Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:01:41.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conceptual thinking about the individual in international law*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Rosalyn Higgins
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I Have thought it appropriate, in a lecture that bears the name of Henry Sidgwick, to choose a theme that focuses on individual rights and on questions of reform and change, with which he was, of course, so much associated.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , April 1978 , pp. 1 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 1 note 1. See the outstanding analysis by McDougal, M., Lasswell, H. and Chen, L., ‘Nationality and Human Rights: The Protection of the Individual in External Arenas’, Tale Law Journal, 83 (1974) pp. 900–998.Google Scholar

page 2 note 1. See the classic definition in Kelsen, H., Principles of International Law (London, 1966, 2nd edition), p. 3Google Scholar: “International Law or the Law of Nations is the name of a body of rules which - according to the usual definition - regulates the conduct of the States in their intercourse with one another”.

page 2 note 2. See Lauterpacht-Oppenheim, International Law, i (London, 1955, 8th edition), pp. 636–42Google Scholar.

page 3 note 1. Anzilotti, D., Cours de Droit International (Paris, 1929), p. 134Google Scholar; Gihl, T., Folkratt under Fred (Stockholm, 1956)Google Scholar; Siotto-Pintor, M., Receuil des Cours 41 (1932-iii), p. 356.Google Scholar

page 3 note 2. For example, Schwarzenberger, G., A Manual of International Law (London, 1967, 5th edition), p. 52Google Scholar; International Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals, i (London, 1957, 3rd edition), pp. 140–155.Google Scholar

page 3 note 3. McDougal, M., ‘Law as a Process of Decision: A Policy-Oriented Approach to Legal Study’, Natural Law Forum, 1 (1956), p. 53Google Scholar; and ‘The Comparative Study of Law for Policy Purposes: Value Clarification as an Instrument of Democratic World Order’, American Journal of Comparative Law (1952), p. 24.Google Scholar

page 4 note 1. Nørgaard, C., The Position of the Individual in International Law (Copenhagen, 1962)Google Scholar.

page 4 note 2. Series A/B. No. 61, p.231.

page 4 note 3. Ross, Alf, A Textbook 011 International Law (London, 1947).Google Scholar

page 4 note 4. Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1977] 2 Weekly Law Reports, p. 696. This point was not approved by the House of Lords, which reversed the Court of Appeal's decision favouring Mr. Gouriet.

page 5 note 1. A very important contribution to this understanding is made by D. P. O'Connell. He notes that in the subject-object debate ‘The real answer,…goes to the heart of legal philosophy’. He continues in telling fashion ‘Is it true to say that the end of the legal action is a philosophical one in which the lawyer can pretend to be disinterested? Does it suffice to admit that the individual's good is the ultimate end of the law but refuse the individual any capacity in the realisation of that good ? Is the good in fact attained through treating the individual as an instrumentality of law and not as an actor? Philosophy and practice demonstrates that the answer to all these questions must be in the negative. The individual as the end of community is a member of the community, and a member has status: he is not an object. It is not a sufficient answer to assert that the state is the medium between international law and its own nationals, for the law has often fractured this link when it failed in its purpose”. International Law, i (London, 1965), p. 116.Google Scholar

page 5 note 2. For fuller elaboration of the variety of participants in the international legal system, see McDougal, M., Lasswell, H. and Reisman, M., ‘The World Constitutive Process of Authoritative Decisions’, Journal of Legal Education, 19 (1967), p. 253Google Scholar, and M. McDougal, , ‘Some basic theoretical concepts about international law: a policy-oriented enquiry’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 4 (1960), p. 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 6 note 1. See Articles 25 and 46 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Sohn, L. and Buergenthal, T., Basic Documents on International Protection of Human Rights (New York, 1973)Google Scholar.

page 6 note 2. Articles 40, 48 and 53, Regulations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Sohn and Buergenthal, op. cit. pp. 199–209 and 62–65 respectively.

page 6 note 3. See Cassesse, A., ‘The Admissability of Communications to the United Nations on Human Rights Violations’, Revue des Droits de l'Homme, 5 (1972), pp. 375–97Google Scholar; Humphrey, J. P., ‘The Right of Petition in the United Nations’, Revue des Droit de l'Homme, 4 (1971), pp. 463–75.Google Scholar

page 6 note 4. Article 87 (b), United Nations Charter.

page 6 note 5. Eustathiades, C.Receuil des Cours, 84 (1953-ii), p. 553ffGoogle Scholar.

page 7 note 1. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Company Case, ICJ Reports 1970, p. 18.

page 7 note 2. No. 5310/71, Yearbook European Convention Human Rights (1972), pp. 78–254Google Scholar and judgement of 18 Jan. 1978.

page 8 note 1. See Falk, R., The Role of Domestic Courts in the International Legal Order (Syracuse, 1964).Google Scholar

page 8 note 2. As did the French Courts in the recent Abu Daoud affair.

page 8 note 3. Banco Nacional de Cuba v Sabbatino, 376 U.S. (1964). For opposing comments, Falk, R., ‘The Complexity of Sabbatino’, American Journal of International Law, 58 (1964), p. 925CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mann, F., ‘The Legal Consequences of Sabbatino’, Virginia Law Review, 51 (1965), p. 604CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘International Law: Congressional Abrogation of the Act of State Doctrine’, Columbia Law Review, 65 (1965), pp. 530–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McDougal, M., ‘Jurisprudence in a Free Society’, Georgia Law Review, 1 (1966), p.1Google Scholar.

