INTERNATIONAL

HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

What are human rights?
 Human rights are inherent rights held by all
persons equally, universally, and forever.
○ Universal
○ Inalienable
○ Indivisible
○ Interdependent
Reflect basic human needs
Claim rights, accept responsibilities
“Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the
equal and inalienable rights of all members of
the human family is the foundation of freedom,
justice, and peace in the world.”

- Preamble, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 Precursors of 20th Century Human Rights
 The Magna Carta (1215)
 English Bill of Rights (1689)
 French Declaration on the
Rights of Man and Citizen
(1789)
 US Constitution and Bill of
Rights (1791)
 Common to these
landmark instruments is
the exclusion of women,
many minorities, and
members of certain social,
religious, economic, and
political groups.
Magna Carta Libertatum (1215)
 The Charter agreed to by King
John of England to make
peace with the rebel barons.
 Neither side stood by their
commitments, and was
annulled by Pope Innocent III.
 Became part of England’s
statutes by 1297.
English Bill of Rights (1689)
 It settled all of the major
issues between the King
and the Parliament.
 It served as a model for
the US Bill of Rights.
 It formed a base for the
steady expansion of civil
liberties in the 18th and 19th
centuries in England.
French Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789)

 Product of the first stage of the

French Revolution
 Property, liberty, security,
“resistance to oppression,”—
natural rights
 Freedom of speech; religious
toleration
 Equality before the law
 Sovereignty resides in the
people.
US Constitution and Bill of Rights (1791)
 Concept of limited
government (Thomas
Jefferson)
 Bill of Rights added as
amendments.
 Distinct division of powers
among the 3 branches.
Paris Peace Conference (1919-1920)
 The meeting that inaugurated the international
settlement after WWI
 Birth of the Supreme Council of Five which
monopolized all decision making:
France, Britain, US, Italy, Japan
○ Covenant of the League of Nations
○ Treaty of Versailles (Germany)
○ Treaty of Saint-Germain (Austria)
○ Treaty of Neuilly (Bulgaria)
The League of Nations (1919-1946)
 Came into being after WWI
 Sole task is to ensure that war would never
broke out again
 Many states looked to the League to bring
stability to the world.
League of Nations
 Settlement of disputes
States in dispute were called on to sit down
and settle orderly and peacefully.
 Verbal sanctions
 Economic sanctions
 Physical sanctions
The League of Nations
 Three of the world’s most powerful nations
played no part in supporting the League:
The US, whose president (Woodrow Wilson) came up
with the idea of the creation of the League, refused to
join it.
Germany, because it started the war.
Russia, because of the communist government that
generated fear in Western Europe.
League of Nations: Successes v. Failures

 Territorial disputes  Economic dispute

 Aaland Islands (1920)  Teschen (1919)
 Upper Silesia (1921)
 Vilna (1922)
 Territorial dispute
 Memel (1923)  Vilna (1920)
 Common border dispute  War
 Greece and Bulgaria  Russia and Poland (1920-
 World Health Organization 1921)
 International Labor Organization  The Invasion of the Ruhr
 Humanitarian aid (1923)
 Turkey(1923)  Italy and Albania (1923)
Human Rights: Global Awareness
 Catalysts that  Establishment of the United
propelled human Nations and its Charter in 1945
 Universal Declaration of Human
rights onto the Rights (1948)
global arena: ○ International Covenant on Civil and
 Struggles of colonial Political Rights
○ International Covenant on
nations to assert their
Economic, Social and Cultural
independence Rights
 WWII  Both adopted in 1966; enforced in
1976
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The ICCPR
 Specific, liberty-oriented
rights
 “Thou shalt nots”
 States may not take away
these rights from their
citizens at any time.
 No interference from the
states.
The ICESCR
 Define an individual’s right
to self-determination
 Basic necessities
 States should take efforts to
provide as far as it is able.
 May be derogated during
“official emergencies”
Implementation: UN ECOSOC
 1503 Procedure  1235 Procedure
 Confidential  Annual public debates
 Public shaming

Human Rights
ECOSOC Security Council
Commission
Settlement of International Disputes
 International dispute
 A disagreement on a point of
law or fact, a conflict of legal
views or interests between
two parties.
 A disagreement is not a
dispute if its resolution would
have no practical effect on
the relationship between the
parties.
 No general obligation to
settle disputes, except
those that might endanger
peace and security.
 Examples:
 Treaty interpretations
 State boundaries
 State responsibility
Gross Violations of Human Rights
International Court of Justice International Criminal Court

 Judicial organ of the UN  Independent body

established in 1945 created by the 1998
 Successor to the Rome Statute
Permanent Court of  Treaty with UN in force in
International Justice 2002
(established by the
League of Nations)
Jurisdiction
International Court of Justice International Criminal Court

 All cases which the  Cases of genocide, crimes

parties may refer to it against humanity, war
 Parties are State- crimes, crime of
aggression
members only.
 Parties are individuals, not
 Judgment is final and
states.
without appeal.  Judgment may be
appealed.
Cases
 GERMANY OBJECTS TO US EXECUTION OF ITS NATIONALS

LaGrand Case (Germany v USA)

Two German brothers were sentenced to death for crimes committed in Arizona but had not been
made aware of their consular rights. Germany took the matter to the International Court of
Justice which confirmed that international treaties—other than human rights instruments—may
confer enforceable rights on individuals.

