'Reason Lost' at UN which crosses line to authoritarianism and its not working.
The UN by crossing a line to authoritarianism and creating ‘neoliberal absolutism’ means the Rule of Law they promote is not based on reason but rather elite interests.
‘Reason Lost’ at UN which crosses line to authoritarianism and its not working.
Human Rights Council (New Zealand)
10D/15 City Rd.,
Ph: (0064) (09) 940.9658
I consider the UN has ‘crossed a line’ to authoritarianism by encouraging police States in numerous countries seemingly to enable greater control over the independent sectors – but its not working.
With rapidity the UN has been ‘supporting the rebuilding of police, justice and corrections’ and promoting the rule of law and accountability - reaching a 100 countries in the past 10 months.
The above level of UN support seems to far exceed the UN Secretary-General’s limitation of such support to ‘crisis and post-conflict countries’ because in its implementation it is extended to also include people’s ‘well-being’ (See comments by Helen Clark, Head of the United Nations Development Program, below).
I see this as signifying that ‘neoliberal absolutism’ is intended to be permanent. My articles cited below describe ‘neoliberal absolutism’ as an ideological decision made at the UN on 10 December 2008.
It involves ‘near absolute’ control/capture of all aspects of human behavior, including the independent sector, covered under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ostensibly to achieve peaceful societies.
But the dalits of South Asia seem to have been remarkably peaceful for hundreds of years but, with little doubt, a consequence of having their potential so very brutally crushed.
Given its seeming more authoritarian direction the UN may be disinclined to support international intervention in cases of very extreme State violence and perhaps might Syria fall into this category.
The left-neoliberal elite, who I see as being in leadership roles in the global human rights establishment and the UN, have often claimed that unlike authoritarian regimes they do not use direct violence against their people but being seen ‘supporting rebuilding of police….’ in numerous States, and possibly eventually nearly all, it has, in my view, overstepped its own boundaries.
And its not working because there are still voices of dissent challenging such control. A number of independent human rights professionals and front-line activists, including Noam Chomsky, Professor Vatcheh Nourbatelian, former Ambassador to Lebanon, are prepared to discuss or ‘like’ the discussion on my recent article which describes what I see as the UN’s ‘global crime against humanity’ (see below).
And there is also increasing support for the ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization to replace ‘neoliberal absolutism’ (see some of the support at the end of the article).
It seems that the UN sees a more authoritarian approach is required also because many independent sectors are most likely to consist of ‘slave economies’.
My recent articles describe how global exploitation is to be permitted because international human rights law which entered into force on 5 May 2013 failed to protect against it, and consequently the Corporations would have been given the ‘go-ahead’, if they wish, to relocate to countries with cheaper workforces when the UN made the decision on 10 December 2008. This will, in my view, result in a ‘global slave economy’ (see article, ‘A Great World…’cited below, and ‘What people have not been told about GFC 2009 – West’s ‘permanent’ decline’ http://barcelona.indymedia.org/newswire/display/477888/index.php .).
The above articles also show how it is considered necessary to keep the ‘independent peoples’ ignorant so there is no hope of escape which requires ‘political and national unity’ i.e. I see the purging of dissent eventually extending to the whole of society where, for example, it could be very difficult to have ‘unsafe’ discussions on the streets.
The above articles also see the UN as having failed to inform the global public of a major rebalance in global ideological and economic power on 10 December 2008 which led to the 2009 global financial crisis and a ‘permanent’ Western decline (see the appendix for articles describing other major human rights truths kept from the public).
Helen Clark, Head of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and ranked third at the UN, in her opening speech to the UN on 26 September 2013 described the Global Focal Point for Police, Justice and Corrections from the UN Secretary-General which involves the ‘strengthening of the Rule of Law, State police and security forces’. She states:
“Last year, the Secretary-General designated UNDP and DPKO jointly as the UN global focal point for supporting the rebuilding of police, justice and corrections institutions in crisis and post conflict countries” (Helen Clark: Opening Speech on the occasion of the Rule of Law and Post-2015 Global Dialogue, UN, New York, 26 September 2013, Also see UNDP FACT SHEET: Global Focal Point for Police, Justice and Corrections, December 2012, http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/crisis-prevention-and-recovery/fact-sheet--global-focal-point-for-police--justice-and-correctio/ ).
