Right to individual development in international law
INTRODUCTION
The ultimate object of every system of law, whether municipal or international law, is the well
being of the individual. Therefore, the individual also is often the object of international
regulation and protection. Primarily, States alone are the subjects of international law.
Therefore, the real position of the individual with respect to international law is that they are
subjects of international law. The rights and duties which individuals may derive may be either
direct or indirect.
As a rule, monarchs and other heads of the States, diplomatic envoys and even private
citizens have certain privileges while in foreign territory. In such cases, law of nations impose
upon all States the duty to grant certain privileges to such heads of State, diplomats and the like
and the States, corresponding to this duty, make provisions in their municipal law granting such
privileges. Therefore, international law is really the background of these rights. The same
applies as regards special rights of individuals in foreign countries according to treaties between
two or more States. Such treaties do not normally create these rights, but they impose a duty
upon states to create such rights for individuals by their municipal law, and as a consequence
the states provide such rights to individuals by their municipal laws. These are some of the
instances in which international law indirectly impose rights and duties on individuals.
However, occasionally States may confer upon individual’s international rights and duties
‘stricto senso’., i.e, rights and duties which they acquire without the intervention of municipal
legislation, and which they can enforce in their name before international tribunals. Moreover,
the various developments since the two world wars have shown that States are not only the
subjects of international law today.
Nationality is the medium through which an individual can enjoy benefits from international
law. A state exercises jurisdiction over its national, travelling or residing abroad, remain under
its personal supremacy.1 International law permits the exercise of such jurisdiction, and sets the
limits within which it can be exercised.
1 S.K. Agarwal, ‘International Law’- Indian Courts and Legislation
1
Right to individual development in international law
NATIONALITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
The concept of nationality is the link between the state and individual for the purposes of
international law. It is important since it determines the benefits to which persons may be
entitled and the obligations which they must perform. There is no coherent, accepted definition
of international law. Generally, the conditions for the grant of nationality are left to the
domestic jurisdiction of the States. As a consequence, there are conflicting descriptions of
nationality under different municipal laws and the rights and duties attached to nationality vary
from state to state.
According to ICJ, nationality is “a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a
genuine connection of existence, interests and sentiments, together with the existence of
reciprocal rights and duties.2
It is through the medium of their nationality that individuals can normally enjoy the benefits of
the law of nations. Individuals who possess no nationality enjoy no protection whatever if they
are aggrieved by a State. They have no means of redress since there is no State which is
competent to take up their case. As far as International law is concerned, apart from morality
and the general provision is the Charter to respect human rights, there is no restriction
whatsoever to restrain a state from maltreating to any extent such stateless persons. On the other
hand, if an individual who possess a nationality s wronged, his home has right to ask for redress.
It is for this reason that nationality is very important for the law of nations.
Oppenheim has very rightly stated that nationality of an individual is the quality of being a
subject or a citizen of a State.3 Therefore it is for municipal law and not for international law to
determine who is citizen. However, the Hague Convention (1930) has answered certain
questions regarding conflict of nationality. Even though it is for states to determine who their
subjects are, such law must be consistent with international conventions and international
custom generally recognized with respect to nationality. However nationality in the sense of
2 The Nottebohm case(1995) ICJ Reports,3 Oppenheim, “International Law’, Vol. I, Ninth Edition.
2
Right to individual development in international law
citizenship of a State must not be confused with nationality as meaning membership of certain
nation in the sense of race, e.g. Englishmen, Scotsmen.
In Mavrommatis case, the Permanent Court of International Justice observed that “it is an
elementary principle of international law that a State is entitled to protect its subjects, when
injured by acts contrary to international law committed by another state, from whom they have
been unable to obtain satisfaction through ordinary channels.4 The right of protection extends to
the property of nationals as well. Further, if a national of a State is expelled from a foreign
State, it becomes the duty of the former to receive back its nationals. The refusal to receive and
the expulsions of a State’s own nationals are inconsistent with International as they may involve
burden on other states which they are not bound to undertake. The International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights lays down under article 12 Para 4 that ‘No one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of the right to enter his own country’.
