> The argument was about their exile, not their assets being seized.
A fair point, I did pivot back from answering this regarding exile.
If we consider why a set of international human rights principles were pushed in the first place, it was to act as a preventative measure against totalitarian governments abusing their citizens, and in particular, was a reaction to how the Nazis brutalized and killed millions of people during and prior to WW2.
What it wasn't intended for, is restricting how exactly to transfer power within a state.
Article 9 of the UHDR states that:
> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
The key qualifying word here is "arbitrary". For ordinary citizens, this is taken to mean that due process and the rule of law must be applied. For a head of state who is ordinarily immune from prosecution (as the Queen and her family are), it can't mean this, because the normal due process doesn't apply to them.
So if Britain did abolish its monarchy, the only interpretation of "arbitrary" that makes sense here is that the monarchy be treated according to the protocols decided for establishing the new republic. And if this statute outlines a process for exile, then so be it.
(Conversely, if it says nothing about exile, but the new government attempts to do so anyway, then this may well be in breach of Article 9.)
> Of course, if the new law target only the former monarchs, and not every similarly wealthy man, then it goes against the other human right of fair justice and æquality before the law.
As noted above, this already doesn't apply to the royal family. They are protected from any legal consequences for their actions that would apply to an ordinary citizen.
Targeting them specifically would simply be redressing this imbalance of justice and power.
A fair point, I did pivot back from answering this regarding exile.
If we consider why a set of international human rights principles were pushed in the first place, it was to act as a preventative measure against totalitarian governments abusing their citizens, and in particular, was a reaction to how the Nazis brutalized and killed millions of people during and prior to WW2.
What it wasn't intended for, is restricting how exactly to transfer power within a state.
Article 9 of the UHDR states that:
> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
The key qualifying word here is "arbitrary". For ordinary citizens, this is taken to mean that due process and the rule of law must be applied. For a head of state who is ordinarily immune from prosecution (as the Queen and her family are), it can't mean this, because the normal due process doesn't apply to them.
So if Britain did abolish its monarchy, the only interpretation of "arbitrary" that makes sense here is that the monarchy be treated according to the protocols decided for establishing the new republic. And if this statute outlines a process for exile, then so be it.
(Conversely, if it says nothing about exile, but the new government attempts to do so anyway, then this may well be in breach of Article 9.)
> Of course, if the new law target only the former monarchs, and not every similarly wealthy man, then it goes against the other human right of fair justice and æquality before the law.
As noted above, this already doesn't apply to the royal family. They are protected from any legal consequences for their actions that would apply to an ordinary citizen.
Targeting them specifically would simply be redressing this imbalance of justice and power.