In 1984 two German nationals living in the United States, the brothers Karl and Walter LaGrand,
were both convicted of murder in the first degree, attempted robbery, and two counts of
kidnapping, and were sentenced to death by the Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona.
The LaGrand brothers challenged their conviction and sentence before the Supreme Court of
Arizona and the US Supreme Court; the latter denied their applications in exercise of its
discretion. A second procedure under the law of US criminal procedure, the post-conviction relief
proceedings,was equally unsuccessful and rejected by the US Supreme Court in 1991.
Cases
 GERMANY OBJECTS TO US EXECUTION OF ITS NATIONALS

It was only in June 1992 that the German authorities were contacted by the LaGrand
brothers themselves who had learned about their rights from a fellow inmate. Between
1992 and 1999 the German authorities had several meetings with the LaGrands and
claimed that they helped the LaGrands’ attorneys to investigate the LaGrands’ childhood
in Germany in order to prepare their defence for further proceedings before the federal
courts.

After final dismissal of the habeas corpus claim, as well as the petition for clemency of
the LaGrands and unsuccessful attempts of German politicians to have the executions
suspended, Karl LaGrand was executed on 24 February 1999. The execution of Walter
LaGrand was scheduled for
3 March 1999.
Cases Everyone Should Know
 THE STATE CANNOT HIDE BEHIND PARAMILITARY FORCES

Case of the Mapiripán Massacre

Paramilitary groups, narcotics trafficking organizations tried to take control of the area where
the town of Mapiripán was located because of its strategic position in the cocaine-growing
business. In 1997 the Colombian army allowed planes flown by paramilitaries to land without
documenting the flights and provided the paramilitary forces with transport to Mapiripán. On 14
July 1997, the paramilitary forces surrounded Mapiripán, wearing uniforms restricted for
military use, and carrying long and short range weapons, also restricted for military use. The
paramilitaries took control of the town, beat, kidnapped, and tortured community members
killing approximately 49 people, torturing, dismembering, and decapitating many of the victims.
The family members watched their loved ones being dragged and later recovered their bodies.
Colombia was found by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to be internationally
responsible for the human rights violations perpetrated by a paramilitary group in Mapiripán
because the group acted with the collaboration and support of state agents.
Cases Everyone Should Know
 Prosecutor vs. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir

From March, 2003 to at least 14 July 2008, a protracted armed conflict not of an
international character existed in Darfur between the Government of Sudan (GoS) and
several organised armed groups, in particular the Sudanese Liberation Movement/Army
and the Justice and Equality Movement . Soon after the April, 2003 attack on the El
Fasher airport, Omar Al Bashir and other high-ranking Sudanese political and military
leaders of the GoS agreed upon a common plan to carry out a counter-insurgency
campaign against the SLM/A, the JEM and other armed groups opposing the
Government of Sudan in Darfur. A core component of that campaign was the unlawful
attack on part of the civilian population of Darfur – belonging largely to the Fur, Masalit
and Zaghawa groups – who were perceived to be close to the organised armed groups
opposing the Government of Sudan in Darfur.
Prosecutor vs. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir

 The campaign was conducted through GoS forces,

including the Sudanese Armed Forces and their
allied Janjaweed militia, the Sudanese Police
Forces, the National Intelligence and Security
Service (NISS) and the Humanitarian Aid
Commission (HAC). It lasted at least until the date
of the filing of the Prosecution Application on 14 July
2008.
The suspect remains at large in spite of the arrest warrants issued against him. On 13
December 2011, Pre-Trial chamber I decided that the Republic of Malawi failed to comply with
the cooperation requests issued by the Court with respect to the arrest and surrender of Omar
Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir during his visit on 14 October 2011. The decision was referred to the
President for transmission to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and to the Assembly
of the States Parties (ASP) to take the necessary measures they deem appropriate. On 13
December 2011, Pre-Trial chamber I decided that the Republic of Chad failed to cooperate with
the Court in the arrest and surrender of Omar Al Bashir during his visit on 7 and 8 August 2011.
The decision was referred to the President for transmission to the UNSC and to the ASP. On
26 March 2013, Pre-Trial chamber II issued a 2 nd decision in relation to Chad as the Republic
of Chad failed to cooperate with the Court in the arrest and surrender Omar Al Bashir during
his visit 16-17 February 2013. The decision was referred to the President for transmission to
the UNSC and to the ASP. On 9 April 2014, Pre-Trial Chamber II found that the Democratic
Republic of the Congo failed to cooperate with the Court by not arresting and surrendering
Omar Al Bashir to the Court during his visit to the DRC on 26 and 27 February 2014. The
Chamber referred the matter to both the UNSC and the ASP. On 9 March 2015, Pre-Trial
Chamber II decided that the Republic of Sudan failed to cooperate with the Court by not
arresting and surrendering Omar Al Bashir to the Court over the last years.