Thus, in dealing with any International legal problems involving an individual, it is always
essential to know his nationality, the legal bond which ties him personally to a given State for
many purposes. It is therefore inconvenient for International law to permit the individuals to
have multiple nationalities or no nationality. It is a goal of International Law that each
individual possesses a single nationality. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948
provides under Article 15, Para 1 that “everyone has the right to nationality.
4 PCIJ Series A, No.2 at p.12
3
Right to individual development in international law
MODES OF ACQUIRING NATIONALITY
The conditions to be fulfilled to be a citizen of a State are purely a matter for the municipal law
of the State concerned. It implies that municipal law determines as to who may a national of a
particular State. Modes of acquiring of nationality are therefore not uniform. They differ from
State to State. Following are the modes by which nationality may be acquired:
1) By Birth
Nationality is conferred to a person by many States on the basis of birth. All those persons
whose birth takes place within territorial limits of a State acquire the nationality of that State.
The above principle is called jus soli. The United Kingdom, the United States and many States
of Latin America follow this principle.
The Indian Citizenship Act of 1955 under Section 3 had provided nationality
on the basis of birth.
2) By Descent
Nationality of a State may also be acquired by a person on the basis of nationality of either
parent. Thus, a child may become a national of that State of which his parents are nationals.
This principle is known as jus sanguinis. Germany and France confer nationality on the basis of
this principle. The U.S.A. and the United Kingdom also recognize this principle in addition to
the principle of jus soli. So is the case with India. Section 4 of the Indian Citizenship Act of
1955 provides that a person may be an Indian national on the basis of the principle of jus
sanguinis.
3) By Naturalization
A person acquires nationality at birth. However, his nationality may, later on, change. When the
nationality of a person changes subsequently, and he acquires nationality of some other State,
the process of acquisition is known as naturalization. A person may acquire nationality through
naturalization in different ways. They are: through marriage, legitimating, option, acquisition of
domicile, appointment as Government Official and grant of application. Adoption of children by
parents who are nationals of other states are also entitles the children to acquire nationality of
4
Right to individual development in international law
his parents. It may be stated that State has discretion to confer nationality by naturalization. It
may grant nationality on the fulfillment of or conditions it deems appropriate. A person who
wants to acquire nationality through naturalization is required to give an application and to
make request for the acquisition of nationality through naturalization. Thus, a person may
acquire nationality through naturalization when it is granted by State. It follows that no person
has claim a claim to become naturalized in a Foreign State. The State is entitled to refuse the
naturalization of aliens without indicating any reasons.
4) By Resumption
A person, who has lost his nationality by naturalization or by any other reasons, may acquire the
nationality of the same State again. The acquisition of this kind is called reintegration and
resumption. Section 8, Para 2 of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1955 permits the minor, and not
to adults, to resume his nationality within one year from the date of attaining the age of majority
upon application, if he has lost Indian Citizenship due to their parents. The procedure for
restoration is laid down under Section 20 of the Citizenship Rules, 1956.
5) By Subjugation
A person may acquire nationality through subjugation after conquest. When a part of territory of
a State or a State itself is subjugated by another State, all the inhabitants of the territory become
the nationals of the latter States.
5
Right to individual development in international law
MODES OF LOSS OF NATIONALITY
A person may loss the nationality of a State in many ways. They are
1) By Release
Some States give their citizens the right to ask to be released from their nationality. Release
occurs only when application is made to that effect, and if it has been accepted by the State
concerned.
2) By Deprivation
A national of State may be deprived of nationality in case of certain happenings. Legislation of
many States recognizes numerous grounds of deprivation of nationality. For instance, if a
citizen enters into foreign civil or military service without permission, he may be deprived of
his nationality.
3) By Renunciation
A person may renounce his nationality of a State. The question of renunciation of nationality
arises when a person acquires it of more than one State. In such cases he has an option to retain
the nationality of one State and to renounce the other.
4) A person may loss the nationality of a State when he acquires nationality in some other State
by naturalization. Its purpose is to ensure no citizen have dual citizenship. In such cases,
nationality of a person is substituted from one State to another State.
5) By Expiration
A person may lose nationality of a State by expiration. For instance, some States have provided
by legislation that citizenship expires in the case of such of their subjects as have left the
country and stayed abroad for a certain period of time.