Since the UN Secretary- General’s announcement in September 2012 which limits such support to ‘crisis and post-conflict countries’ (see above Fact Sheet) Helen Clark appears to have far exceeded this limitation, with the backing of a High Level Panel on Post-2015, to also include people’s ‘well being’. She stated ten months later:
“We are active in more than 100 countries to help strengthen justice and security systems and establish the rule of law…
“Last month, the High Level Panel on Post-2015 released its Report to the Secretary-General. It called for a “fundamental shift” in thinking: away from seeing governance and peace as unrelated to development, and towards seeing both as essential parts of development. In the Panel’s words: “peace and good governance are core elements of well-being and not an optional extra .”
“This suggests that the rule of law, justice, and security are development outcomes in their own right, and, as such, need to be central to work to eradicate poverty and advance sustainable and inclusive development.
“This view is reinforced by what we have been hearing in the UN-facilitated consultations. Hundreds of thousands of people from across 194 countries, have voted on their priorities for the future in the global My World survey. Support for "honest and responsive government" has ranked very high. That can only be achieved where the just rule of law prevails” (Helen Clark, Head of United Nations Development Program, speech to the annual UNDP meeting on the Rule of Law on 2 July, 2013, http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/presscenter/speeches/2013/07/02/helen-clark-speech-to-the-annual-undp-meeting-on-the-rule-of-law-2013/ .).
Also see later in the article my New Zealand experience, where neoliberalism was introduced in 1984, with Helen Clark as Prime Minister for nine years from 1999 to 2008. It describes the means she employed to attain her ends of a peaceful society.
The ‘rebuilding of police…’ is also compatible with IMF policies where development is based on elites i.e. the focus on the human rights and development of the ‘middle class’, professional sector and the Corporations because of the strong emphasis on globalization.
The latter, in my view, proved to be to the considerable detriment of the domestic free market with struggling small/medium businesses and excluding many small economic and social entrepreneurs.
Whereas development (and also human rights) are meant to be based on the individual as required in the UN Declaration on the Rights to Development. Article 2(1) states that ‘the human person is the central subject of development’ (So how can capitalism be judged by, for example, the Occupation, on this basis i.e. where the market been manipulated to suit elite interest?).
I see a greater police force and the criminal justice system will ensure accountability most particularly, in my view, amongst independent small economic and social entrepreneurs and ensure control in a ‘slave economy’. I consider the more independent will be ‘encouraged’ into more controlled settings e.g. State sanctioned groups, as such independence appears to be seen as incompatible with peace, accountability and the ‘near absolute’ control required.
Yet, I consider that these often very talented individuals could have been big employers which would create far less discontent in society.
The following are the responses of independent human rights professionals/ front-line activists who give their views on my recent article, ‘A Great World can be achieved by Great States ensuring global ethical human rights’, http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/01/08/18748916.php or http://www.indymedia.org.nz/articles/1848 ).
Briefly, the above article describes the UN’s gross neglect of duty under UN Charter to uphold the UDHR (in my opinion, it constitutes a ‘global crime against humanity’);
how socially responsible business will enable the ‘political and national unity’ required to execute ‘near absolute’ ‘top-down’ control;
also describes how global unity is to be achieved using ‘near absolute’ control and gives the global ethical human rights alternative;
and also discusses the considerable decline in extreme poverty (addressed by redistribution of global wealth based on the capacity to exploit) but also coupled with the crushing of their potential as well as that of the rest of society to ensure no threat to the status quo.
