حقوق بشر و تضاد بین کنوانسیون های محلی و قوانین بین المللی
Perhaps, the conflict between the local conventions and international human rights law has been raised controversially since 1948. Such an issue has endangered more, when the UN and other international bodies are involved in order to improve the criteria already approved by the majority of members of the international community. Different attitudes have been presented by the lawyers, policy makers as well as universities and strategic research centers. Some scholars articulate that indigenous cultures should be restructured by the international and global standards dictated throughout human history. On the other hand, all policies imposing local governments on deregulating their conventional norms to make a socio-cultural harmonization supported by global approaches of human rights, fail to achieve their prior greatly approved and announced targets presumably. It seems the answer is complex to either accept one of notions mentioned above or refuse another one. I struggle to criticize both perspectives and clarify all results in order to underscore their dire consequences influencing the life of people living in four corners of the globe.
Some lawyers and officials accord with the legal prominence of international law and defend its restrictive functions to reshape national, regional and global order raised as principal pillars of current and new-found global village. They struggle to prioritize international law between local laws, regulations and other cultural ingredients like norms, taboos, totems, conventions, customs and other unwritten rules shaping national personality for a society as a whole. This perspective has been originated from a historical angst. In deed international law is the result of an extreme social disarray causing the whole of human history. Lawyers have observed a vast range of intractable behaviors exceeded by autocratic governments. They want to preserve the interest of aristocracy including dukes, earls and other members of such a selected society. As a result, their communities seem arid. Some rules presenting archetype of democracy had been based on some artful administrative organizations strengthening the interests of governments instead of their citizens. Therefore, many people were unable to articulate the unhappiness they felt. If some people wanted to make a difference or think or behave differently, they had been seeing and nominated as an atheist. People had not had any bulwark to be preserved for many years. Such an approach motivated people to behave with greed. The history of human kind is abashed when these stories have been taught in the subject of history in universities and colleges. Whereas people have attempted to behave in a manner of abstemiousness, governments and international organizations have not received yet the highest accolade in law. All of us have observed some acrimonious conducts in the 21st century. Such a behavior has restricted the social alacrity in national, regional and international Atmospheres. As a result of technology, the individual and social apprehensive idictions have increased dramatically, while many lawyers assess and observe the recent events askance. Irrespective of all concerns enforcing us to think and behave differently, they asseverate the international law is the only wayout for current issues influencing all peoples’ daily lives. But, the international law has not been located on its legal and logical awry position yet. Meanwhile international organizations like UNESCO, UNDOP and other global bodies involved have instituted new approaches in order to restructure our societies with considering their own grave environmental consequences and solutions in conformity with the principle of preserving human and the globe. But their attempts have been raised just as some provisional measures. But some risks of significant transboundary harms are to persuade people and their states to comply with much more serious decisions. The UN and its bodies have reaffirmed such a necessity and activated all potential and apply all capacities given by states and members. It is likely to perpetuate social justice and make a deep and lasting order in international scale for people to live better and more conveniently. The international community increase their awareness and remember their irrevocable mistakes making a myriad of fatal consequences like first and 2nd world wars.
Meanwhile, the UN has persuaded all members to eliminate such vicious circle of conventional power skewing people to misuse or abuse their power resulting in the grave breach of human rights and international order. All international bodies including the member states of the UN have redefined new code of conducts assisting them to achieve their targets. They can capture public attention vastly and internationally to remove all kinds of delinquency at the zenith. It always strengthens the protective shields preserving people in front of any violations. They can remove all barriers interfering with the international community’s success phenomenally. People now are standing at the threshold of universal peace and awareness.
Consequently, the states and some regional and international arrangements, irrespective of their administrate and theoretical imperfections, have been rebuked on order to prevent them from deteriorating the current legal status and to boost up peaceful atmosphere injecting the actual happiness into people’s daily lives instead of the skin deep enjoyments. As a result, the step were people are standing on has been constructed after experiencing some dire and fatal events and humanitarian stories which occurred occurring in the whole of human history. Meanwhile, it is not permitted to be ignored by excusing that local or indigenous cultures are on the verge of damaging. Nonetheless, some so-called new-found legal instructions have been planned to remove new-found legal instructions have been planned to remove negative aspects of local culture damaging human in their lives. Therefore, international human rights law is first and foremost to live on a peacefully coexistent society.
On the other hand, some parties and NGOs like Red Cross or green movements have taken a closer look at such a phenomenon. Although they accept such a necessity as mentioned above vastly, they accord with the notion supporting local cultures and indigenous social infrastructures supported by states parallel with international criteria regarding human rights. They strongly believe in the idea focusing a cultural diversity. They discuss that the approach neglecting cultural roots in each societies has provoked severe opposing international approaches in order to clarify and unify a unite role of social conducts in the context of human rights. As a result, some governmental and non-governmental representatives in the UN and similar bodies have announced about the bread the and complexity of such a movement. This perspective is attributatedto expose the idea justifying any local culture as an irresponsible and index libel part of the nation’s destinations.
It is presumed both of them can work in collaboration to make a coherent legal institution.
It, hence, is not outgrow at all. Meanwhile, the UN and other international organizations working on human rights and universal peace must spur states to design international criteria with taking local and regional sociology-cultural fields in to account. Also they must provide the spur to further research.
It is worth mentioning that a glorious legal institution would not have been organized internationally, had such an important outlook never considered comprehensively. People will gather to gather universally, if they can make a sense of peaceful coexistence regarding their own cultural and social infrastructures. The permissibility of so-called global village is deduced from natural law accepted by all legal regimes.
Having cited above points, I strongly believe in the idea that people and states should work shoulder by shoulder regarding the international concerns and local cultural necessities. It is accepted vastly that the international law is the only way out for international society to live peacefully and in the correct path to achieve the formidable notion of sustainable development.