I partially agree. This “human rights inflation” has been a powerful critique against legal activism in jurisprudence. I’m afraid UN should be way more specific concerning what could be retarded as a violation of such rights.
On the other hand, if one truly believed that, e.g., nuclear weapons proliferation risks leading to a global catastrophe, then why couldn’t one say that it risks violating human rights, too—just like, e.g., failing to deter torture?
It’s certainly not a matter of impact… is it a matter of probability?
I partially agree. This “human rights inflation” has been a powerful critique against legal activism in jurisprudence. I’m afraid UN should be way more specific concerning what could be retarded as a violation of such rights. On the other hand, if one truly believed that, e.g., nuclear weapons proliferation risks leading to a global catastrophe, then why couldn’t one say that it risks violating human rights, too—just like, e.g., failing to deter torture? It’s certainly not a matter of impact… is it a matter of probability?