Individuals In International Law Research Articles

The concept of the international legal status of an individual in modern legal thought: historiography of the problem

The article is dedicated to defining the content and features of the category of international legal status of an individual in modern domestic and foreign historiography (late ХХ – early ХХІ century). The paper provides an analysis of the scientific views of Ukrainian and foreign scientists on the concept of the legal status of an individual as a fundamental category of law. The scientific positions of lawyers regarding the structural elements of the system of legal status of a person are considered. The question of the relationship between the concepts of the legal status and the legal position of a person in modern legal thought is highlighted. The existence of discrepancies in the understanding of the content of the category of international legal status of an individual in the historiography of the investigated issues of the late ХХ – early ХХІ century is emphasized. Consideration peculiarities of the concept of the international legal status of persons by domestic and foreign scientists in the context of debates about the legal personality of individuals in international law are described. The possibility of the existence of a category of international legal status of a person without the need for recognition of international legal personality of an individual is indicated. Emphasis is placed on the peculiarities of the concept of the legal status of an individual in international law as a result of the adoption of international legal norms regarding the status of natural persons. The existence of a set of scientific views regarding the international legal status of an individual as a system of rights and freedoms, duties and responsibilities of a person established at the international level is revealed. The article notes that the mentioned broad understanding of the category of the international legal status of an individual is not given sufficient attention in modern domestic and foreign historiography on the studied issues. The uncertainty of the list of structural elements of the category of the international legal status of a person is underlined. Finally, the unity of scientific positions of legal scholars regarding the rights and freedoms of a person recognized by international community as the main structural element of a complex system of the international legal status of an individual is established.

Inter-regime conversations: What barriers persist for individuals in international law?

AbstractIndividuals have long occupied a precarious position within international law. Historically, conceived as the relation between states, international law rarely saw a need to consider individual claims; it was, instead, the role of states to bring claims on behalf of their nationals. As international law has become increasingly fragmented, however, globalization has thrust the individual onto the international legal plane.Within this landscape, we briefly consider individuals’ claims across three separate international regimes: (i) the International Court of Justice, (ii) investment treaties, and (iii) the World Trade Organization. We find that barriers for individuals’ recognition as rights holders persist across each. First, jurisdictional barriers remain fundamentally problematic for recognizing individuals’ claims. Second, the longstanding focus on treaty interpretation techniques has yielded little, if any, demonstrable impact on recognizing individuals’ rights. Third, mere reliance on reflecting human rights values, rather than specific and concrete structural reforms, has proven incompatible with realizing individuals’ rights within these three systems.Individuals qua rights holders have, rather acutely, recently experienced deeply troubling human rights violations on several fronts. Fundamentally, international law must protect human rights. This moment invites us to consider the systems on the international legal plane for individuals to seek such remedy and what barriers must be addressed to further such efforts.

The main aspects of the complete or partial non-recognition of the legal personality of individuals in international law

The main aspects of the complete or partial non-recognition of the legal personality of individuals in international law

Халықаралық құқықта мемлекет пен жеке тұлға жауапкершілігін әрі қарай жетілдірудің жекелеген мәселелері

Халықаралық құқықта мемлекет пен жеке тұлға жауапкершілігін әрі қарай жетілдірудің жекелеген мәселелері

Towards a Right to Democratic Governance in International Law

In its classical positivist tradition international law was not concerned with the internal structures of states, nor did it recognise the place of actors other than states; rather it espoused the concept of domestic jurisdiction and non-interference in the domestic affairs of states as evident in the Charter of the United Nations. Nevertheless, international law has progressed from its traditional state-centrism to an acknowledgement of the place of individuals in international law as highlighted by the development of the field of human rights. The aversion of traditional international law theorists to contemplate matters of purely national law or constitutional law, such as how a government is formed, has been challenged by the rise of democratic governments within state structures in Europe and Africa following the end of the Cold War. With the articulation of a democratic entitlement to individuals in the International Bill of Rights, as well as the aforementioned rise in democratic governments and the work of the United Nations, regional organisations, civil society in democracy and democratisation, a discourse on democratic governance has been inaugurated, opening up international law to a consideration of matters of constitutional law, which hitherto were uncharted waters.

