The Development of Human Rights Law by the Judges of the International Court of Justice (Studies in International Law)

Half Title Page......Page 1
Half Title verso......Page 2
Title Page......Page 3
Title verso......Page 4
Contents......Page 7
1. Introduction......Page 15
Part I. Perspective: Legislative Role of the Judge and Human Rights Law......Page 25
2. Legislative Role of the Judge: A Vital Role in the Life of the Law......Page 27
I. The Core Truth: All Roads Lead to Rome......Page 29
II. The Core Truth in Retrospect: An International Perspective......Page 31
III. Legislative Role of the ECJ and the ECHR......Page 33
IV. Legislative Role of the International Court of Justice......Page 43
V. The Development of Law and Judicial Ideologies......Page 46
VI. Appraisal......Page 48
3. Relationship between Human Rights and International Law: Principle of Human Dignity Versus Principle of State Sovereignty......Page 51
I. Basis of International Law: The Principleof Sovereignty......Page 53
II. Basis of Human Rights Law: The Principle of Human Dignity......Page 63
III. Appraisal: Principle of Human Dignity in Retrospect and Prospect......Page 86
Part II. The Development of Human Rights Law by the International Court of Justice Contentious Cases......Page 99
Introduction to the Contentious Procedure of the Court......Page 101
I. The Principle of Elementary Considerations of Humanity......Page 119
II. Judge Alvarez: Manifest Misuse of a Right Not Protected by Law......Page 121
I. Prelude......Page 123
II. Norm of Non-Discrimination and 1962 Judgement: Court Has Jurisdiction to Adjudicate Upon the Merits......Page 126
III. Judges Jessup and Bustamente: Voting in Favour of 1962 Judgment with Human Rights Additions......Page 129
IV. Second Phase Judgment: Compositional Politics a Setback to Human Rights......Page 131
V. Disproportionate Quorum: A Setback to Human Rights......Page 134
VI. Second Phase Judgment: Legal Formalism Circumvents Human Rights......Page 136
VII. Judge Tanaka and the Development of Human Rights Law......Page 140
VIII. Judge Jessup: Principle of Equal Rights is Universal and Apartheid is a Justiciable Issue......Page 156
IX. Judge Padilla Nervo: The Principle of Non-Discrimination and Obligation to Promote Respect for Human Rights are Internationally Recognized in Most Solemn Form......Page 158
X. Judge Wellington Koo: A Nation is a Developed Nation only if all its Citizens are Treated on the Basis of Equality before the Law......Page 160
XI. Judge Koretsky: Racial Discrimination an Issue of Vital Importance......Page 161
XII. Judge Mbanefo’s Dynamic Interpretation: Mandate and Apartheid......Page 162
XIII. Judge Forster’s Bold Teleological-Sociological-Natural Interpretation of Law Condemns Apartheid......Page 163
XIV. Postlude: Violation of Human Rights Law Led to Formation of Human Rights Law......Page 164
I. Human Rights Run Erga Omnes......Page 171
II. Enforcement of Human Rights......Page 174
I. Human Dignity and Diplomatic Immunity......Page 177
II. 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights is Binding in Character......Page 179
I. The Use of Force not an Appropriate Method to Ensure Respect for Human Rights......Page 181
II. The Principle of Self-Determination: Adherenceto a Particular Doctrine Does not Violate Customary International Law......Page 184
I. Some Preliminary Reflections......Page 185
II. Human Dignity Through Self-Determination v The Power of State Sovereignty......Page 188
III. Court Upholds the State Sovereignty in the Face of Human Rights and Human Dignity......Page 190
IV. Monetary Gold Principle v Human Rights......Page 195
V. ‘We the Peoples’, Self-Determination andState Sovereignty......Page 199
VI. Sacred Trust of Civilization v State Sovereignty......Page 201
VII. Dissent: Internal and Public......Page 204
VIII. Nevertheless: The Court did Add Authority to the Various Areas of the Principle of Self-Determination which Needed Clarification......Page 216
IX. Conclusion......Page 218
10. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovinia v Yugoslavia) (1993-): Prohibition of Genocides as Jus Cogens......Page 221
11. Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v Belgium; Yugoslavia v Canada; Yugoslavia v France; Yugoslavia v Germany; Yugoslavia v Italy; Yugoslavia v Netherlands; Yugoslavia v Portugal; Yugoslavia v Spain; Yugoslavia v United Kingdom; Yugoslavia v USA) (1999-2004)......Page 227
I. Yugoshima: Human Rights Issues of the Gravest Nature: Law Remained Silent When the Bombs Spoke......Page 228
