3.1, 3.1.1 - International law and human-rights institutions

Rights and international authority

International law developed because states needed rules for matters that crossed their borders, including diplomatic relations, trade and warfare. It does not have a single global legislature or police force equivalent to those inside a state. Its authority comes partly from agreements states make and partly from legal rules recognised through their practice.

A treaty creates obligations for its parties under the relevant rules of international law. Customary international law develops through sufficiently general state practice accompanied by acceptance that the practice is legally required. Repeated conduct alone is not enough: a diplomatic courtesy is different from a legal obligation. General legal principles also help courts resolve issues; previous judgments and legal scholarship can help identify the law. Article 38 of the ICJ Statute is a useful starting point for these sources. ICJ Statute, Article 38.

Human rights are entitlements people have because they are human, rather than benefits awarded for citizenship or good behaviour. Universal human rights apply across societies despite differences of nationality, religion or culture. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) supplies a central common statement of their principles. Universalism makes a powerful political claim: a government cannot make torture acceptable simply by describing it as a domestic tradition. United Nations: UDHR.

That moral claim does not make every rights document equally enforceable. Ask three separate questions: what right is recognised, which legal instrument binds the state, and which institution can hear a complaint? This prevents the misleading inference that a rights violation automatically gives every international court jurisdiction.

If you sit in 2027: Issue 3 defines universal human rights through their application across societies. Issue 4 makes the UDHR foundation explicit. Use the accurate universal meaning in either series; the UDHR was already part of the human-rights content.

From the UDHR to binding protection

The destruction and atrocities of the Second World War helped give human rights an international institutional setting. The 1945 United Nations Charter committed the organisation to promoting rights; the General Assembly adopted the UDHR on 10 December 1948. It linked civil and political protections, such as expression and fair trial, with economic and social concerns, such as education and an adequate standard of living. United Nations: UDHR and its development.

The UDHR is a declaration, rather than a treaty that states ratify. It established a common standard and influenced later law; do not say that adopting it created an international court able to punish every violation. Some rights it expresses are also protected by customary rules or binding treaties, but that legal protection needs its own basis.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both adopted in 1966, developed the rights framework into treaties. Alongside the UDHR, they form the International Bill of Human Rights. Regional instruments can add more specific protection and complaint procedures. United Nations: international human-rights instruments.

This development changes global politics in two connected ways. First, states are judged against standards they cannot define entirely for themselves. Second, campaigners and other governments can use those standards to make specific demands, rather than relying only on sympathy. Yet consent to a treaty, the availability of a complaint procedure and practical enforcement still vary. Growing authority has not abolished state sovereignty.

Consider a government which publicly endorses education rights but lacks schools in poor regions. The statement creates a standard against which policy can be criticised. A treaty may impose relevant obligations, but improving access also requires money, administration and political choices. Legal recognition and delivery are separate achievements.

The ICJ and state responsibility

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the UN's principal judicial organ, established within the 1945 Charter system. It addresses legal disputes between states and gives advisory opinions when authorised UN bodies request them. It is not a criminal court trying individual leaders.

In a contentious case, the parties must be states. The Court needs a basis for jurisdiction: for example, an agreement to submit a dispute, a treaty clause or applicable declarations accepting compulsory jurisdiction. Joining the UN does not give the ICJ unlimited jurisdiction over every dispute. Its judgments bind the parties in the particular case; an advisory opinion generally provides authoritative legal advice rather than the same binding judgment between litigants. ICJ Statute, Articles 34–36, 59 and 65; ICJ: bases of jurisdiction.

The difference between state and individual responsibility matters. If State A alleges that State B has broken a treaty, an ICJ case concerns the state's obligation and possible remedies. If a commander is accused of committing war crimes, criminal guilt must be examined through a court with criminal jurisdiction. A state can breach an obligation even where no individual has been convicted; an individual conviction does not settle every interstate dispute.