scholarly journals The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples within the system of the fundamental principles of international law

2021 ◽  
pp. 39-53
Author(s):  
Azer Kagraman Ogly Kagramanov
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
International System ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Equal Rights ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Stage Of Development ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
Multiple Experts

The subject of this research is the place and role of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples within the system of the fundamental principles of international law. Analysis is conducted  on the basic questions of the theory of international law – correlation between the principle of self-determination with other peremptory norms (jus cogens) and moral-ethical categories. Special attention is given to the problem of building a hierarchy of the fundamental principles of international law. A bias towards one of them leads to the disruption of the international system and order, and any attempts to extract a single link out of closely related principles of the international law are doomed to fail. The conclusion is drawn that multiple experts in international law try to build the system by extracting key link, which raises serious doubts. The author believes that all the principles of international law are interrelated and equal. The emerged at the turn of the XX – XXI centuries international legal concept of the “Responsibility to Protect” is of crucial importance. The concept interacts with the principle of respect for the human rights. The author concludes that universalization of human rights at the current stage of development of the international law can reveal the new aspects of the problems of state sovereignty and the right to self-determination. The author warns against the attempts to universalize human rights by giving priority, along with other principles. The author follows the logic of correlation of the principle of self-determination with other fundamental principles of international law such as: nonintervention in the internal affairs and non-use of force or threat of force, sovereignty, peaceful settlement of disputes by all means known to international law, cooperation between states and diligent discharge of obligations in accordance with the international law underlie the solution to the problem of self-determination; if various aspects of this problem extend beyond a single state, then acquire international scale.

scholarly journals Zagrożenie życia narodu jako przesłanka wstępna derogacji zobowiązań w dziedzinie praw człowieka

2020 ◽  
pp. 9-41
Author(s):  
Tadeusz Jasudowicz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
States Of Emergency ◽  
Treaty Monitoring ◽  
Public Emergency ◽  
Civil And Political Rights

To determine the fate of human rights in extreme situations, the treaties contain a mechanism for derogating from obligations, i.e. derogations from their enforceability in such exceptional situations. The initial and fundamental criterion under which derogation steps are admissible is the existence of an exceptional public emergency that threatens the life of the nation, as referred to in Article 4(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 15(1) of the European Charter of Human Rights, and about which Professor Anna Michalska wrote so competently in 1997. Neither the constitutions of modern states nor their practice of introducing states of emergency are helpful in defining this criterion more precisely; most often, they do not use it at all. Unfortunately, it is not to be found in Chapter XI of the Polish Constitution “States of Emergency”, nor in the laws of 2002 regulating these states. In the practice of the treaty monitoring bodies (Human Rights Committee in the ICCPR system; the European Commission and the Court of Human Rights in the ECHR system), we do not find incontestable nor indisputable indications. The concept of the “nation” is referred to society as a whole and is to be associated with its physical survival. In the author’s opinion, this is not the correct approach, as it is and must be about a “living nation”, a nation effectively exercising its rights. The enslavement of a nation, its subjugation, elimination of opportunities for its self-determination – far from its extermination – can unquestionably meet the requirements of the criterion of a threat to the life of the nation. The study of constitutional law (the nation-sovereign) and international law (the principle and right to self-determination of the nation) unequivocally confirms this thesis.

The Right of Secession in Public International Law

1983 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 24-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Turp
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Community ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
United Nations Charter ◽  
Right Of Self Determination

SummaryIn light of the numerous secessionist claims witnessed by the international community, it is of great interest to ascertain if international law provides for a right of secessionist self-determination. An analysis of treaty provisions encompassing the right of self-determination of peoples, namely the United Nations Charter and the Human Rights Covenants, suggests that the latter treaties consecrate an authentic right to secede. Such a right appears to be unhindered by any customary norm which would prohibit secession as a means of implementation of the right of self-determination of peoples, seeing that the practice of States is clearly divided on the issue of secession. It is submitted, however, that there is a need for more detached criteria with respect to the right of secession, its beneficiaries and its conditions of exercise and, consequently, for an acknowledgement, to the benefit of the international community as a whole, of the legitimacy of national affirmations and secessionist claims.

