[Reader-list] reader-list Digest, Vol 68, Issue 62Freedom and right to express at what cost to society.?

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Shuddha

>From what I get, the right to life is a natural right and must be given. Now
as per what you have written, first of all, international law can also be a
guarantor of rights. However, from what I know (and this could either
contradict your assumption, or may be you may be still right) about
international law, any international law has to be implemented properly by
an international organization. However, in today's times, all nations
operate on the principle of sovereignty, and hence any international law is
valid only if the national law is either the same, or any nation ratifies
the international law.

Hence, on that aspect, even though indirectly, it's the nation which
guarantees whether any particular right is given to the citizen or not.

Secondly, the fact that people had to fight from nation-states to get rights
is itself indicative of the fact that it's the nation states which have to
provide rights to citizens, and nobody else can do so, probably because it's
the state apparatus which is the most powerful in any society, be it in any
form.

Thirdly, for the non-bonafide citizens of the world, I think that first of
all, they are guaranteed rights based on international laws, which as I
earlier have stated, can be implemented depending upon whether the state
apparatus of the nation concerned, decides to use them or not.

What I wish to say here, is that I feel a nation-state apparatus is probably
a reality which can't be wished away, howsoever much we try to do so. And
while maybe theoretically it's right that there are agencies which can
guarantee rights, practically speaking, these rights are guaranteed directly
or indirectly by nation-state.

So it is useless probably to argue again and again against the states and
their apparatus. It would be much better if we can change the very nature of
the state, to improve the lives of the people.

Regards

Rakesh