The declaration then goes onto list a number of the fundamental responsibilities for humanity, many of which can be applied to the question for above. Article one for example states that every person regardless of gender, ethnic origin, social status, language, age, nationality or religion has a responsibility to treat all people in a humane way. The wording of the article is clearly set out to emphasise that such behaviours should transgress the traditional nation state boundaries. Article three also casts doubt on the moral authority of the nation state, stating that no person, group or organisation, no state, army of police stands above good and evil; all are subject to ethical standards. Article four continues the theme of a common humanity stating that all people, endowed with reason and conscience, must accept a responsibility to each and all, to families and communities, to races, nations and religions. It concludes: what you do not wish to be done to yourself, do not do to others. The sentiments of the declaration are noble and few good argue that they have a solid moral grounding, yet the immediate reaction on reading its articles is that they are idealistic and impractical within the nation state system. National leaders with a realist view of international relations may agree with the general principles whilst carrying out policies quite the contrary in order to protect the interests of their own nation state.