6
Right to individual development in international law
FUNCTIONS OF NATIONALITY
Nationality is the principle link between individuals and the benefits of the law of nations. This
function of nationality becomes apparent with regard to individuals abroad, or to property
abroad, belonging to the nationals. Every State holds and occasionally exercises the right of
protection over its citizen abroad. Since no State is bound to receive foreigners it may expel
foreigners from the State and it is the duty of home State to receive them on home territory.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE NATIONALITY RULE OF INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION
Although nationality is ordinarily the point of contact between individuals and the benefits of
the law of nations, there are four exceptions to this rule:
1. A State may undertake by an International agreement the diplomatic protection of another State’s
citizens abroad. Such protected foreign subjects are called ‘proteges’. This may be temporary
because of a rupture in diplomatic relations or it may be permanent because of the fact that a
particular State may not have diplomatic envoy in the State concerned.
2. A State may afford diplomatic protection to the subjects of a protected State, or any other area
under its protection. For example, subjects of the former native States were given protection by
British legislation when abroad.
3. States have, on occasion, afforded diplomatic protection within the boundaries of certain native
usually connected with the legislations of the protecting State. They are called de facto subjects
of the protecting State.
4. Mandated areas and Trusteeship areas are under the protection of administering authority when
abroad.
7
Right to individual development in international law
RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF INDIVIDUAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.
RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS
A number of rights have been given to the individuals in International law through the adoption
of international conventions which are as follows:
1) Human Rights
One of the principles of the United Nations is to promote and encourage respect for human
rights and fundamental freedoms for all. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was
adopted by General Assembly in 1948 which provides various rights to the individuals.
However, since the declaration was adopted by the General Assembly, it did not impose any
legal obligations on the States to give effect to its provisions. Later, two Covenants: the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International covenant on
Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, along with an optional protocol to the covenant on civil
and political right were adopted in 1966, where in the contracting parties declared that they
would provide different rights as stipulated in the covenants to the individuals.
2) Right to Make Petitions:
The rise of Human Rights consciousness has given rise to the individual a right to make petitions
before the International forum if their rights are violated. For instance, the Optional protocol to
the Covenant on Civil and political rights of 1966 provide for the petitions by the individual
before the Human rights Committee against its own state. Similarly the Convention on
Elimination of Racial Discrimination shall receive communication from individual or group of
individual for the violation of right mentioned in the Conventions.
3) Right to arbitration and conciliation proceedings:
The convention for the settlement of investment disputes between states and nationals of other
states concluded on March 18, 1965 provided for the machinery of conciliation and arbitration
on the consensual basis so that private foreign investor’s mights have direct access their toe to
settle legal disputes with investment receiving states.
8
Right to individual development in international law
DUTIES OF INDIVIDUALS
International law has imposed direct responsibility upon individual for the offences committed
by them. In customary international law piracy and slavery were the only recognized offences,
where individuals could be given punishment, presently they are responsible for numbers of
crimes.
1) Offence of piracy:
2) The offence of piracy has been traditionally regarded as a crime against international law. It is
punishable by any state which ceases the offender5. Every state has right to arrest, trail and
punish the pirates, and vessels involved in the act of piracy may be seized.
3) Violation of Rules of warfare:
Individual members of armed forces of belligerent states are criminally liable for the violation of
the rules of warfare and may be given punishment by other belligerent. In some cases sanction is
imposed upon individual committing offences by the state having custody of them, by the
exercise of domestic jurisdiction and an in few cases by international procedure. After the
Second World War, certain cases occurred in which responsibility under International law has
been imputed directly to the individuals, who have been punished under international procedure.
4) Offence of Espionage:
Espionage is an act of a soldier or other individual who clandestinely, or under false pretence,
seeks to obtain information concerning a belligerent with the intention of communicating it to
the other belligerent, Article 24 of the Hague Regulations enacted the old customary rule that the
method necessary to obtain information about the enemy and the country is considered
permissible. However, it has not protected those individuals from punishment who are engaged
in procuring information. Individuals committing espionage and war treason are considered war
criminals and may be punished.6
5 In re Piracy Jure Gentium case the Privy Council was asked to consider whether the actual robbery committed by Chinese nationals on the high seas has an element. The council was of the view that a person guilty of such piracy has placed himself beyond the protection of any state. He is no longer a national but “ hostis humani generis” and as such he is justiable by any state any where. (1934 AC 586)6 See Oppenheim, ‘ International law’ Vol. II p.422
9
Right to individual development in international law
The usual punishment for praying is hanging or shooting, those less severe punishments are, of
course, admissible and are sometimes inflicted.
