Page 51 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

vindicate such rights at the international level if the in- tial body of precedent under the Convention. 180
dividual's state fails or refuses to accord them to him. In- (2) In the Western Hemisphere, the Inter-American
deed, in today's world it is obvious that a great many Commission on Human Rights, established in 1959 by
human rights are being grossly violated in a great many the Organization of American States, is empowered to
countries. No effective international machinery for deal- receive and examine individual communications charging
ing with this problem has yet been forthcoming. 177 the violation of fundamental human rights and to make
b. Aside from U.N. efforts in the field of human rights, recommendations to governments with respect thereto. In
there are noteworthy programs in this field at the regional 1969, a Conference of the American States approved the
level. American Convention on Human Rights, 181 which
(1) Particularly significant is the European Conven- widens the earlier American Declaration of the Rights and
tion for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Duties of Man and establishes the Inter-American Court
Freedoms. 178 The substance of this convention is com- of Human Rights. 182
parable in scope and purpose to that of the U.N. Covenant 3-22. The Legal Responsibility of Individuals in Inter-
on Civil and Political Rights. 179 But unlike the U.N. national Law. The development of rights enforceable by
document, the European Convention provides a working individuals at the international level is in an embryonic
system for the international protection of individuals stage. It has long been held, however, that individuals are
whose rights (as defined in the Convention) have been capable of violatinginternational law. For example, piracy
violated by the state of which they are nationals. The in- has been deemed an offense "against the law of nations"
ternational organs of enforcement are the European Com- and the offender has been subject to punishment by any
mission on Human Rights and the European Court of state that captures him. 183 More recently, there has been
Human Rights. These organs have developed a substan- widespread acceptance of the principle that individual
members of belligerent armed forces are criminally
177. A number of possible procedures for international implemen- responsible for violations of the laws of war, and may be
tation of the law of human rights are explored in Leech, supra note 28, punished by enemy or international authorities. 184 A dis-
at 629-47. International adjudication (state versus state) is a possibility, cussion of war crimes and related offenses is beyond the
but presents a serious question as to the "standing" or "interest" of a
state to take up the cause of an individual who is not one of its nationals. scope of this chapter. These matters are mentioned here
See Nottebohm Case (Lichtenstein v. Guatemala), [I9551 I.C.J. 4, dis- merely to make the point that individuals may incur penal
cussed and cited in chap. 4, irlfra. sanctions under international law and thus are, to that ex-
178. 213 U.N.T.S.221. This convention, which became effective in tent, subjects of international law. 18s
1953, was sponsored by the Council of Europe. It is open to accession by
all members of the Council; all the major states of Western Europe, ex- 180. For a description of the work of the Commission and the
cept France and Switzerland, have ratified it. Court, see Friedmann, supra note 20, at 230-31; Leech, supra note 28,
179. Basically, the substantive provisions of the Convention at 649-51.
prohibit unlawful arrest or detention and establish a minimum standard 181. See 65 Am. J. Intl L. 679 (1971).
of due process that must be accorded individuals by each ratifying state. 182. See generally Fox, The Protection of Human RighB in the
For example, the Convention provides, inter alia, that "no one shall be Americas, 7 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 222 (1968).
deprived of his liberty [except in several broadly defmed classes of cases 183. See, e.g., U.S. v. Smith, 18 U.S.(5 Wheat.) 153, 161-62
encompassing the normal criminal and civil spectrum] and in accordance (1820). Cf: Respublica v. DeLongchamps, 1 U.S. (1 Dall.) 11 1 (assault
with a procedure prescribed by law" (Art. 5a)); that "In the determina- on a foreign diplomat held an infraction of the law of nations).
tion of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against 184. See Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942). See also Attorney
him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable General of Israel v. Eichmann, 36 Int'l L. Rep. 277 (1968) (Israel Sup.
time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law" (art. Ct. 1962).
6(1)); that "Everyone charged with a criminal offense shall be 185. For a collection of materials dealing with individual respon-
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law" (art. 6(2)); sibility for war crimes, see Leech, supra note 28, at 656-724; see also
and that everyone charged with a criminal offense has spedic minimum Parks, Command Responsibili@ for War Crimes, 62 Mil. L. Rev. 1
rights (art. 6(3)). (1973).