Der Schutz der Menschenrechte durch den IGH

Economic Sanctions Against Human Rights Violations

The Nuremberg tribunal was the expression and the beginning of states' recognition of their duty to prosecute genocide and other gross human rights violations. It was a first step towards fulfillin...

This article examines the relationship between international trade and the growth of human rights abuses. It offers dispute resolution, contract law, and a corporate social agreement to resolve these human rights issues. This article aims to present solutions to the growing human rights abuses in international trade because, throughout history, international trade has been a pillar in uniting societies, cultures, and peoples. With the growth of international trade, international trade law also grew. A key feature of the post-Modern era is the infusion of transnational corporations into every element of international society and culture. A direct result of this influence is a drastic rise in international human rights violations where individuals cannot find protection under international human rights laws or foreign domestic courts because such laws and courts do not have jurisdiction over transnational corporations, creating a perpetual cycle of human rights violations in international trade. This article presents a potential option to remedy these violations through alternative dispute resolution, contract law, and a corporate social agreement. This article employs qualitative and comparative research methodologies. The article includes an overview of historical and philosophical literature to establish how international trade and human rights development have consistently been connected. Additionally, the article analyzes international and state laws to delve into the gaps created by modern-day legal precedents to curtail human rights violations in international commercial trade. Through studying human rights violations within the context of international commercial trade and the existing, relevant international law, this article finds that a combination of alternative dispute resolution, contract law, and corporate social offers an innovative approach to resolving human rights issues faced by the international community. The significance of this article is to draw attention to the human rights violations occurring in the post-modern era due to international trade. Specifically, this article aims to present a workable solution to international human rights violations that can be implemented where international law fails to protect individuals in these situations.

This article critically examines the efficacy of ratifying International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) within the complex relationship between a State’s sovereignty and its pre-existing, non-derogable obligations under international law. Many States may use reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) to ratify treaties like ICERD while managing substantive obligations. This article analyze ICERD’s the challenges of domestic enforcement, scrutinizing how ratification by States, could be diluted by extensive RUDs, thereby analysing whether formal ratification translates to meaningful compliance. This analysis further interprets enforcement lacunae, including the jurisdictional barriers facing the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in adjudicating human rights violations. By contrast, this article uses Malaysia as a critical case study to examine the legal implications of the persistent non-ratification of ICERD, a dimension of the international human rights scholarship that remains insufficiently examined. This article critically examine and analyse the domestic legal context to demonstrate that the State remains legally bound by the international principle of equality and non-discrimination through multiple legal nexus, the UN Charter membership, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as Customary International Law, and the ASEAN Human Rights Framework, which cumulatively reinforce the jus cogens character of racial equality. This analysis advances a novel legal argument by applying the framework of jus cogens norms and constitutional equality principles under Malaysian law, suggesting that non-ratification of ICERD may have implications beyond a neutral exercise of sovereignty. The non-ratification of ICERD constrains the efficacy of the international human rights machinery, avoiding the full scope of external monitoring and legal accountability, and raising questions regarding the alignment of its domestic constitutional integrity. It is submitted that the States that ratify ICERD even with RUDs, demonstrate a foundational commitment to human rights norms despite enforcement complexities. Non-ratification perpetuates structural inequality and directly challenges international mechanisms designed to uphold universal human rights.

