Interesting take. However, it misses one key point, as Ms. Merkel apparently did, as well. That is, the Nazis understood perfectly well that a stateless people were a rightless people. There immediate goal upon occupying any eastern European country was to destroy the political class, because without a state, the only law was murder. If you are a citizen of no country, you have no means of redress, essentially.
I am surprised the article did not mention the U.N. General Assembly's International Bill of Human Rights or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The article started off with questionable leaps ("What perhaps does deserve comment is that all direct 1989 allusions are indirect allusions to 1933.", really?), started talking about human rights by looking at the US declaration of independence (and not, say, the UN declaration of human rights), all to finally succumb into drivel like "The reunification of Germany did not challenge existing political categories." (Uh huh, and we just invented 'refugee' yesterday?) The author doesn't make clear why refugees' human rights are an issue. He doesn't care to elaborate why it's about their human rights, specifically. Okay, yeah, it's not an article discussing practical things, I get it, which why I'm not listing a hundred other complaints, but even as a theoretical exploration of stateless peoples' rights it falls short of being interesting.
I think that the author means that 1989 marked the end of a very dark period in Germany that started in 1933, and that the end can't be talked about without understanding the beginning. I'm not entirely sure what your critique of the declaration of independence is. As far as I'm aware it was the first official position to recognize that human rights are a thing, even if the much later UN declaration made them more extensive and inclusive.
That period ended 1945. '45-'89 was a completely different beast! And while the causes do lie in WWII, you can always go back further. Germany was only unified in 1871, you know? I'm not criticizing the declaration of indepedence (that first sentence is a thing of immense beauty), but if you're gonna talk about words, why choose the one that uses god, and not the UNDH's preamble, which discussed exactly the issue of the origin of these rights? Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations, Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge, Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
45-89 was completely about Soviet neutralization of Germany as a threat. Stalin and subsequent leaders feared that if they ever took their boot off the throat of Germany that WWIII was an inevitability. Stalin's original idea was to leave Germany as an officially neutral country, with US and Soviet Union as guarantors of its security.The US always viewed this as a ruse to get the US to pull its troops out (probably correctly). Of course we can go back in history to the beginning of time, but in a real sense, divided Germany was just an extension of WWII, as the whole reason it became divided was that a final peace deal couldn't be reached, and in fact wasn't reached until after reunification.
I'd argue that the post-war era was more about rebuilding after the war, and the cold war between the US and the SSSR - the note was much more a tool for Stalin to take the BRD out of the Allies' hand than it was about keeping Germany weak. Sure, the separation was caused by WWII, but also by the differences between West and Soviet Union.
Human rights belong to all humans who haven't committed a crime to lose them. No discussion to be had here. Refugees have human rights by default. They lack someone to protect those rights, the bond between people that is society, or a nation as you mention in your post, but that doesn't change that I, and all other people, should hold themselves to the moral standard of ensuring that the rights of all humans are respected.
I don't see how crimes pertain to your human rights. I think everyone deserves these basic rights, even if they have comitted crimes against others.Human rights belong to all humans who haven't committed a crime to lose them.
If someone does not recognize the right to others, we must not recognize their own rights, as if we do they will be given a disproportionate advantage to society and will be able to take advantage of, and harm others further. I am not specifically referring to "legal crimes" like jaywalking, but things like intent to murder, being part of an enemy nation that seeks to destroy or overtake the one you are in, and so on. These people cannot be given rights, since they seek to remove your own. Similar reason animals aren't included in "deserves rights".
So not recognizing human rights is ground to not have rights recognized, but as long as they don't recognize rights first we don't have to recognize their rights. Gotcha. I have never heard a coherent moral or ethical argument for denying human rights to even the worst criminals. It doesn't do anything to prevent harm to anyone, it doesn't help rehabilitate anyone, it doesn't make the crimes they've already committed disappear. It often leads to further criminality, it often hampers rehabilitation and helps increase rates of recidivism. Animals ARE included in "deserves rights." Abusing pets is illegal. Abusing wildlife is illegal. Hunting particular animals in particular situations is illegal. Animals have to be treated ethically while being experimented on. Etc.