5) Crime of Genocide:
Genocide was regarded as a crime under International Law, for which the perpetrators, whether
they were statesmen, public officials or private individuals were punishable. The above rule was
made by the General Assembly in a resolution adopted on December 11, 1946.7 Convention on
the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide, commonly known as Genocide Convention, was
adopted by the General Assembly on December 9, 1948 which came into force on January 12,
1951. The Convention under Article 1 provides that the contracting parties confirm that
Genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war is a crime under International
Law, which they undertake to prevent and punish. The Convention also provided that those who
are guilty of committing genocide must be punished whether they are constitutionally
responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.
EXTRADITION AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS:
Extradition law8 and practice have not kept pace with the expanding rights of individuals under
international law.9 Extradition involves the surrender, by one nation to another, of an individual
who has been accused or convicted of an offense outside the territory of the former and within
the jurisdiction of the latter.10 Extradition law focuses on the role of the individual in the process
7 General Assembly resolution 96(1), dated December 11, 1946.8 Kristin Berda Weissman, Comment, ExtraterritoriaAl bduction: The Endangerment of Future Peace, 27 U.C. DAvis L. REv. 459, 467 (1994). Extradition law refers to a formal process, governed by treaty or custom, through which one nation surrenders an individual to another nation.9 Report of the Task Force on an International Criminal Court of the American Bar Association, A.B.A. IrT'L L. & PRic. 1, 46 (1994) [hereinafter A.B.A. Report]; see John Quigley, The Rule of Non-Inquiry and the Impact of Human Rights On Extradition Law, 15 N.C.J. INT'L L. & CoM. REG 401, 415 (1990) (noting extradition law developed long before human rights law). International law concerns the conduct and relations of nations and, to some extent, of individuals. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OFTHE UNITED STATES § 101 (1990) [hereinafter RESTATEMENT].10 JOHN BASSETr MOORE, 1 TREATISE ON Ex-TRADITION AND INTERSTATE RENDITION 1 (1891); BLACK'S LAW DIcrIONARv 585 (6th ed. 1990).
10
Right to individual development in international law
of rendition.11 Until recently, international law addressed only the actions of states12 and
individuals had no standing to allege a nation's violation of international laws.13 The minimal
protection given the individual in the extradition process derived froi' traditional limitations on
state power, namely extraterritoriality,14 and internal mechanisms, such as specialty,15 dual
criminality,16 and the political offense exception.17 Within the last fifty years, however, various
international agreements have propelled the importance of individual rights to the forefront of
international law.18 International agreements, including the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights" ("UDHR")19 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights20 ("ICCPR')
recognized the individual's standing to assert violations of her rights.
MUNICIPAL EXTRADITION LAW
Some States have enacted special municipal laws and such laws enumerate those crimes for
which extradition shall be granted and the procedure to be followed. These countries are
competent to grant extradition treaty exists.
11 M. CHERIF BAssIOUNI, INTERNATIONAL EXTRADITION AND WORLD PUBLIC ORDER 572 (1974) [hereinafter WORLD PUBLIC ORDER]. Rendition refers to the formal process of extradition through a treaty. Weissman, supra note 1, at 467. Irregular rendition, such as abduction, evolved from the concept of reprisal and occurs outside of a treaty. Id. at 465.12 John H. Barton & Barry E. Carter, InternationalL aw and Institutionsf or a New Age, 81 CEO. LJ. 535, 538 (1993). "The traditional concept of international law was one of law between nations."13 WORLD PUBLIC ORDER, supra note 4, at 564. "[T]he individual is still not considered a full-fledged subject of international law, and hence, no practical means for the implementation of human rights have been developed which would allow individual redress of wrongs against a given state .... "14 Extraterritoriality is the right of a nation to control everything that occurs within its borders.15 Under the doctrine of specialty, an individual may only be tried by the extraditing country for those crimes specified in the extradition request.16 Dual criminality means that the crime alleged must be illegal in both the requesting and asylum state. Id. Dual criminality is also called double criminality. IvN A. SHEARER, EXTRADITION IN INTERNATIONAL LAw 138 (1971).17 No clear definition of what constitutes a political offense exists. Id. It is commonly left up to the courts and commentators to determine what constitutes a political offense. Id. Under the generally recognized political offense exception, the requested state may deny extradition if it considers the crime to be politically motivated or connected. Miriam E. Sapiro, Note, Extradition in an Era of Terrorism: The Need to Abolish the Political Offense Exception, 61 N.Y.U. L. REV. 654, 656 (1986). "[T]he political offense exception was created to protect individuals from unjust persecution for political beliefs and acts ... ."18 Richard B. Bilder, An Overview of International Human Rights Law, in INTERNATIONAL LAw 894, 895 (Barry E. Carter & Phillip R. Trimble eds., 1995) [hereinafter INTERNATIONAL LAW].19 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A, U.N. Doc. A/810, at 71 (1948) [hereinafter UDHR]. "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law." Id. art. VI, at 73.20 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, 6 1.L.M. 368 (1967) [hereinafter ICCPR]. "Everyone shall have the right to be recognized everywhere as a person before the law.