Noam Chomsky states after reading the article:
“You’re right about the terrible failure to uphold the UD, but one can’t put the blame on the UN. It cannot act on the matter. That is the responsibility of its members, who may accept the UD in words, but not in deeds. And sometimes not even in words. Thus the US rejects 1/3 of the UD – on social-economic rights – and dismisses another third – cultural/community rights” (email, 14 Jan 2014).
“I have been trying to get the UN to tell people about the ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization (to replace neoliberal absolutism) since it was first outlined in my book in 2008.
Is the UN bureaucracy so helpless that they couldn’t even include ethical human rights, development and globalization in the public notices of major newspapers (I did it twice in NZ)? [And I did suggest it to the UN].
And should they be so helpless in the face of member States who often have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo devoid of dissent by human rights defenders?
After all the ethical approach retains the universality of the UDHR and consequently is a far more authentic reflection of the declaration than when, as at present, the UDHR is made compatible with IMF polices which seriously negates many (and eventually all, in my view) of the individual rights the declaration is meant to uphold.
In addition, about 3m ago I asked Helen Clark, Head UNDP, directly in a packed auditorium at Auckland University why the UN says nothing about the ethical approach and she politically side-stepped my question – shouldn’t the UN bureaucracy have a duty to inform the public of important human rights truths rather than stand in the path of human rights development? (email,14 Jan 2014).
Noam Chomsky’s reply:
“No doubt the UN bureaucracy could do more, but we can’t overlook the fact that the UN is controlled by the member states, which in practice means the most powerful of them. When Miguel D’Escoto was president of the General Assembly a few years ago he did try. For example he ran major programs devoted to critical analysis of Responsibility to Protect, the most recent pretext for great power intervention, and on the role of financial institutions in the global economy. The US was furiously opposed, its allies too, and though they couldn’t prevent meetings, they sank like rocks instantly, in the media too” (email, 14 Jan, 2014).
Vatcheh Nourbatelian, Professor of political sciences at Lebanese University, former Ambassador of Lebanon, states:
“Great States which are heading/controlling the UN and the Security Council via their Veto right, are shaped or by the neoliberal ideology (US,UK and France), or driven by neofascist ideology which is a dictatorial or authoritarian capitalism disguised behind “nationalist” or “proletarian” rhetoric (Russia and China) .
Neoliberalism credo is Profit beyond frontiers and ethics. Neofascism credo is totalitarian paranoiac power beyond limits and ethics. They all strictly follow the rules of Realpolitik which reflects the rules of the Law of the Jungle and royally ignore ethical precept.
All the spectacular moves and declarations of good Samaritan intentions on sustained development, Kyoto agreements, OP and other UNGP (even though they are composed by Harvardian “geniuses” like Ruggie) are inspired or imposed by the WTO, the IMF, the WHO or the World Bank which all reflect the interests of Big Business ,Big Finance , Big Pharma and other Big Military Industrial Complexes, which are by nature or essence motivated by profit making at any price (genocides, hunger, poverty, pandemics, support to the developing countries gang/states bloody dictatorships, civil wars, destruction of the environment etcetera) following the Machiavellian precept of “the end justifies the means”.
Talking about GLOBAL ETHICS independently from the project or the advent of a GLOBAL SOCIAL DEMOCRACY is an unreliable dream. Its time to restart the ideological war of social democracy , against the infernal couple of neoliberalism and neofascism , both on national and international levels if we really believe in the duty of human solidarity in the era of Globalization”.
PS. In regard to the above discussion - to clarify duties under the UN Charter. The role of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights is described in General Assembly resolution A/RES/48/141. The latter has the rank of Under-Secretary General and is ‘under the direction and authority of the Secretary-General’ and is required to ‘Function within the framework of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…’(see 2(c), 3(a) and 4 of GA res 48/141, 20 December 1993, http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/48/a48r141.htm ).
Both Noam Chomsky and Professor Nourbatelian seem to consider that the UN is controlled by the most powerful States i.e. Western States, however this certainly does not seem to have been the case with respect to the adoption of the Optional Protocol (OP) to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 2008.