The right to rebel is a neglected topic in international law. The reasons for this lack of interest are to be found in the centrality of States as subjects of international law and their understandable reluctance to address non-State violence in terms of right. This approach is reflected in the tendency to look at opposition groups as illegitimate, frequently labeling them as terrorists. However, non-State armed groups are highly heterogeneous and their aims and motivations to use violence should matter at the international law level. This paper argues that the responsibility to protect (R2P) could provide the theoretical basis for the right to rebel against gross and systematic violations of human rights. The R2P doctrine maintains that each State bears the primary responsibility to protect the population within its borders; when it fails to do so, this responsibility is shared with the international community. In extreme circumstances, and where authorized by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), foreign States may use force in order to stop gross and systematic violations of human rights. If international law accepts forcible interventions by States into the internal affairs of other States in order to guard against gross human rights violations, why should it negate the right of the victims of such violations to mount a resistance of its own? International law has increasingly addressed the use of force by States within their borders. International humanitarian law (IHL) regulating non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) is now a fully developed field of studies. On the other hand, State violence in peaceful times has been taken away from the domaine reservee: the respect of international human rights law (IHRL) does matter at the international level, as confirmed by the R2P doctrine. Both R2P and the increasing attention for the respect of human rights by governments are in line with a top-down approach that pervades nearly all fields of international law. States are the central subjects at the international level; what happens within their borders might affect their legitimacy in the eyes of their peers, inter alia, but in no way does it grant a right to rebel to non-state actors within those borders. This paper challenges this traditional top-down approach. Several scholars have demonstrated that non-State actors can become subjects of specific branches of international law, such as IHL and IHRL. Now may be the time to take a step further and recognize a more active role for non-State actors. Victims of heinous human rights violations should not be passive subjects, waiting for foreign States to react to violations of their human rights: granting them rights would be pointless without a related right to defend and protect them. International law would thus regulate both state and non-State violence, and the latter would be legitimate at least when directed to stop massive and systematic human rights violations. This article is organized as follows. First, it focuses on the attempts of international law to address the right to rebel. Generally speaking, international law does not prohibit, nor expressly allow rebellions. Nevertheless, the right to rebel has been at the center of an animated debate through the centuries; furthermore, it has been object of codification at the domestic, regional, and international level. This paper then examines the ways in which the R2P doctrine could operate as legal basis for the right to rebel against human rights violations. Finally, it investigates what could mean, in practice, to recognize a right to rebel, especially with regard to foreign interventions.

Over the last decade, many scholars have argued for the enforcement of international human rights norms by the domestic courts. Those claims are largely normative and there are hardly any empirical arguments advanced in support of the normative arguments. This paper presents an empirical study which examines the enforcement of international human rights norms by the Indian Supreme Court between 1997 and 2008; based on the content analysis of its judicial decisions. With specific focus on the Indian Supreme Court, it examines the reasons, justifications and means for referral to international human rights norms between 1997 and 2008. Firstly, it examines the human rights cases in which the Supreme Court refers to international human rights norms. Then, human rights cases are divided into three categories; those involving: 1. Civil and political rights, 2. Economic, social and cultural Rights and 3. Both. Secondly, techniques developed by the Supreme Court of India for the enforcement of international human rights norms in these three categories of cases are explained. The methodology deployed codes the variables aimed at ascertaining the frequency of the enforcement of international human rights norms by the Supreme Court of India, using different techniques between 1997 and 2008. The study finds that the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence during the years 1997-2008 can be defined as a transitional period, at least when it comes to the enforcement of international human rights norms. The Court has used international human rights norms largely as an interpretative tool, where international human rights norms were taken as a ‘given’ under the international human rights instruments. There are only a few instances where the Court has ‘defined’ what constitute international human rights norms by reading them into customary international law.This paper concludes by suggesting that the Supreme Court of India should take an ‘active,’ informed approach, while referring to international human rights norms, and should enforce international human rights norms by reading them into customary international law where needed; rather than its ‘passive’ approach of referring to international human rights norms for statutory interpretations. The Supreme Court should look at the relationship between international and domestic legal norms as a “co-constitutive, or synergistic,” and should utilize these norms actively as a participant in the dynamic process of developing international law. The Supreme Court must be able to apply customary law on human rights exhaustively and in a fully independent way, in particular, it must be able to verify that the violations of human rights recognized by customary international law are not committed by the executive. While the Supreme Court has been known for its judicial activism, it is time that it is also known for its informed approach and respect towards international human rights norms.

Human rights queryfalse are typically presented in terms of entitlements, correlative duties, claims, “trumps,” and remedies. 1 These framings, which draw principally on law and philosophy, emphasi...