Lorimer’s Private Citizens of the World

In contrast to its notorious legal differentiation of communities into civilized, barbarous and savage, there is no systematic treatment of individuals in James Lorimer’s The Institutes of the Law of Nations (1883). This article pieces together Lorimer’s account of the legal status of individuals in international law and suggests why this account should be of contemporary interest. It identifies three figures of the individual in the Institutes and uses them – Lorimer’s ‘private citizens of the world’ in particular – to dislodge the textbook stories of the individual as an emerging subject of international law. Employed as a lens, private citizens of the world can focus us on the extent to which a variety of otherwise unrelated theories, critiques, proposals and developments restore or refract such attributes, and on the exclusion of certain features and impacts of the individual from today’s public international law.

Compensating Civilians during War: A Place for Individuals in International Law

Although civilian immunity is among the most widely agreed-upon norms of war, civilians are often attacked in contemporary conflicts. To some extent, the harm may be mitigated by programs to compensate the victims of wars. This article explores the three legal statutes and two forms of direct payment that the United States uses to compensate civilians harmed in wars and argues that although these are improvements in the treatment of civilians, they are inadequate. We argue that an individual cause of action in international law would provide a much better means of allowing civilians harmed by wars to seek compensation.

Is the Rome Statute Binding on Individuals? (And Why We Should Care)

This article examines whether the Rome Statute is binding on individuals, i.e. whether its provisions which define international crimes are substantive or jurisdictional in nature. This question cannot be resolved by the text of the Statute alone. It is both vexing and fundamental, and has significant conceptual and practical consequences. If the Statute is only jurisdictional in nature, then the source of substantive norms of criminal law binding on individuals must be elsewhere, primarily in customary law. If this is so, then the Statute could never go beyond customary law, even though it arguably attempts to do so in several instances, and any individual accused before the Court should be able to mount a challenge as to whether the charges against him have a basis in customary law. If, on the other hand, the Statute is seen as being substantive in nature, then the Statute — a treaty — must be binding on individuals who have never consented to be bound by it, nor could have done so. Then it may well go beyond customary law, but it would potentially run afoul of the nullum crimen sine lege principle in two cases — when a particular situation has been referred to the Court by the UN Security Council or by a non-state party — since the supposedly substantive Statute could not have been binding on the individuals concerned at the time that they allegedly committed their offence. These issues have been already raised (in Lubanga, its first case), and will be raised before the Court, as with the declaration lodged by Palestine whereby it accepted the Court's jurisdiction for Gaza, or with regard to the situation in Darfur. The article argues that the best approach in such situations is for the Court to ‘read down’ the Statute so as to conform to customary law that was binding on the individuals in question at the relevant time. This, however, is not the only solution open to the Court, and the article examines others. In doing so, it also deals with broader issues of when and how treaties can directly bind individuals in international law.

The Position of Individuals in International Law: An ILC Perspective

According to the ILC Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, any state to which an erga omnes obligation is owed may claim reparation in the interest of an individual who is the victim of an infringement and the beneficiary of the obligation. The ILC Articles on Diplomatic Protection should have specified that also the state of nationality may seek reparation only in the interest of the injured individual when his or her rights have been infringed.

The Evolution of the Right of Individuals to Seise the European Court of Human Rights

In at least two ways the year 2009 was a milestone for the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, the Court). On the bright side, the Court could celebrate its 50th anniversary and its continuous role as principal promoter of human rights in the 47 Member States of the Council of Europe (CoE, the Council). However, 2009 was also the year in which the number of pending cases before the Court passed the disturbing 100 000 benchmark. Paradoxically, the main reason for both the Court’s success and its current crisis is the right of petition of individuals. The present article contains a detailed inquiry into the coming into existence of this central feature of the control machinery of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR, the Convention) that was labeled a breakthrough in the field of human rights as well as in general international law. Parts I-IV of the article provide a chronological account of the drafting processes leading up to the adoption of the ECHR in 1950, and Protocol 9 in 1990. In analysis of reports and meeting minutes from a number of organs set up in the realm of the Council, the study concentrates on two main questions: Why did the original Convention end up excluding individuals from the proceedings of the ECtHR? And what changed in the time between 1950 and 1990 to facilitate the individual’s right to seise the Court independently? As parts I-IV reveal, the development of the ECHR control machinery provides an interesting example of the interplay – or rather lack of same – between the practical decision-making among the parties to a convention and international legal theory. Part V reflects on the extent to which the theoretical discussion on the position of individuals in international law influenced the evolution of the right of individuals to seise the ECtHR.