That is because the OP was opposed by America throughout the discussions at the UN between 2004 -2008, with resistance also provided by the ‘American camp’ such as Australia, Canada, Japan, the UK and others seemingly wanting to retain the ideological status quo, yet it was still passed by a considerable consensus of States.
The views of Noam Chomsky and Professor Nourbatelian seem reflective of left-perspectives during a period when the West had ideological dominance prior to 10 December 2008.
Prior to the 10 December 2008 civil and political rights e.g. ‘freedom and democracy’, dominated along with neoliberalism (i.e. when the latter set of rights are made compatible with IMF polices).
In addition, in my experience, it was rare that any in the global human rights/political establishment would respond to my emails no matter how serious the human rights issue – one rare exception was Noam Chomsky who I found supportive, frequently replying and I am very grateful for his kindness – being able to say he was replying to my emails was often the only way I could be taken seriously as an ‘outsider’.
Also, discussed above is the ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization which would replace ‘neoliberal absolutism’. It was first outlined in my book, ‘Freedom from our social prisons: the rise of economic, social and cultural rights’ (Lexington Books, 2008) which was later recommended on the UN website for about two years.
I have written many articles since on the ethical approach and very brief description can be found at the end of this article.
The following comments are from other human rights professionals prepared to respond to the article, ‘A Great World….:’
Azhar Ali, Director (15yrs 6m), Nav Bhartiya Nari Vikas Samiti, Voluntary Organization, working since last 19 yrs in Distt-Ballia (U.P.), one of the most backward districts in the state. It is a team of activists struggling to ensure fundamental rights for the Dalits, Minorities, Women and the most deprived and marginalized sections. He made three separate comments regarding the above article – ‘it is very important’ – ‘it is very important’ – ‘it is very important’.
Also, Ismail Mohamed Abdi, Child Protection Coordinator at Save the Children International, Somalia (11yrs 3m), added: ‘I agree’”.
Clare Wakeman, supporting parents at Fighting For Children Inc. (5m), states:
“Human rights means being listened to and justice and getting the truth out and getting children heard”.
Gordette Leuze, Executive Director at Baranga County Community Foundation (14 yrs 6m) states regarding the article: ‘Well said, to say the least, and thank you for saying it’.
Thomas Morley, Photographer, including political, conflict and human rights issues, UK, stated: “A great world is not achieved by blaming others, politicians, different ideals, greed, wealth, systems or religion; it is achieved by respect, honesty, kindness, sharing and understanding. It seems many of these qualities are lost in large organisations, not from individuals because there are many good people in this world, more than there are bad in my opinion. Even a large organisation such as the UN or the EU for example run on public money, should be answerable to the public and more democratic within them selves, not so ridged. They are themselves in there current form a wasteful bureaucratic nightmare. How can these types of organisations truly help others if they are in many ways like any other giant global corporation.
You can’t get rid of the bad parts of our world but you can always do more good. Remember the so called great states are there because of us and for us, if they keep behaving as they do its because we are all asleep and letting them do what they wish”.
Jasmine Dobosiewicz, Doctor of Law, Trying to Save the World NGO, Rhode Island, states:
“A great world is one in which we are all honest, compassionate, and responsible for our actions. To have a truly great world, states would be more concerned with the welfare of their own people and less with their images around the world. Only when a state has reached a status it can be proud of as a global model should it attempt to make it a global model. My mother always reminds me to first look to myself before helping others - if I cannot take care of myself, how can I help another? To have a great world, this must be applied on a much larger scale”.
Landis Lafreuge, Human Rights Technologist, California, 7yrs, states:
“In my opinion, the UDHR is not strong or accurate enough to begin with. It seemed to be reached through consensus of what sounds good vs. basic human rights. It is sad to hear that even a weakened "declaration of human rights" is being weakened further”.