Human Rights are a set of rights that are essentially inherent in humans. This right is natural, cannot be contested or taken away, and applies universally. Violations of human rights occur if these rights are taken away or challenged by other parties. The field of human rights violations is very broad, covering various rights possessed by humans, including in this case regarding land in the agrarian sector. Violations of human rights in the agrarian sector are basically similar to violations of human rights in other fields, the difference being the object of the right that gives rise to the human rights violation. In this case, the object in question is land in the agrarian sector. Indonesian national law and international law have slightly different perspectives regarding human rights violations in the agrarian sector. The difference is regarding control over the agrarian sector. National law has independent rights over the agrarian sector within its territory without interference from other parties outside the country, including international law. However, this form of violation of human rights, even in the agrarian sector, remains the subject of international law, as is the universal principle held by human rights law. To provide protection of rights in the agrarian sector, Indonesian national law applies the provisions of the 1945 Constitution, Law Number 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights, and Law Number 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Agrarian Principles Regulations. Meanwhile, international law applies Convention Number 169 of the International Labor Organization (ILO), as well as the United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Therefore, this writing aims to explain the point of view of how Indonesian national law views human rights violations in the agrarian sector through domestic regulations, as well as how international law through international instruments views human rights violations in the agrarian sector. This writing was also prepared based on normative juridical sources through Indonesian national regulations and related to international instruments. Human Rights are a set of rights that are essentially inherent in humans. This right is natural, cannot be contested or taken away, and applies universally. Violations of human rights occur if these rights are taken away or challenged by other parties. The field of human rights violations is very broad, covering various rights possessed by humans, including in this case regarding land in the agrarian sector. Violations of human rights in the agrarian sector are basically similar to violations of human rights in other fields, the difference being the object of the right that gives rise to the human rights violation. In this case, the object in question is land in the agrarian sector. Indonesian national law and international law have slightly different perspectives regarding human rights violations in the agrarian sector. The difference is regarding control over the agrarian sector. National law has independent rights over the agrarian sector within its territory without interference from other parties outside the country, including international law. However, this form of violation of human rights, even in the agrarian sector, remains the subject of international law, as is the universal principle held by human rights law. To provide protection of rights in the agrarian sector, Indonesian national law applies the provisions of the 1945 Constitution, Law Number 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights, and Law Number 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Agrarian Principles Regulations. Meanwhile, international law applies Convention Number 169 of the International Labor Organization (ILO), as well as the United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Therefore, this writing aims to explain the point of view of how Indonesian national law views human rights violations in the agrarian sector through domestic regulations, as well as how international law through international instruments views human rights violations in the agrarian sector. This writing was also prepared based on normative juridical sources through Indonesian national regulations and related to international instruments.

Over the past decades, there has been a significant increase in the number of armed groups involved in armed conflicts around the world, as well as in their impact on the rights and freedoms of the population under their control. Facing various situations of systematic violations of human rights by non-state actors, experts in the field of international human rights law began to consider the theoretical justification for the mandatory nature of the provisions on the observance and protection of human rights for armed groups. In this regard, a number of scholars have turned to the theory of customary international law, the acceptability of which is being investigated by the author of this paper. The author examines the provisions underlying this theory and the persuasiveness of the argumentation used by its supporters. Based on an analysis of the nature of customary international law, its structural elements, their interpretation by the UN International Court of Justice in its decisions and the relationship of customary international law with peremptory norms of jus cogens, the author concludes that the theory under consideration is currently unable to explain the existence of obligations of armed groups in the field of human rights.