II. Grund Case, Grund Subject, Grund Law and Grund Obligation......Page 230
III. Obiter Dicta v Ratio Decidendi: Human Rights Could Not Be Protected......Page 232
IV. Prima Facie Jurisdiction and Human Rights......Page 235
V. The Development of Human Rights Law: An Analysis of Static Jurisdiction v Dynamic Law......Page 239
I. Some Preliminary Reflections......Page 243
II. The Factual Background of the Yerodia Case......Page 246
III. Why Separate the Issues of Universal Jurisdiction and Immunity?......Page 249
IV. Doctrine of Immunity and the Concept of Human Dignity......Page 251
V. The Principle of Universal Jurisdiction and the Concept of Human Dignity......Page 257
VI. Belgian Reaction after the Judgment......Page 269
VII. Conclusion......Page 270
I. Some Preliminary Observations......Page 273
II. Three Cases with One Common Fact: Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Creates Human Rights......Page 275
III. Case Concerning the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v USA): Individual Rights Remained Undecided......Page 276
IV. LaGrand Case (Germany v USA): Vienna Convention Does Create Individual Rights......Page 277
V. The Case Concerning Avena and OtherMexican Nationals (Mexico v USA)38:Individual Rights Further Clarified......Page 284
VI. General Conclusion......Page 287
Part III. The Development of Human Rights Law by the International Court of Justice: Advisory Cases......Page 289
14. International Status of South-West Africa (1949-50) The Principle of Sacred Trust of Civilization......Page 293
15. Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case (1950-51) Genocide is Supremely Unlawful and its Principles are Binding on all States Irrespective of Being Party to a Convention......Page 301
I. Introduction......Page 305
II. Self-Determination in Retrospect and Prospect......Page 306
III. Apartheid as a Policy Constitutes a Denial of Fundamental Human Rights......Page 308
IV. People as Such Can Become Holder of Rights......Page 309
17. Western Sahara case (1974-75) The Principle of Self-determination......Page 311
I. Special Rapporteur of UN Human Rights Commission Entitled to Privileges and Immunities of a UN Expert on Mission......Page 315
II. Judge Evensen: Integrity of a Person’s Family and Family Life is A Basic Human Right......Page 316
III. Judge Evensen: Rights of Family and Family Life are Integral Parts of Privileges and Immunities......Page 317
I. Human Right to Health v Use of Power: Separation of Powers is the Answer......Page 319
III. Judge Koroma: Right to Health is a Pillar of Peace......Page 322
20. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Threat (Request for Advisory Opinion by UN General Assembly) (1994-96)......Page 325
I. Judge Oda: Judges Do Not Legislate......Page 329
II. Right to Life and The Human Rights Component of the Law of War......Page 330
III. Judge Bedjaoui: Nuclear Weapons v Right to Life:......Page 332
IV. Judge Weeramantry: Nuclear Weapons Totally Belie Human Dignity......Page 334
V. Judge Koroma: Both Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law Have as their Raison d’être the Protection of the Individual as well as the Worth and Dignity of the Human Person......Page 335
VI. Genocide and Nuclear Weapons......Page 336
VII. Judge Higgins: Intent Approximates to Legal Doctrine of Foreseeability......Page 337
VIII. Judge Weeramantry: Nuclear Weapons are Instruments of Genocide and their Use is Plainly Genocide......Page 338
X. Human Rights Component of the Law of War......Page 341
XI. Conclusion......Page 343
21. Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights (1998-99)......Page 345
I. Some Preliminary Observations......Page 351
II. Facts of the Case in a Nutshell......Page 352
III. Historical Analysis of the Occupied Territory......Page 353
IV. Human Rights Law Does Apply in the Occupied Territories......Page 354
V. International Humanitarian Law Does Apply in the Occupied Territory: The Rules of International Humanitarian Law are Binding on All Nations and the Law is Erga Omnes......Page 359
VI. Terrorism v Self-Defence: Grave Infringement of Human Rights cannot be Justified by Military Exigencies and National Security......Page 361
VII. The Court’s Advice to the General Assembly: Human Rights are Violated by Israel and They Must be Enforced by All States......Page 363
VIII. Conclusion......Page 364
23. Summary and General Conclusion......Page 367
General Bibliography......Page 385
Bibliography of Works by Judges of the Court......Page 393
Bibliographical Annexes......Page 399
Index......Page 481