Human Rights and Humanitarian Intervention: The Case Law of the World Court

Abstract

THIS article briefly canvasses a small number of International Court of Justice cases in which the Court has addressed human rights issues. From this it emerges that the Court has unambiguously accepted that the obligation to respect fundamental human rights is an obligation found in general international law. Questions may, however, remain as to: (1) whether all the human rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are equally binding; (2) whether the content of all the rights may be equally discoverable; and (3) how far the rights may be protected or implemented apart from such measures as particular human rights treaties may themselves provide. One measure of implementation that is clearly not allowed is unilateral resort to armed force by one State to adjust the human rights situation in another State (the doctrine of humanitarian intervention). The cases in question are the advisory opinions on Reservations to the Genocide Convention 1 and on Namibia* and the decisions in the contentious cases in SouthWest Africa, 3 Barcelona Traction, 4 US Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, 5 and Military Activities in Nicaragua. 6 I shall treat the earlier cases, much pored over already, in less detail than the last one. * Head of Legal and InterGovernmental Organisations Office, Amnesty International; part-time lecturer in law, London School of Economics and Political Science. This is a revised version of a paper read to the British Branch of the International Law Association in Oxford on 9 May 1987. The views it contains are those of the author and are not to be attributed to any organisation. 321 (1989) 38 I.C.L.Q. 7. [1951] I.CJ. Rep. 15, 23 (emphasis added). 8. Idem,p.2A. 9. The Convention was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 Dec. 1948: G. A. Res.260A (HI). The Court handed down its opinion on 28 May 1951. 10. Art.6, Charter of the International Military Tribunal annexed to the Agreement for the Establishment of an International Military Tribunal, concluded at London, 8 Aug. 1945: 5 U.N.T.S. 251. The judgment of the tribunal (1946) is reproduced in (1947) 41 A.J.I.L. 172. APRIL 1989] Human Rights and the ICJ 323 has confirmed and elaborated on with greater precision what it said in this case about the legal prohibition of genocide.

China's Death Penalty Reform: Developments or Beyond?

“…The Economic and Social Council confirmed that the scope of this term 'should not go beyond intentional crimes, with lethal or other extremely grave consequences' in the Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty [23]. Any intentional crimes which infringe life appear to be 'most serious crimes' and apply the death penalty [24]. The 'other extremely grave consequences' appear to indicate that other circumstances, e.g., circulation of 'secret information to an enemy in wartime', may lead to large-scale loss of life [25].…”

China and International Human Rights

“…60 See Article 38 of the ICJ Statute; Schachter, Oscar. 66 The American Journal of International Law : 337-351;Rodley, Nigel S. 1989. International law in theory and practice , 35.…”

60 Years of Legal Scholarship in the International and Comparative Law Quarterly

“…180 Gradually, the focus shifted to examining directly the impact of human rights on other areas of international law. These included areas such as humanitarian intervention, 181 customary international law, 182 treaties 183 and international humanitarian law, 184 as well as international law more generally. 185 It also extended to understanding the development of international criminal law, 186 comparative human rights, 187 and private international law.…”