scholarly journals Republics of Donbass as an international political and legal precedent

2019 ◽  
pp. 143-147
Author(s):  
Vladislav V. Gruzdev ◽  
Aleksandr I. Levchenkov
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
International Level ◽  
Universal Principle ◽  
Military Operation ◽  
Legal Precedent ◽  
Sphere Of Influence ◽  
The Way

The article analyses the events taking place in Donbass from 2014 to 2019, to be exact, the very fact of the appearance of the peoples' republics of Lugansk and Donetsk, the way in which these republics appeared and the way of their possible international legalisation. The study was carried out not only at Russian, but also at the international level. The authors' vision of solving the problem is proposed, in particular, the idea is that the implementation of the fundamental (universal) principle of modern international law – the principle of universal respect for human rights and freedoms in conditions of the Ukraine military operation affecting the citizens of the republics in the sphere of influence of Russia – is impossible without implementing the principle of self-determination of peoples and nations. Only with such concrete conflict binding, the principle of self-determination of peoples and nations can predominate over the principles of territorial integrity and inviolability of borders.

Territorial Sovereignty

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Stilz
Keyword(s):  
Natural Resources ◽  
International Law ◽  
International System ◽  
Core Values ◽  
The State ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Territorial Sovereignty ◽  
Collective Self ◽  
Political Units ◽  
Territorial States

This book offers a qualified defense of a territorial states system. It argues that three core values—occupancy, basic justice, and collective self-determination—are served by an international system made up of self-governing, spatially defined political units. The defense is qualified because the book does not actually justify all of the sovereignty rights states currently claim and that are recognized in international law. Instead, the book proposes important changes to states’ sovereign prerogatives, particularly with respect to internal autonomy for political minorities, immigration, and natural resources. Part I of the book argues for a right of occupancy, holding that a legitimate function of the international system is to specify and protect people’s preinstitutional claims to specific geographical places. Part II turns to the question of how a state might acquire legitimate jurisdiction over a population of occupants. It argues that the state will have a right to rule a population and its territory if it satisfies conditions of basic justice and facilitates its people’s collective self-determination. Finally, Parts III and IV of this book argue that the exclusionary sovereignty rights to control over borders and natural resources that can plausibly be justified on the basis of the three core values are more limited than has traditionally been thought.

Self-Determination Through Autonomy or Independence? – On the Current and Future Position of New Caledonia

ICL Journal ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-105
Author(s):  
Markku Suksi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
New Caledonia ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The Self ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Normative Framework ◽  
European Court ◽  
Determination Process ◽  
The Right

Abstract New Caledonia is a colonial territory of France. Since the adoption of the Nouméa Accord in 1998, a period of transition towards the exercise of self-determination has been going on. New Caledonia is currently a strong autonomy, well entrenched in the legal order of France from 1999 on. The legislative powers have been distributed between the Congress of New Caledonia and the Parliament of France on the basis of a double enumeration of legislative powers, an arrangement that has given New Caledonia control over many material fields of self-determination. At the same time as this autonomy has been well embedded in the constitutional fabric of France. The Nouméa Accord was constitutionalized in the provisions of the Constitution of France and also in an Institutional Act. This normative framework created a multi-layered electorate that has presented several challenges to the autonomy arrangement and the procedure of self-determination, but the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee have resolved the issues regarding the right to vote in manners that take into account the local circumstances and the fact that the aim of the legislation is to facilitate the self-determination of the colonized people, the indigenous Kanak people. The self-determination process consists potentially of a series of referendums, the first of which was held in 2018 and the second one in 2020. In both referendums, those entitled to vote returned a No-vote to the question of ‘Do you want New Caledonia to attain full sovereignty and become independent?’ A third referendum is to be expected before October 2022, and if that one also results in a no to independence, a further process of negotiations starts, with the potential of a fourth referendum that will decide the mode of self-determination New Caledonia will opt for, independence or autonomy.