This study investigates the crucial role of international human rights courts in advancing accountability for human rights abuses. Its primary objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of these tribunals in holding accountable those — individuals, states, and non-state actors are to blame for major human rights violations. As part of the research methodology, relevant literature, case studies, and legal decisions from international human rights tribunals are thoroughly examined. The International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Court of Justice, and local human rights courts are all part of this. The scope of the investigation includes War crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, torture, and enforced disappearances. The findings underscore the substantial contribution made by international human rights courts in ensuring justice, truth-seeking, and redress for victims of human rights abuses. These tribunals have played a pivotal role in establishing legal precedents, clarifying the extent of human rights obligations, and fostering international cooperation to address impunity. The study also explores the challenges confronted by international human rights courts, including limited jurisdiction, enforcement capacity, and political opposition. Additionally, it examines potential synergies between international tribunals and national justice systems to strengthen accountability mechanisms at both the international and domestic levels. The findings of this study have significant implications for policymakers, individuals who advocate for human rights, and those who work in the legal field because they highlight the importance of a powerful and independent international human rights court in promoting accountability and providing justice for victims of human rights violations all over the world.

This study examines alleged human rights violations in Palestine that may amount to genocide, using a normative juridical approach grounded in international law. It assesses whether Israel's actions meet the elements of genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention and evaluates the effectiveness of international legal mechanisms in addressing such crimes. The research employs a normative juridical method integrating statutory, case-based, and conceptual approaches. It systematically analyzes international legal instruments, decisions of international courts, and relevant legal theories concerning genocide and human rights. The findings reveal that Israel's conduct—including targeted attacks on civilians, the destruction of vital infrastructure, the imposition of prolonged economic blockades, and the expansion of illegal settlements—exhibits strong indicators of war crimes and potentially fulfills the elements of genocide under international law. While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) possess jurisdiction to address such violations, enforcing international legal norms encounters significant barriers. These include the influence of global political power, veto rights in the United Nations Security Council, and systemic biases that shield certain state actors from accountability. This study concludes that although a robust legal framework exists to respond to human rights violations in Palestine, the implementation of international law remains limited due to entrenched geopolitical interests. To address these shortcomings, the international community must pursue structural reforms in the global legal order and foster collective efforts to protect human rights and ensure accountability. By offering a critical legal analysis, this study contributes to the academic discourse on international human rights and humanitarian law and supports more effective advocacy strategies to combat impunity and uphold justice in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In the twenty-first century, after more than 60 years of development1 since its rise to prominence worldwide, the modern human rights system has become a common, even popular, public and policy dis...

The proliferation of international human rights treaties, committees and courts over the last sixty years represents enormous achievement. International human rights laws are now asserted throughout the world by individuals of many cultures and traditions. Yet, at the same time international human rights ideas and principles continue to have difficulty in manifesting their relevance in the daily lives of those who are geographically and culturally distant from international institutions Two new books - William Twining’s Human Rights, Southern Voices: Francis Deng, Abdullahi An-Na’im, Yash Ghai, Upendra Baxi, and Helen Stacy’s Human Rights for the 21st Century - address aspects of this paradox and lay the foundations for exciting changes in the international human rights regime to facilitate greater human rights permeation and legitimacy for actors globally in the 21st century. In this Essay, I provide a critical account of some important remaining gaps in the literature on international human rights theory and practice. I argue that notwithstanding the fact that giving voice to those oppressed is a main function of the movement and that the meaning of human rights must be grounded in local culture at grassroots levels, relatively little scholarship bases its analyses on the discourse of the subjects of international human rights law and particularly those actually involved in human rights violations cases in the global South. What are victims’ and legal actors’ conceptions and expectations of human rights and their agendas and experiences in processing their cases? What factors affect their attitudes and behavior in this context? Such knowledge is critical in order to obtain a comprehensive picture of the workings of human rights on the ground. It is also key to enable greater comprehension of local, Southern actors’ needs, epistemologies and micro-realities. As such, bottom-up perspectives from local actors must inform macro-level scholarly conversations on human rights as well as policies aimed at improving respect for human rights at grassroots levels. I provide some such data from a forthcoming book, grounded in interpretive theory and based on the perspectives of legal and lay actors involved in the processing of human rights violation cases of violence against women in India. Actors’ discourses contextualize some of the issues set out in both volumes. The Essay further links actors’ understandings and objectives to norm diffusion theory in the international relations literature and to vernacularization theory in the law and anthropology literature, which like both reviewed books engage the issue of the permeation of human rights standards to grassroots levels. The Essay additionally argues that on the basis that a culturally plural universalism in human rights is an acceptable aim, we are in dire need of a new integrated analytical framework. This framework must be grounded not only in the perspectives of Southern actors, but must simultaneously imbed their epistemologies within the realities of human rights case processing in the legally pluralistic global South. This involves not only formal courts but also informal justice or quasi-legal non-State justice systems processing human rights cases. Drawing on insights from both books, I conclude with a call for more research into Southern actors’ human rights perspectives, including interpretive accounts of their contextual realities. Such knowledge is critical in order to innovatively engage the controversies in international human rights theory and practice and to assist human rights organizations and advocates to become more relevant to the poor and the oppressed. As such, they will be better able to effect realizable change for the subjects of human rights in the global South.