page 9 note 1. [1976] 2 Weekly Law Reports, p. 214.

page 9 note 2. [1977] 2 Weekly Law Reports, p. 356.

page 9 note 3. I Congreso del partido [1977] 1 Lloyds Law Reports, p . 536.

page 9 note 4. For some earlier writing in this area, see Borchard, E., ‘The Access of Individuals to International Courts’, American Journal of International Law, 24 (1930), p. 364CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dunn, F., ‘The International Rights of Individuals’, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, (1941), pp. 14–21Google Scholar; Hambro, E., ‘Individuals Before International Tribunals’, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law (1941), pp. 22–30.Google Scholar

page 10 note 1. GA Resolution 2200 (XXI) 16 Dec. 1966.

page 10 note 2. GA Resolution 217A (III) 10 Dec. 1948.

page 10 note 3. See L. Sohn and T. Buergenthal, op, cit. pp. 518–522; Schwelb, E., Human Rights and the International Community: The Roots and Growth of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, 1948–1963 (Chicago, 1964).Google Scholar

page 10 note 4. Article 1.

page 11 note 1. Article 3.

page 11 note 2. Article 7.

page 11 note 3. Article 8.

page 11 note 4. Article 8(1) (d).

page 11 note 5. Article 6.

page 11 note 6. Article 7.

page 11 note 7. Article 8.

page 11 note 8. Article 9.

page 11 note 9. Article 14.

page 11 note 10. Article 15.

page 11 note 11. Article 18.

page 11 note 12. Articles 20 and 21.

page 12 note 1. Article 5 (3) of the European Convention. See e.g. the Ringeisen Case, 4465/70, Yearbook, 14, p. 476; the Wemhoff Case (European Court of Human Rights, Series A, 1968, pp. 21–24); the Neumeister Case (Ibid, Series A, 1968, p. 4). See further Harris, D., ‘Recent cases on pre-trial detention and delay in criminal proceedings’, British Yearbook of International Law) xliv (1971), p. 87Google Scholar; and Jacobs, F., The European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford, 1975), pp. 63–75.Google Scholar

page 12 note 2. See Belgian Linguistics Case (merits) (European Court H.R. Series A (1968)); and the Case of Kjeldsen, Madsen and Pederson, Judgement of 7 December 19760

page 13 note 1. East African Gases: 4403/70, 36 Receuil 92.

page 13 note 2. See 3745/68 Yearbook 11, 494.

page 13 note 3. Existing international treaty commitments are incorporated by reference into Principle VII of the Helsinki Final Act. The Final Act also includes specified arrangements for the free movement of individuals for the purpose of reunification of families: Cmnd. 6198. See also Dinstein, Y., ‘Freedom of Emigration and Soviet Jewry’, Israel Yearbook of Human Rights, 4 (1974), p. 226Google Scholar; R. Higgins, ‘Human Rights of Soviet Jews to Leave’, ibid, p. 275; Higgins, R., ‘The Right in International Law of an Individual to Enter, Stay in and Leave a Country’, International Affairs (1973), p. 341CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chen, L., ‘Expulsion and Expatriation in International Law’, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law (1973), pp. 122–132.Google Scholar

page 14 note 1. Article 12(3).

page 14 note 2. Article 12(4).

page 14 note 3. General Assembly resolution 2106A (XX), Article 5(d).

page 14 note 4. Protocol No. 4, Article 3, The United Kingdom is not a party to this Protocols

page 14 note 5. UN Doc GN, 193, 1976, treaties 6 (29 June 1976).

page 15 note 1. For a full survey and analysis see the forthcoming article by this author, ‘Derogations in Human Rights Treaties’, British Yearbook of International Law, xlviii (1976-1977)Google Scholar.

page 15 note 2. 75 United Nations Treaty Series 9 p. 287 ff.

page 15 note 3. International Military Tribunal, 1.

page 15 note 4. No. 5310/71, Yearbook European Convention Human Rights (1972), op. cit. pp.,78–254.

page 16 note 1. (1969) UK Treaty Series No. 126, Cmnd. 4230.

page 16 note 2. (1971) UK Treaty Series Misc. No. 5, Cmnd. 4577.

page 17 note 1. International Legal Materials, 10, p. 1151. See also the excellent survey by Thomas, C. and Kirby, M., International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 22 (1973), p. 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 17 note 2. Press release US/UN 104 (72).

page 18 note 1. 9 International Legal Materials, 1177.

page 18 note 2. UN Yearbook (1948–9), p. 959.

page 18 note 3. Cmnd. 6176.

page 19 note 1. Enabling legislation was before the House of Commons in February 1978.

page 19 note 2. Recent events in Western Europe and especially in the Federal Republic of Germany, occurring after this lecture was given, may perhaps make it necessary to suspend for future proof the opinion here given.

page 19 note 3. The author would now, for the same reason, add the Federal Republic of Germany to this list so far at least as Baader-Meinhof activities are concerned.