace the entire article. If you want to improve the article, I suggest building and expanding its body. --IdiotSavant (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of reversion of good-faith edits by SMargen

I reverted this block of four good-faith edits because I thought that the editorial interpretation done in the two which caught my eye went too far without support from a cited reliable supporting source. In retrospect, the interpretion for article 18 looked OK. A recheck of the article history at that point showed that my revert apparently intruded on a series of edits-in-progress by SMargen. Rather than confuse things further by intermixing my edits with SMargen's I'll just back out of the way at this point, expressing concern that the edits on articles 16 and 17 which caught my eye seemed to go beyond what should be done without citing a reliable supporting source. Sorry about the confusion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

///////////////////

Simon Margan [SMargan] - Thanks for the diligent eye on my editing. In this case however, I do not think the concern was justified and the edits were definitely in good faith. The two sources I have cited are reliable well known cases from the Human Rights Court (HRC). I am glad you thought in retrospect, the interpretation for article 18 looked OK. I am new to Wikipedia editing and therefore the conflict between our edits was probably as a result of that inexperience. The reason I added these case references was because I thought it added depth of the extent of the protection afforded from the privacy provision.

Date of Adoption

The UN Websites (cited as footnote 1) states that the Treaty is as of 16 December 1966, but the Treaty itself is marked with "Adopted by the General Assembly on 19 December 1966". Which is the right date? If it was on Dec 19, the text in the first paragraph and the info box should be changed. Thanks. --Dumont (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear sentence in "Article 15"

Hi,
what does "But except the criminal according to general principles of law recognized by international community.[45] (jus cogens)" mean? T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights&oldid=718576344"