The situation in Palestine has influenced the deployment of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The impact of longterm Israeli occupation and the rule of the Palestinian Authority in the Occupied Territory is multifaceted. Despite the various research on Palestine, human rights, and the rule of law, few studies have been conducted on the enforcement mechanisms of human rights in Palestine. This study examines the applicability of international human rights and humanitarian laws as well as domestic laws to assess the contribution of these directives in protecting the fundamental human rights of Palestinians in the Occupied Territory. It conducts an in-depth case study of three basic rights: the right to movement, the right to property, and the right to equality and non-discrimination in the Occupied Territory. The study further examines the role of the Palestinian High Court of Justice and the Israeli Supreme Court in implementing domestic and international laws. In this regard, the study examines the major laws which are invoked, in certain circumstances, to limit the ability of Palestinians to confiscate, expropriate, and destruct their private property, and to implement discriminatory practices against them. The study further examines whether the available international and domestic mechanisms are effective, and if not, it suggests modifications upon which a functional national and international system could be built. The findings of the research demonstrate that international human rights treaties and international humanitarian law conventions are de facto and de jure applicable in the Occupied Territory. As a result of the aforementioned in-depth study cases, it can be concluded that human rights violations against Palestinians in the Occupied Territory are committed by the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government. In addition, the Palestinian and the Israeli judiciaries have failed to grant Palestinians reasonable protection or a just remedy, and they are dysfunctional and politically driven. The study concludes with a proposal for new mechanisms for Palestinians to redress human rights violations. The further outcomes of this study argue that neither international human rights nor humanitarian law guarantee full protection for Palestinians. Hence, the implication of the findings indicates that the regulations of international human rights and humanitarian laws, which were made by the powers of the nineteenth century with their colonial provisions, might not fit to the present complications of the current challenges to international law in Palestine. The goal is to promote a re-thinking approach to the employment of human rights to serve all people in an efficient and well-organized system. The scope of this study is not meant to grant Palestinians favorable treatment in the multilateral international system, but to achieve just and successful remedies for victims of human rights violations.

Written by an international judge, professor and former ambassador with decades of experience in the field, this is an incisive and highly readable book about international law as well as realpolitik in bilateral and multilateral diplomacy in the quest for justice by victims of serious human rights violations amounting to grave crimes of international concern. Focusing on the plight of the ethnic and religious group of persons called the ‘Rohingya’, normally residing in Myanmar, as the case study, the book elaborates the complex legal technicalities and impediments in international courts and foreign domestic criminal courts exercising ‘universal jurisdiction’ in relation to acts amounting to genocide, crimes against humanity and/or war crimes. It builds on and adds value to existing literature on the international law applicable to the protection of human rights as interpreted by the International Court of Justice as well as that on the international criminal justice meted out by domestic criminal courts, ad hoc international criminal tribunals and the permanent International Criminal Court. The book will be essential reading for students, researchers and academics in public international law, international criminal law, international human rights law as well as government officials and those working for NGOs and international organizations with mandates in these fields.