Individuals

Task 3: Put the words in bold back into the correct order:

It has been emphasized elsewhere that international law is concerned primarily the states of with relations. Traditionally, this been meant that has has there little scope for the international personality of individuals, and states have guarded jealously their nationals their deal with right to own while honouring the right of other states to deal with theirs. So it was that despite some isolated examples, after was until the not it Second World War that individuals could be regarded as having international personality in any meaningful sense, and then substantially because international law began to impose personal obligations separately attaching from individuals on those to the state which they represented. While this personality has grown both in quality and quantity, it remains true that states approach issues concerning the personality of individuals with some hesitation. Its future development depends on the continuing agreement, tacit or of states express.

The clearest example of the personality of individuals in modern international law is the bears each which individual responsibility for war crimes (acts contrary to the law of war), crimes against the peace (planning illegal war etc.) and crimes against humanity (genocide etc.). These are matters for which the individual is responsible personally under international law, the of his of country laws own irrespective. (S)he may be tried according to that law by an international court, as with the Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes Tribunals and their modern equivalents, the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia (1993) and the International Tribunal for Rwanda (1994). These last two to seen come be may as the beginning of a new trend in international law encompassing a greater readiness to see individuals bear personal responsibility in equal measure to been that the they way granted have individual human rights. Of course, the important point here is not that the individual is responsible (he may well be in national law), but that responsibility is founded in international law, law state the of of any independent. As well as this, there is also responsibility for other criminal acts, the most established of which is piracy. A pirate is hostis humani generis (an enemy of all mankind) and he may be arrested and tried by any state regardless of his nationality. The state of which the pirate is a national cannot complain, because under international law piracy is a crime of universal jurisdiction. The same be of aircraft true may hijackers.

This form of individual international personality is about to a radical undergo transformation. At present, these international crimes are generally prosecuted in national courts, and then only if the local law has accepted the possibility of the exercise of such a jurisdiction. There are instances of international tribunals being given jurisdiction over persons for specific purposes or of out specific arising events (e.g., the Tokyo and Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, the Yugoslavian and Rwandan War Crimes Tribunals), but there has been no general enforcement of an international criminal jurisdiction by an international tribunal. This is to about change.

There now exists a Statute for an International Criminal Court, which is open for ratification by states and which will come into effect when 60 states have so ratified. This will establish a permanent court jurisdiction over having individuals criminal according to international law. As at 1 October 2000, there were 20 such ratifications (which does not yet include the UK, but will do so in due course) and the existence of the Court is now assured, despite the persistent objections of the United States. The Court ('ICC') will have jurisdiction 'over the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole' (Art. 1) which includes genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Although the Court generally will to able exercise not jurisdiction be if a state is proceeding with the matter, it is clear that the establishment of the ICC is a significant step forward both in terms of the personality of individuals under international law and, more importantly, in terms of punishing and deterring the commission of the substantive offences. In addition and imposition the of duties responsibilities to on individuals, international law also grants personality in the form of rights. The most obvious is the expanding law of human rights. In some cases, these rights exist in the abstract, devoid of mechanisms for enforcement, but are others they in accompanied by a procedural capacity before an international tribunal the be concrete which by in rights may vindicated form. Such substantive and procedural rights are commonly granted by treaty, as with the European Convention on Human Rights 1959 and its Protocols. A similar procedural personality exists under the Interna­tional Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, whereby an individual has the right to petition the Human Rights Committee directly of his signed if state nationality has the Optional Protocol.

It is clear that such international personality as individuals do have is contingent on the agreement of states and its content and scope from derive their will will. However, although it is possible for such capacity to be withdrawn, it would be politically very damaging, and consequently practi­cally very difficult, to remove capacity once granted, field the in of rights especially human. In so far as such personality involves only duties or responsibilities (as with war crimes etc.), it might be thought that individuals are rather the law, than objects subjects of its. However, this is not strictly accurate, for it misses the point that the individual is subject to a jurisdiction which is purely international. This jurisdiction is not rooted in the national laws of any state, exist local even identical laws may though. Thus, the individual is a subject of international law when certain duties are placed upon him directly by that law and when he is accorded certain rights.

Task 5: Read and answer the questions below:

Text