Key difference here between "recognizing their rights" and "do not have rights". Rights, as I see them, are not some inherent property of human beings, but the most basic and fundamental assumption that exists for human society. Do not kill one another, work towards a common goal of mutual benefit, and so on. The only way a person has rights in the first place is to subject yourself to those treaties, to have rights, you must give those rights to others. Any person not participating in such a system, any person hurting others, not working to mutual benefit in society, and so on, does not have rights, as they are not part of society, the thing which grants them rights. You cannot ignore rights which do not exist. We deny human rights to all criminals, we kill them, lock them up, deny them the ability to have clothes, pick their food, and more. These are not the rights in the constitution, of course, but they are things that very much ought to be rights. And you just heard a coherent moral/ethical argument for denying human rights, although I do tend to consider my arguments to not be so much moral or ethical and more "logical" or based on what human rights "are" in society, rather than some odd ideal of "this is the perfect world". The denial to criminals right to freedom allows society to lock them up, brainwash them, treat them as lesser beings than others in society. Do all people not deserve equal treatment? Then why treat criminals as if they are not, because of a previous negative action? Denying rights is essential to allowing society to deal with those who do not respect rights. We do not respect the right to life, even, when the person in question is an enemy soldier. I will say it time and time again, I am not discussing legality. Things are often both legal and immoral, or moral and illegal. Most of these "rights" you refer to have more to do with the effects such actions have on people. Pets are owned by other humans, and it's best we do not create a society where our adopted-family-pets may be shot and eaten. Hunting animals to extension harms human society as well, and we plainly allow hunters to hunt where it doesn't hurt the environment. Animals ethical treatment while being experimented on is the only area I can really see that doesn't end up with negative consequences on society. However, even in that case, many will say that the mistreatment is justified when the experiments directly do end up creating benefit. Answer this question: a hundred thousand rats tortured, or a cure for cancer? Also there is the fact that a lot of our "moral" ideas are entirely based on empathy, the "oh no the poor thing' when personifying non-human entities. Feeling sorry for fancily edited videos that use carefully picked words to make us feel as bad as possible for some event. Propaganda, essentially, based on nothing but getting people riled up and not actually thinking about what is going on.So not recognizing human rights is ground to not have rights recognized, but as long as they don't recognize rights first we don't have to recognize their rights.
I have never heard a coherent moral or ethical argument for denying human rights to even the worst criminals.
It doesn't do anything to prevent harm to anyone, it doesn't help rehabilitate anyone
Animals ARE included in "deserves rights." Abusing pets is illegal. Abusing wildlife is illegal. Hunting particular animals in particular situations is illegal. Animals have to be treated ethically while being experimented on. Etc.
The German basic law has a principle I like - Your freedoms end where they start to impinge on others'. I think the thing to note here is that criminals are only restricted in the rights they need to be in order to protect others'. And the declaration of human rights is very much a "this is the perfect world"-thing. It has democracy as a right, for example, which some countries still do not have.
That's not human rights though. Crimes are dealt with via the judicial system, and you still get your punishment. They don't get a disproportionate advantage by being allowed to go to school, or anything. Again, human rights are the very lowest common denominator of things everyone should be accorded simply by virtue of being human.
I am not referring to legal crimes, but crimes which are "fundamental". In this aspect, a crime is an action which infringes on the basic human rights of another. Rights, as far as I see them, do not exist inherently, but are a near-universal treaty among human beings to treat each other with a basic level of respect. In order to have rights, you must respect them. Outside of this treaty, or the "look guys I have empathy" play we all put on when we emphasize how sorry we feel for people in pain, rights do not exist. Crimes are dealt with via the judicial system, and you still get your punishment. They don't get a disproportionate advantage by being allowed to go to school, or anything.