So far, in addition to the above comments, there were also 13 ‘likes’ for the discussion which I consider brave given the content: a Judge from Romania; medical doctor and entrepreneur from South Africa; two legal consultants one from Cambodia and the other from Brussels; public law advocate from Uganda; PhD candidate from Spain; Business owner and visiting Professor from San Francisco; a human rights representative from a Children’s Foundation, Switzerland; Executive Director, Legal Services, Somalia; Manager National Resources, Local Body, New Zealand; Senior Researcher, International Health, South Africa; Executive Director, children’s NGO, legal service, Djbouti; a member of Independent Academic Research, whose position in unknown, Ethiopia.
From my observation, the creation of a peaceful New Zealand society was, first ‘the light goes out in people’s eyes’ and they end up ‘just going through the motions’ in a state of ‘arrested development’ and so become ‘peaceful slaves’.
In my New Zealand experience, when Helen Clark was Prime Minister for nine years New Zealand was rated one of the most peaceful countries in the world but it came at the price of crushing the potential of the nation:
one fifth to one quarter of the population having to leave to better themselves and where, as immigrants, they would pose no political threat;
purging professional ranks of the ‘best and brightest’ and consequently likely dissent;
while many, often very talented, small social and economic entrepreneurs, from all social classes, were relegated to the ranks of the underclass or institutionalized (the above is discussed in full in my article, ‘Hope in Chch rebuild, ethical human rights despite all attempts to crush human potential’, 4 May 2012, http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/05/04/18712908.php ).
There were also shocking social statistics – as a human rights activist I tried on a number of occasions to inform Helen Clark’s office of what I saw as a New Zealand Tragedy occurring at the bottom of the social scale describing them in the Auckland High Court as as having been ‘crushed and isolated’ – to my knowledge, I received no reply.
The High Court Judge agreed with me asking me why I had not informed New Zealanders earlier.
The reporters from major newspapers only reported it on the internet. To my knowledge, it has never reached the mainstream.
In my view, a number of the underclass affected would have been the future parents of children reported as suffering very high levels of child abuse (see my submission to Auckland High Court, ‘Freedom is not an impossible dream’, 28 June 2010, http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/06/454133.html ).
In addition, although occurring eight years before Helen Clark became PM although while she was a Member of Parliament, see how human rights were ‘hijacked’ ‘by and for a left-minority’ which was kept hidden for many years and which I only accidently found. Human rights were just used to further class interests as I consider is also the case at the UN. I concluded that this left-‘tribal’ elite were virtually parasitic on the rest of society (see my article, ‘Greatness or Mediocrity: global ethical human rights or ‘neoliberal absolutism’, 23 July 2013, http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2013/07/424143.shtml ).
What I am seeing is the creation of a global communism with its authoritarianism but not one based on the interests of workers but rather based on the interests of a left-neoliberal ‘middle class’ elite which I consider is descent-based (see above article, ‘Greatness or Mediocrity…) and consequently probably ‘like-minded’ with, which I also see as very likely, many other descent-based bureaucratic elites which meet in the UN General Assembly.
Also, in my view, freedom and democracy, religion, even organized protest will most likely be reduced to mere ceremony, with little authenticity, essentially orchestrated from the top.
And I consider the idea that peace can be achieved by crushing human potential and the human spirit to create peaceful slaves is macabre. It would seriously limit the development of human knowledge as well as human rights development and so greatly jeopardize humanities chances of survival e.g. the human race may have to live on other planets one day.
I consider that overwhelmingly the leadership of the global establishment, the UN and the international human rights establishment, are ideologically captured. It was once said of neoliberalism that there is no alternative (TINA), in fact, in my experience, no alternative is permitted (see an alternative, ethical approach…described at the end of this article which the UN and global establishment continue to ignore).
Now there appears to be a very concerted global effort under the direction of the UN and backed by State police forces and justice system to ensure those in the independent sector are similarly captured/ controlled (in my experience, gifted independent entrepreneurs seem to be ‘hated with a vengeance’ by the left-‘tribal’ elite yet I have little but praise for them).
