Page 50 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

may apply not only to states in their mutual relations, but United Nations suggest that, either by the growth of inter-
also to individuals in their relations with states and even to national law or by convention, internationally-recognized
) interrelationships among individuals. 163 For example, a human rights may be asserted by an individual even
treaty may create rights and obligations for individuals against his own state. 169 A comprehensive survey of
that are enforceable in the national courts of the contract- these recent developments is beyond the scope of this
ing states. 164 Similarly, a treaty may confer upon in- chapter. 170 The principal documents involved in the
dividuals direct rights of international action. 165 Thus, it emerging law of international human rights are certain ar-
is clear that individuals may have both rights and duties ticles of the U.N. Charter, 171 the Universal Declaration
arising from international law, and that they may properly of Human Rights, 172 and the so-called Human Rights
be regarded in certain contexts as subjects of international Covenants. 173 Although the Charter provisions and the
law. Lauterpacht sums up the point: Declaration are not directly binding on U.N. member-
The question whether individuals in any given case are subjects of inter- states, municipal courts may nevertheless treat them as
national law and whether that quality extends to the capacity of enforce- indicative of public policy or even as part of the law of the
ment must be answered pragmatically by reference to the given situation land, and thus give them effect in adjudicated cases. 174
and to the relevant international instrument. That instrument may Moreover, international tribunals may treat these provi-
make them subjects of the law without conferring upon them procedural
capacity; it may aim at, and achieve, both these objects. 166 sions, or at least some of them, asbeing part of customary
international law and hence binding on all states. 175 As
b. An individual who suffers an international legal
wrong at the hands of a state other than his own usually for the various Human Rights Covenants, they are, of
will not have access to an international adjudicatory body. course, intended to operate as treaties. Oncein force, such
In the absence of a treaty authorizing the individual to conventions would legally obligate states that become par-
take independent steps in his own name to enforce his ties to them to accord specific rights to all individuals. 176
rights, he must look to his national state for the espousal It is not apparent, however, what means are available to
of his claim in the international arena. His national state is
169. Leech, supa note 28, at 629.
not required to take up his claim, but may do so if it 170. For a useful collection of basic materials on international
wishes. It is a basic principle of international law that a human rights, see id., at 606-655; Friedmann, supra note 20, at
state is entitled to protect its subjects when they have been 217-235.
injured by acts contrary to international law committed by 171. The Charter refers generally to fundamental human rights in
articles 1(3), 55(c), 62(2), 68, and 76(c). It does not, however, defme
another state from whom they have been unable to obtain
these rights in any detail.
satisfaction. 167 In doing so, the protecting state makes the 172. G.A. Res. 217, U.N. Doc. A1810 at 71. The Declaration
case its own and becomes, in the eyes of the international proclaims the rights listed therein as a "common standard of achieve-
tribunal that hears the case, the sole claimant. 168 ment for all peoples and all nations." It includes such rights as equal
protection of the law, the right to a fair hearing, to freedom from torture
3-21. International Law and Human Rights. a. As in- or degrading punishment, to freedom of movement and asylum,to mar-
dicated in the preceding paragraph, the violation of the ry and found a family, to work, and to form and join trade unions.
human rights of an alien can be redressed at the interna- These and the other rights set forth in the Declaration apply to "all
tional level through processes initiated by the injured in- human beings," to "everyone." In the words of the U.S. representative
dividual's national state. Options available to the injured in the General Assembly, "It [the Declaration] is not a treaty; it is not
an international agreement. It is not and does not purport to be a state-
individual's state include diplomatic protest, international
ment of law or of legal obligations. 19 Dep't State Bull. 751 (1948).
arbitration, and international adjudication. Recent 173. International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural
developments in human rights law under the aegis of the Rights, G.A. Res. 2200, 21 U.N. Gaor Supp 16, at 49, U.N. Doc.
A/6316 (1966); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, id.
163. Id. at 52. Neither is yet in force. There are many other conventions already
164. See Advisory Opinion on the Jurisdiction of the Courts of in force dealing with human rights but the U.S. is party to very few of
Danzig, [I9281 P.C.I.J., ser. B., No. 15, at 17-21. This case establishes, them. Leech, supra note 28, at 626. The aforementioned two covenants
in effect, that the traditional state system concept of international law carry into detailed treaty form most of the provisions of the Universal
does not prevent the individual from becoming the subject of interna- Declaration of Human Rights, but they do not entirely parallel the
tional rights if states so wish. Declaration. Id.
165. For example, the Convention for the Establishment of a 174. See Re Drummond Wren [I9451 O.R. 778, [I9451 4 D.L.R.
Central American Court of Justice, art. II, [I9071 2 For. Rel. U.S. 697, 674 (Ontario High Ct.), in which the court declared a racially restrictive
2 Am. J. Int'l L. Supp. 231 (1908), gave individuals access to an interna- covenant void, inter alia, as against public policy, citing the Charter pro-
tional court to bring claims against any contracting government except visions on human rights as indicative of public policy. See also Oyama v.
their own, providing that certain conditions were met. This iight was California, 332 U.S. 633, 649-50, 673 (1948), holding a section of the
available regardless of whether the individual's own government was California Alien Land Law unconstitutional as violative of the Four-
willing to press the claim. teenth Amendment. In concurring opinions Justices Black, Douglas,
166. H. Lauterpacht, International Law and Human Rights 27-28 Rutledge, and Murphy referred to the section's inconsistency with the
(1950). U.N. Charter.
167. See Mavromrnatis Palestine Concessions (Jurisdiction), 175. See the separate opinion of Vice President Ammoun in the
[I9241 P.C.I.J. Advisory Opinion on the Continued Presence of South Ajrica in Namibia
168. Id. The topic of protection of nationals is treated in greater (South West Africa), [I9711 I.C.J. 16, 76.
detail in chap. 6, idra. 176. Friedmann, supra note 20, at 222.