11
Right to individual development in international law
Indian Law of extradition is governed by the Extradition Act 1962 and the various treaties
signed by India. The extradition act 1962 does not define the word extradition but defines an
extradition offence to mean
a) In relation to a Foreign State, being a treaty State, an offence provided for in the extradition
treaty with State.
b) In relation to a Foreign State, other than a treaty State, an offence punishable with imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than one year under the laws of India or of a Foreign State
and includes composite offence.
A composite offence is defined as ‘an act or conduct of a person occurred, wholly or in part, in a
Foreign State or in India but its effect or its intended effects, taken as a whole, would constitute
an extradition offence in India or in a Foreign State, as the case may be. The procedure for
extradition is elaborately given in the Act.
An important provision in the Act relates to restrictions on the surrender of Fugitive criminal. A
Fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered to a Foreign State if the offence in respect of which
his surrender is sought is of a Political Character. The Schedule to the Extradition Act enlists
offences which are not being regarded as political offences. They include:
i) Offences under Anti-Hijacking Act 1982.
ii) Offence against the suppression of Unlawful Acts against safety of Civil Aviation Act 1982.
iii) An offence within the scope of the Convention on the Punishment of Crime Against International
Protected Persons including Diplomatic Agents 1973.
iv) An offence within the scope of the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages
1979.
v) The following offences under the Indian Penal Code
a) Culpable Homicide and Murder.
b) Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by a dangerous weapon;
c) Wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement.
d) Kidnapping and abduction and
e) Causing of loss or damage to property used for public utilities or otherwise with endanger life.
vi) Possession of a firearm or ammunition with intention to endanger life.
12
Right to individual development in international law
vii) The use of fire arm with the intention to resist or prevent arrest or detention.
viii) Offence relating to terrorism and terrorist attack.
Abetting, conspiring, or attempting to commit, inciting, participating as an accomplice in the
commission of any of the offences listed above, is also to be considered an offence which is not
to be regarded as political offences.
India has signed extradition treaties with UK (1992), USA (1997), Hong Kong (1997), Russia
(2000), and Germany (2001).
13
Right to individual development in international law
OBJECT OF EXTRADITION
The object of extradition may be any individual whether he is a subject of the prosecuting State,
or of the State where he resides, or of a third state. Many States like France and Germany have
adopted the principle of never extraditing one of their own subjects to a foreign State, but
punishing their own subjects for grave crimes committed abroad. The object of extradition is an
individual who is alleged to have committed a crime abroad whether or not he was physically
present on the territory of the State during the commission of the crime.
A conflict between international law and municipal law may arise if a certain individual must be
extradited according to the extradition treaty, but not according the municipal law of the State
from where the individual is to be extradited.
EXTRADITABLE CRIMES
Unless restricted by an extradition law, a person can be extradited for any crime. Similarly,
unless a State is bound by an extradition treaty it can refuse extradition for any crime. Usually
States frame their extradition treaties in conformity with their extradition laws and specify all
those crimes for which they would grant extradition. The function of the court, in case of
extradition, is not to try the case on the merits, but merely to ascertain whether the evidence
submitted justifies a prima facie judicial proceeding against the accused. Political Criminals as a
rule are not extradited. Similarly, military deserters and persons who have committed offences
against religion are excluded from the list of extraditable persons.