KEDUDUKAN INDIVIDU DALAM HUKUM INTERNASIONAL

Rethinking of the role of person or individuals in international law has become more significant due to the development of branches of international law; the international criminal law, international human rights law and international humanitarian law. This essay focuses on issue of law enforcement of individuals responsibility toward international wrongful acts, mechanisms and their futher development. Historical development is used as a point of view in this essay to reach conclusion of the role of individuals in international law.

Re Woods

International law in general — Relation to municipal law — Treaty — Whether part of municipal law — Universal Declaration of Human Rights — The law of IrelandThe individual in international law — In general — Position of individuals in international law — Human rights — Universal Declaration of Human Rights — Whether part of municipal law — Interpretation — Article 4 — Meaning of ‘slavery or servitude’ — Whether extending to sentence of penal servitude — The law of Ireland552Treaties — Operation and enforcement of treaties — Whether treaty part of municipal law — Universal Declaration of Human Rights — Whether part of the municipal law — Article 4 — Servitude — Meaning of — The law of Ireland

In re Flick and Others.

Individuals in International Law — Fundamental Rights of — Crimes against Humanity — Nature and Punishment of — Offences against Property in Occupied Territory as Constituting Crimes against Humanity.Subjects of Laws of War — !Individual Responsibility for the Commission of War Crimes.War Crimes — !Punishment of-Principle of Nullum Crimen Sine Lege.War Crimes — Punishment of — Plea of Necessity and of Superior Orders.Belligerent Occupation — Respect for Property — Seizure and Exploitation of Public and Private Property — Hague Regulations — Jurisdiction of United States Military Tribunals — Principle of Nullum Crimen Sine Lege — Individual Responsibility for War Crimes — Crimes against Humanity — Pleas of Necessity and of Superior Orders.

Gschwind v. Swiss Confederation.

Position of Individuals in International Law — Aliens — Protection by the Home State — Nature of the Legal Relation between the Home State and the National in Whose Favour Diplomatic Protection is Exercised — Discretion of the Political Department — Claim against the State on account of Inadequate Protection — Nature of the Claim against the Foreign State.

Mexican Union Railway (Limited).

State Responsibility — Denial of Justice — Calvo Clause — Exhaustion of Legal Remedies.Claims — Character of — Calvo Clause — Denial of Justice.Arbitration — Law Applied by Arbitral Tribunals — British Answer to the Questionnaire in connection with Codification of International Law.207Position of Individuals in International Law — Exclusion of Protection by Home State — Limits of the Calvo Clause — Private Nature of International Claims — Denial of Justice.

Menge v. Polish Railway Administration.

Protected and Vassal States and Protectorates — Danzig and Poland — Subjection of Polish Railway Administration to Danzig Jurisdiction.Operation and Enforcement of Treaties — Effect of Treaties on Individuals — Rights Conferred by Treaties Directly upon Private Persons when Contracting Parties so Intend.International Treaties as Conferring Rights Directly upon Individuals when Contracting Parties so Intend — Position of Individuals in International Law — Agreement between Poland and Danzig concerning Railway Officials.

North American Dredging Company of Texas Case.

Position of Individuals in International Law — Whether Able to Modify their Position under International Law — Relevance to the Calvo Clause.

Russian-German Commercial Treaty Case.

Position of Individuals In International Law — Termination of Treaties as Directly Affecting Rights of Private Individuals.

Spanish-German Extradition Treaty Case.

Individuals in International Law — Rights of Individuals under Extradition Treaties.Political Crimes — Rights of Individuals under Extradition Treaties — Extradition for Common Murder — Prosecution and Conviction for a Political Crime.