The problem has to do with the presence of a steady (perpetual) commission or agency using or manipulating the International System of Human Rights. The presence itself of an organism which is "superior" to the National states is inherently dangerous. There can be a process of devolvement within the legislative capabilities of the State.

In addition, the International System of Human Rights has not a natural duty holder (enforcer). A duty holder of the International System of Human Rights would be in natural contradiction with the duty holder of the National Constitution, namely the State. In legal terms, the International System of Human Rights is subversive towards the State.

The problem has to do with the figure of the duty holder. In the presence of an international agency or commission enforcing the International System of Human Rights, we can underline a principle of subversion or even veiled conflicts of interests. It is something of important. Each Nation is the duty holder of the National Constitution. The International System of Human Rights must not have a duty holder because the latter would be dangerous for the integrity of the State and its enforcement of law and its legislative capabilities.

Power is within a system of expectations. Basically, power is within the law and the usage of law. I intend the epistemology of the National Constitution as competitive and exhaustive. If you intend War Law and, for example, Maritime Law as something that must exist under the form of international law, it may be acceptable. However, the International System of Human Rights has to do mostly with the citizen and his capabilities within the borders of the State. It is not possible to instrumentalize War Law and Maritime Law at the point to conceive the latter as a sort of pre-condition or veiled justification for the production of an International System of Human Rights. The principles of the National Constitution are valid and exhaustive. There is no, at my sight, a way to justify in empirical and pragmatic terms the existence of an International System of Human Rights. I cannot ascribe utility to the System of International Human Rights because of the aprioristic presence of the National Constitution.

A moral system is always equal to a legal system. Certainly, law is subjected to perpetual changes. We cannot intend legality as something that is detached from morality.

Suicide is certainly a destruction of value. Human life (and the human body) do have an economic value. However, the individual has property rights on his life and his body. Suicide is legitimate, it cannot be confuted in moral and legal terms. However, suicide is certainly a brute destruction of value.

In the case you intend the International System of Human Rights as a common denominator for the Nations, it is possible to state that the latter is useless. In the presence of common and dispersed epistemology, the epistemology of the ordinary and contemporary Constitution, there is no meaning in producing an International System of Human Rights. Basically, I'm stating that most of the contemporary Constitutions are characterized by same principles. The International System of Human Rights is redundant and pleonastic.

The point is that the content of International Human Rights resembles the epistemologies of most of the national Constitutions. International Human Rights are pleonastic because they do copy principles that are already within modern Constitutions.