Diplomatic Protection: Taking Human Rights Extraterritorially

2007 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
pp. 299-352
Author(s):  
Noura Karazivan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Current State ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
To Receive

SummaryThis article argues that states should have a limited obligation — and not only a privilege — to extend diplomatic protection to their nationals when they are facing violations of their most basic human rights abroad. The author addresses the current state of international law regarding diplomatic protection, with a focus on the International Law Commission's failed attempt to impose a duty on states to exercise protection in cases of jus cogens violations. A review of domestic case law, particularly in the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and South Africa, shows that while some courts recognize legitimate expectations to receive diplomatic protection, all are reluctant to exercise judicial review of a denial of diplomatic protection. The author nevertheless examines whether adherence to international human rights treaties could entail a positive obligation for states to exercise diplomatic protection in order to protect the human rights of their nationals that are ill-treated abroad.

scholarly journals The Role of Customary International Law in Regulating the Activities of Armed Groups in the Field of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 195-204
Author(s):  
R. I. Sharipov
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
Peremptory Norms

Over the past decades, there has been a significant increase in the number of armed groups involved in armed conflicts around the world, as well as in their impact on the rights and freedoms of the population under their control. Facing various situations of systematic violations of human rights by non-state actors, experts in the field of international human rights law began to consider the theoretical justification for the mandatory nature of the provisions on the observance and protection of human rights for armed groups. In this regard, a number of scholars have turned to the theory of customary international law, the acceptability of which is being investigated by the author of this paper. The author examines the provisions underlying this theory and the persuasiveness of the argumentation used by its supporters. Based on an analysis of the nature of customary international law, its structural elements, their interpretation by the UN International Court of Justice in its decisions and the relationship of customary international law with peremptory norms of jus cogens, the author concludes that the theory under consideration is currently unable to explain the existence of obligations of armed groups in the field of human rights.

scholarly journals The Guarantees for Accused Persons Under the Article of the European Convention on Human Rights: An Analysis of the Application of the Convention and a Comparison with other Instruments

1996 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 610
Author(s):  
Andrew S Butler
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
High Standard ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Charges ◽  
The Subject

This article is a book review of Stephanos Stavros The Guarantees for Accused Persons under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: An Analysis of the Application of the Convention and a Comparison with Other Instruments (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1993) 388 pp (including 3 appendices), price (hbk) £87.00. This book is a detailed analysis of the case law of the organs of the European Convention on Human Rights on the interpretation and application of Article 6 of the Convention. That article guarantees fair trial rights in the determination of criminal charges and in the determination of civil rights and obligations. The scope of Dr Stavros' study is the rights of an accused under Article 6. Butler praises Dr Stavros for being thorough in his treatment of both case law and international law, providing a closely argued critique alongside the law presented, and for his general enthusiasm for the subject matter (reflected in the book's readability). Despite its limitations, Butler commends this book's high standard of scholarship overall.

Torture

2019 ◽  
pp. 103-128
Author(s):  
Ian Hurd
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
International System ◽  
Bush Administration ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Convention Against Torture ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
Unanimous Agreement

This chapter focuses on the legal status of torture, assessing the implications of an international ban on torture that coexists with a nontrivial level of torture in practice. This is not simply a case of torture law being violated. There is wide, perhaps unanimous, agreement that torture is prohibited by international law, and the legitimacy of the ban is rarely contested. The rule is established most directly by the Geneva Conventions and 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment (CAT), but it is also widely held that torture is outlawed under jus cogens norms intrinsic in the international system. Despite this, many governments engage in practices that seem clearly prohibited by laws against torture. Much of this behavior comes with detailed defense of its legality. Thus, the politics of torture generally address questions of what constitutes torture, not concerns over the ban itself. This is precisely how the Bush administration used anti-torture law: to demonstrate that its actions were not subject to the rules. Officials sought a zone of legally protected irresponsibility. They used international law against torture as tools to legalize torture.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document