The preamble to the 1948 U.N. Universal Declaration ofrnHuman Rights is more specific. It is applicable to “all membersrnof the human family . . . the aspiration of the common people”rnand “the peoples of the United Nations.” The significancernof a United Nations that is the representative assembly not ofrnnations but of the “human family” is that it can reign supremernover national standards that deviate from acceptable universalrnnorms. From a juridical perspecti’e, the supremacy of universalrnhuman rights standards over nation-based rights could bernrationalized on the grounds that nation-states have been integratedrnthrough these U.N. documents into the “human family”rnThis theoretical integration was advanced in 1976 throughrnthe United Nations’ “international bill of human rights,” comprisingrnthe International Covenant on Economic, Social, andrnCultural Rights (ICESCR), the International Covenant onrnCivil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Optional Protocol.rnThese agreements supplement the “moral force” of the 1948rndeclaration with “legal obligations” as components of the customaryrnlaw of nations and, regarding the ICCPR and optionalrnprotocol, through senate ratification in 1992.rnICESCR delineates fundamental rights that member statesrnmust respect, including: the right of all peoples to self-determinationrn(Article I); the “equal right of men and women to thernenjoyment of all economic, social, and cultural rights (Articlern2); the right to work and the right to freely choose or accept thernwork one does (Article 6); the right to favorable working conditions,rnfair wages, leisure, and paid holidays (Article 7); the rightrnof everyone to form a trade union, the right of trade unions tornform national federations, the right of national federations tornform or join international trade-union organizations, the rightrnto strike (Article 8), the right of everyone to social security andrnsocial insurance (Article 9); the right of everyone to an adequaternstandard of living and the fundamental right to be freernfrom hunger (Article II); the right of everyone to the “enjoymentrnof the highest attainable standard of physical and mentalrnhealth” (Article 12); and “the right of everyone to education”rn(Article 13).rnICCPR more directly subsumes national and state identitiesrninto that of the “human family.” This document proclaimsrnthat “the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the humanrnfamily is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace inrnthe wodd.” For the United States, sovereignty is shifted awayrnfrom the popular control of citizens within the respective statesrnand to the United Nations. When universally recognized rightsrnhave been violated, the nation-states are responsible for providingrnan effective remedy, but the fact that a remedy is an inherentrnright of the claimant, domestic law notwithstanding, is arnsignificant development. Moreover, the claimant need not berna citizen of the nation-state against which the claim is filed. Articlern2 of ICCPR stipulates that:rnEach State Party to the present Covenant undertakes tornrespect and to ensure to all individuals within its territoryrnand subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in thernpresent Covenant, without distinction of any kind, suchrnas race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or otherrnopinion, national or social origin, property, birth or otherrnstatus.rnCoupling Article 2 with Article 25, the legal distinction betweenrncitizen and noncitizen is minimal, because with the exceptionrnof being able to participate in the political process, allrnthe privileges of the former are extended to the latter. And therndoor to citizenship must be open to the noncitizen, “withoutrnunreasonable restrictions.” Article 25 stipulates that every citizenrnshall have the right and the opportunity, “without any ofrnthe distinctions mentioned in Article 2 and without unreasonablernrestrictions,”rn(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directlyrnor through freely chosen representatives; (b) To vote andrnbe elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be byrnuniversal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secretrnballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of thernelectors; (c) To have access on general terms of equality,rnto public service in his country.rnTo remove any ambiguity that citizens of a country may enjoyrnrights and privileges denied to noneitizens within thatrncountry but nevertheless “citizens of the ‘human family,'” Articlern26 of the ICCPR stipulates:rnAll persons arc equal before the law and are entitled withoutrnany discrimination to the equal protection of the law.rnIn this respect, the law shall prohibit any discriminationrnand guarantee to all persons equal and effective protectionrnagainst discrimination on any ground such as race,rncolour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,rnnational or social origin, property, birth or other status.rnConsider whether a U.S. District court judge would have anyrndifficulty finding Article 2, section 1, of the U.S. Constitutionrn—which stipulates that no person except a natural bornrnperson can be President—repugnant to Articles 2 and 25 of thernICCPR.rnFollowing similar rules of procedure—excepting the closedrnmeetings—nation-states that accede to the Optional Protocolrnto the ICCPR are open to claims by “individuals subject to itsrnjurisdiction who claim to be victims of human rights violations”rn(Article 1). In the absence of the Optional Protocol, an individualrnwas dependent on another nation to file a claim on hisrnbehalf. For example, a resident of the United States seekingrnprotection against the government for human rights violationsrnwould have to obtain the assistance of a second country to file arncomplaint against the United States. But under the OptionalrnProtocol the individual may directly file his claim before thernHuman Rights Committee (see Part IV of the Optional Protocol).rnThis is a major departure from traditional internationalrnlaw, which governs relations between nations, not individuals.rnBut that traditional rule was premised upon the relevance ofrnsovereign nation-states, a relevance that is giving way to thernglobal human family, with the United Nations serving as itsrnagent.rnSeveral points need to be emphasized. First, the guaranteesrnagainst discrimination include public and private, the governmentalrnand nongovernmental. Second, the word “persons,”rnto which these fundamental rights are extended, means membersrnof the human family, and not necessarily or exclusively thernresidents of particular countries. And third, the American federalrnsystem of state-reserved powers are negated by ICESCR,rnICCPR, and the latter’s Optional Protocol, theoretically andrntechnically, as is evidenced by Articles 28, 50, and 10, respectively,rnwhich stipulate that “The provisions of the presentrnAUGUST 1996/21rnrnrn