Why haven't western countries signed the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers & Members of Their Families?
It is notable that only 48 UN Member states have ratified the convention (More help and treats for foreign workers) - and they are countries from which migrants come (rather than those to which migrants go). East Timor, Egypt, the Philippines and Senegal are some of them.This suggests that it is detrimental for countries which expect to receive migrants to sign it.There are many problematic aspects of this convention (Text: International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families). I shall just look at Articles 10, 29 and 43.Article 10 says that no migrant worker or his family "shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". This has the potential to subvert a country's legal system. For example some states in the US practise capital punishment, which some argue is cruel and unusual punishment (The Case Against the Death Penalty). Ratifying this convention might mean that migrant workers and their families could not be subject to capital punishment. This might cause a legal crisis in countries practising capital punishment.Article 29 says that "each child of a migrant worker shall have the right to a name, to registration of birth and to a nationality". The last seems the most problematic. In countries which don't practise jus soli, or the right of those born in a country to be citizens (i.e. most of the world), you need to have at least one parent who is a citizen of the country in question. Now, what happens if the child of a migrant worker is unable to obtain the nationality of one or both of his parents' countries? A country signing the convention would be obligated to give this child citizenship of its own country.Article 43 calls for migrant workers to have equal access to nationals with regard to housing, including social housing. Social housing is typically subsidised or otherwise priced below market prices, and countries understandably would prefer for their citizens to benefit from this first before opening it to migrant workers (if at all).
Is a NATO country obligated to defend another NATO country if attacked in any circumstance?
From the NATO website:The principle of collective defence is at the very heart of NATO’s founding treaty. It remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance.Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.The principle of collective defence is enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.NATO has taken collective defence measures on several occasions, for instance in response to the situation in Syria and in the wake of the Ukraine crisis.NATO has standing forces on active duty that contribute to the Alliance’s collective defence efforts on a permanent basis.This principle is enshrined in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states that an attack on one Ally shall be considered an attack on all Allies.NATO invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty for the first time in its history following the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.The principle of collective defence has also been raised in the context of Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine. Russia’s actions have raised justified concerns among its neighbours, including those who are NATO members. That is why NATO Foreign Ministers, on 1 April, directed Allied military authorities to develop extra measures to strengthen collective defence.So it appears the answer is yes.Any controversy arises however on the issue of wht constitutes an 'attack'. Does it need to be a country? Or can it be an organization? Can it be invoked if the players involved are no more than a few dozen? For example, NATO invoked article 5 for the 9/11 attacks, but didn't do so for the downing of the MH17 since it wasn't entirely clear who was responsible for the downing, and it didn't help that it would mean NATO forces would come face to face with Russian forces.These are topics of hot debate, but in any case: the answer is yes, a NATO country is obligated to defend another NATO country, since an attack on country B would mean an attack on country A as well.
How is Vladimir Putin justified in ordering Crimea to be a part of Russia?
He isn’t, of course.If nothing else, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, provided the Ukraine - in return for giving up all its nuclear ICBMs - the following assurances:“Russia, the US, and the UK confirm, in recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in effect abandoning its nuclear arsenal to Russia, that they will:Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty and the existing borders.[15]Refrain from the threat or use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.”But who nowadays - or indeed at any time since 1917 - expects any Russian government to keep its word?The thing, if you want to know the truth with Putin, is to watch his lips:If they’re moving, he’s lying.
History question help! 10 points and full stars?
At the conclusion of the Yalta Conference, the Allied leaders approved the Declaration of Liberated Europe. Spurred by Roosevelt, the Big Three agreed that post-war "interim governmental authorities" were to be "broadly representative of all democratic elements in the population and pledged to the earliest possible establishment through free elections of Governments responsive to the will of the people." The Declaration, coupled with the promise of a United Nations organization to maintain world peace, contributed to the general spirit of hopeful optimism that gripped western leaders following the Yalta Conference. President Roosevelt informed the Congress, after his return to the United States, that the era of "spheres of influence and balances of power" was ended. The apparent solidarity and good will that permeated the Yalta Conference soon faded. In light of the ensuing Cold War, the post-war agreements negotiated by the Big Three remain controversial. Some historians equate Yalta with Munich and appeasement; others blame Roosevelt's deteriorating health for his failure to take a hard enough line against Stalin. The military situation in Europe, however, and the desire to bring the Soviets into the fight against Japan, called for compromise. Most of the settlements reached at Yalta—especially those pertaining to Eastern Europe—employed language vague enough to allow the Soviets to violate the spirit if not the letter of the agreements. Under the circumstances, however, there was little short of war that the U.S. and Britain could do about it. Q: Many critics feel that the Yalta Conference did not do enough to ensure world peace following World War II. Why do so many people blame Roosevelt for the failure? Knowing that Stalin had implemented a communist government in the Soviet Union and hoped to extend it to other parts of eastern Europe, do you think that Roosevelt and Churchill could have done anything more or better?