CONDITIONS OF EXTARDITION
Extradition is granted only if asked for and that too after the formalities required by law are
satisfied. It is affected by handing over the criminal by the police of the extraditing State, to the
police of the prosecuting State; and the surrendered individual can be tried and punished only
for those crimes exclusively for which the extradition is asked for. If they are punished for other
crimes the extraditing State has a right to complain. This is called the principle of speciality
14
Right to individual development in international law
In the Savarkar case21, a British subject, was prosecuted for high treason and abetment of
murder. He escaped to Britain from where he was being conveyed in the P & O Boar Morea to
India for the purpose of standing his trial. He escaped to French territory while the vessel was in
the harbor of Marseilles. He was, however, arrested by the French policemen who erroneously
handed him over to the British policemen in the belief that he was handing back a member of
crew who had committed an offence on board. Savarkar was admittedly a political criminal.
France demanded that Great Britain should give him up to them and demand for extradition in a
formal way. Great Britain refused to comply with this demand. The parties therefore agreed to
have matter decided by arbitration at Hague. The award while admitting the irregularity,
decided in favor of Britain. They asserted that there was no rule of international law imposing in
the circumstances such as these any obligation on the power which has a prisoner in its custody
to restore him on account of the mistake committed by him up to the power.
If an accused person is forcibly brought before the court by an abuse of the process in
contravention of the Extradition Act, it amounts to a violation of International Law. In R v
Horseferry Magistrate Court ex p Bennett22, when such a situation arose, the House of Lords
held that the UK courts should refuse to exercise jurisdiction.
The question, whether an extradition treaty between the British Government and a native State
in India, stood abrogated when the State merged into the Indian Union, was raised in Ram Babu
Saxena(Dr) v State23 while affirming the Rajasthan High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court
held that even if the treaty was not abrogated, the arrest of Dr. Saxena under sec 7 of the
Extradition Act was not rendered unlawful by anything contained in the Extradition Treaty of
1869.
21 (1911) 11 RIAA 24322 (1993) 3 All ER 13823 AIR 1950 SC 155
15
Right to individual development in international law
CONCLUSION
Thus we can say that individual play a significant role in the International law. The primary
subject of every State is the Individual only. Traditional constraints upon the individual in
international law should not be seen as a greater barrier than they are in reality. They must be
seen in their modern day context, where they have often been modified and at times completely
rejected. In recent decades there has been a return to the principles advocated by the founders
of international law; The United Nations Charter perhaps marking the turning point in
international practice by transforming the individual from an ‘object’ of international
benevolence into a ‘subject’ of international rights.
Such modern day state practice provides strong support for the existence of a new customary
international law recognizing the individual as an international juristic entity, with international
rights and procedural capacity. Even if international law does not as yet recognize the individual
as possessing such procedural capacity, international practice suggests States are at least obliged
to acknowledge and enforce individual rights. If as a matter of practice State acknowledge the
existence of individual rights and act on the behalf of aggrieved individuals, it could be that
States are now obliged to respect and enforce these international rights on the behalf of
individuals. In this case, it would be trite to try to argue, as positivists do, that these rights are
no longer the individual's just because it is the State that ultimately has the power of
enforcement.
International law is a flexible system of law which has for centuries adapted and changed to
complement the needs of the international community. It is not a rigid body of unchangeable
archaic notions glorifying State sovereignty. Given this flexibility, there is nothing to prevent
further developments recognizing the individual as a ‘subject’ of international law and
acknowledging the collective interests of all States. As outlined in this article, we are more than
half way there, and there seems nothing to prevent the establishment of a broader basis for
international rights and adjudication.
16
Right to individual development in international law
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books referred:
International Law & Human Rights by Dr. H. O. Agawam
International Law & Human Rights by N K Jayakumar
International Law & Human Rights by K.C. Joshi
Articles referred
EMERGENCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL AS AN INTERNATIONAL JURISTIC
ENTITY: ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS BY JULIE
CASSIDY.
THE INDIVIDUAL IN INTERNATIONAL LAW BY KUNUT TRAISBACH
THE ROLE OF INDIVIDUAL IN INTERNATIONAL LAW BY ANDREW
CLAPHAM
17
Top Related