Human Rights in Chinese Foreign Relations

2018 ◽  
pp. 217-238
Author(s):  
James D. Seymour
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Foreign Relations

5. Personality, statehood, and recognition

2019 ◽  
pp. 58-71
Author(s):  
Ilias Bantekas ◽  
Efthymios Papastavridis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Multinational Corporations ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Government Capacity ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Territory Government ◽  
International Legal Personality

This chapter examines the meaning of international legal personality and the range of actors that possess such personality, namely States, international organizations, individuals, multinational corporations, and several other non-State actors. Given the centrality of States, the criteria for statehood are analysed, and both traditional and contemporary criteria are discussed. Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention is used for assessment of whether an entity satisfies these criteria which include: permanent population, a defined territory, government, capacity to enter into foreign relations, and the relevance of human rights. Competing theories regarding the role of recognition by third States as an element of statehood are also considered. Equally, the rights and duties of non-State actors are analysed in terms of capacity conferred upon them under international law.

Part VI Human Rights and General International Law, Ch.33 Transnational Litigation: Jurisdiction and Immunities

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keitner Chimène I
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
National Courts ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Human Rights Norms

This article examines the issues of jurisdiction and immunities in transnational human rights litigation. It discusses the bases of asserting jurisdiction and highlights the problem in achieving consensus about the rules governing foreign official immunity. It analyses several relevant court cases including claims against foreign states, against current or former foreign officials and against non-state actors. This article argues that the horizontal enforcement of human rights norms by national courts carries the potential for both salutary and disruptive effects. It explains that while it can provide an avenue for victims of human rights abuses to obtain redress for their injuries, it can also interfere with the conduct of foreign relations with states that do not recognize the validity of national proceedings.

Historical Wrongs and Human Rights in Sino-Foreign Relations: The Legacy of Extraterritoriality

2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 129-146
Author(s):  
Eileen P. Scully
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Authoritarian Regimes ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
People's Republic Of China ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
Universal Human Rights

AbstractIn the battle for universal human rights, it may be said that sovereignty has become “the last refuge of scoundrels.” Certainly, this is the prevailing verdict of Western liberal activists with regard to the invocations of absolute self-determination and noninterference by authoritarian regimes in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Indonesia, Myanmar, Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines. These Asia- Pacific governments have defended their heavy-handed response to internal dissent with the position that “State sovereignty is the basis for the realization of citizens’ human rights. If the sovereignty of a state is not safeguarded, the human rights of its citizens are out of the question.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document