In my view, it is a fanatical adherence to a single ideology, ‘neoliberal absolutism’ which even the tragic earthquakes in Christchurch could not alter – after three years there is still no major progress on the objective to rebuild the CBD. I went down there three times promoting the ethical approach which emphasizes a ‘bottom-up’ development but was ignored by the mainstream media (see article, ‘The destiny of Christchurch….’, countercurrents.org, 8 Oct 2012, http://www.countercurrents.org/ravlich081012.htm . Also, see ‘Top-down bureaucratic neoliberalism is threatening the Christchurch rebuild…’, 17 Feb 2012, http://indymedia.org.au/2012/02/17/top-down-bureaucratic-neo-liberalism-is-threatening-the-christchurch-rebuild-an-ethical-h ).
In my view, such global ideological fanaticism constitutes ideological warfare i.e. in my view, it leads to fundamentalism and worse by those wanting to defend their universal beliefs, and it is now very ominously backed by larger police forces.
But perhaps one could take into account that the alternative universal approach - ethical human rights, development and globalization, could not have been known to the global establishment prior to 2008 when it was first outlined in my book (although published about 4 months prior to the UN decision to create ‘neoliberal absolutism’).
But also, it could be said that many in the establishment may have been deceived, which I think very likely, into thinking that human rights would ‘trickle down’ in their own countries just as the great majority of people thought money would ‘trickle down’.
However, I believe the truth sets us free so the ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization may give some in the establishment some hope of returning to the ‘universal roots’ of the declaration, most particularly their children.
In my view, those in leadership positions, most particularly in human rights, should adopt a duty to inform people of important human rights truth (see Article 29(1), ‘duties to the community’, UDHR) which is necessary if any claims to believe in democracy, where voters need to be informed, are to be taken seriously (as stated before, articles which describe major human rights truths which were hidden can be found cited at the end).
I also see it as very positive that the Human Rights Network, which is closely linked with the New Zealand Human Rights Commission, forwarded the above article, ‘A Great World…’, to its many members (email, 14 Jan 2014). Perhaps, commissions could be supportive of or even join freedom fighters and dissenters.
When front-line human rights activists, who I consider are unlikely to be targeted by police, come to see the authoritarian direction taken by the UN some could well take it into their own hands to defend the declaration for the good of humanity. While, I think, front-line human rights activists can be the UN’s best friend they could become its worst enemy.
It is, surely, a measure of how unacceptable the leadership of human rights at the UN and the international human rights establishment is when for the past five years they have refused to discuss the ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization and so ensure it is kept out of the mainstream and consequently hope for many.
By doing so they are rejecting the universality of human rights because ethical human rights simply means all should have, at the very least, the core minimum of the human rights in the UDHR while ethical development and ethical globalization follow logically.
If they do not believe in its universality why are they involved in human rights? In my opinion, they are simply using human rights to further their class interests.
With the creation of ‘neoliberal absolutism’ and ‘crossing the line’ into authoritarianism I consider that it can no longer be claimed that the ‘Rule of Law’ is based on reason i.e. the UDHR, rather, in my view, it just reflects elite interests.
I consider universal human rights truth, based on thousands of years of human experience, to be reflective of universal truth.
While the left-neoliberal elite at the UN have a right to their personal opinion they do not have a right, in my view, to claim the UDHR as their authority when they are doing virtually the opposite.
In my view, either it will be a new beginning or the beginning of the end for human rights. But I think there would be many others like me who do not want to give up on life, just yet.
In addition, the following are some further comments, not yet published, on previous articles:
‘What people have not been told about GFC 2009 – the West’s ‘permanent’ decline’, (Auckland Indymedia, 4 January 2014, http://www.indymedia.org.nz/articles/1816 ).
Regarding the above Zarina Bhatia, Public Relations and Communications, Primarily for Global Peace, UK, states: “A sound observation”.
‘Divide and Rule’ at UN misdirects discontent towards the two percent’, (Ireland Indymedia, 25 Nov 2013, http://www.indymedia.ie/article/104286 ).
Kevin Galalae, Deputy Leader at Civil Rights Party of Canada (4m) stated:
“You are perfectly right, Anthony, we live in an era of tyranny by bureaucrats and technocrats and their self-perpetuating bureaucracies. At the same time, and this is the paradox of our times, without the international bureaucracies of the UN we could not forge ahead towards global unity and we would be utterly helpless in the face of the global problems that beset our world: pollution, overpopulation, resource depletion, etc. The only solution I see is an awakening of the masses to their democratic responsibilities, which will lead to the democratization of the international superstructure of control. We, the people, must not only demand a place at the table, we must surround the table. The United Nations must become the United People”.
Steven Oates, Independent Adviser on Rights at Work (3yrs 5m), Geneva, stated:
“Here on Planet Earth, fortunately, things are different”.
Alan Murdoch, Academic Coordinator The Art Institute of Salt Lake City, stated:
“I agree with you that there are problems with rights as expressed in international law. There's a good paper on the origination of international rights as derived from the right of the individual to self-defense. When the right of a citizen to protect himself from a lord in a man to man dispute was established in word, if not deed, there was a basis for the nation to be sovereign as an extension of the right of the individual sovereignty in defense against personal attack. That was a change from the dominion and conquest concept of internationalism, and it was the first time that a justification had to be levied for one nation to intervene with force onto another nation. I believe a lot has been lost as the concept of individual sovereignty and the right of self defense has diminished in face of the concept of collective rights. Collective rights can be coerced, as you indicate, toward interest groups controlling access to resources, means of production, creativity and the right to own one's ideas and the others you mention. I can find the paper, which was published in the BYU Journal of Law several years ago”.
The following is very brief description of the ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization:
The ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization establishes a human rights ‘bottom-line’ for all States ensuring fair competition without exploitation, it emphasizes ‘bottom-up’ development enabling individuals to reach their full potential.
It also reflects the universality of the UDHR i.e. ‘for all’, and ensures core minimum individual rights (both freedoms and socio-economic and cultural rights).
In addition, it involves duties to the community, domestic and global (see article cited below).
For a more full description of the ethical approach see my article, ‘Comments on Helen Clark’s refusal to discuss global ethical human rights’, (San Francisco Bay Indybay, 1 September 2013, http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/01/18742456.php or Indymedia Ireland, http://www.indymedia.ie/article/104028 ).
The following is some of the support for the ethical approach:
Support, some very high profile, for the ethical approach, but only in the margins as it is not permitted in the mainstream, is steadily growing (although I have not had time to update the following).
For example, domestically, Bryan Gould, one of New Zealand’s top academics, and Companion of the NZ Order of Merit, who stood for the leadership of the UK Labour Party in 1992 has been very supportive and also David Cunliffe, present leader of the opposition NZ Labour Party, was supportive of the ethical emphasis on ‘bottom-up’ development as well as some across-party interest on the social networking sites while international support can be found in my article, ‘New Idea for a Better World’, Scoop NZ, 25 July 2012, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1207/S00319/new-idea-for-a-better-world.htm. Also, see ‘Top Academics rebel against State capture in favor of Truth’, 20 August 2012, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1208/S00289/top-academics-rebel-against-state-capture-in-favor-of-truth.htm ).
For examples of major human rights truths hidden from the public see the following articles :
‘New Zealanders must ‘speak out’ about omitted rights or be reduced to ‘numbers’’, 19 May 2011, http://indymedia.org.au/2011/05/19/new-zealanders-must-speak-out-about-omitted-rights-or-be-reduced-to-numbers ); My submission to the Auckland High Court, ‘Freedom is not an impossible dream’, 28 June 2010, http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/06/454133.html ); ‘Hope in Chch rebuild, ethical human rights despite all attempts to crush human potential’, 4 May 2012, http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/05/04/18712908.php ); ‘Greatness or Mediocrity: global ethical human rights or ‘neoliberal absolutism’, 23 July 2013, http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2013/07/424143.shtml ).