UPSC MainsLAW-PAPER-I202010 Marks150 Words
Q21.

Discuss the status of individual in International Law especially with reference to human rights treaties.

How to Approach

This question requires a nuanced understanding of International Law and its evolving approach to individual rights. The response should begin by outlining the historical shift from state-centric to individual-centric international law. It must then discuss the significance of human rights treaties, detailing their impact and limitations. Crucially, it should address the enforcement mechanisms and challenges in ensuring individual accountability under international law, alongside mentioning the concept of universal jurisdiction. A structured approach with clear headings and subheadings is vital for clarity and comprehensiveness.

Model Answer

0 min read

Introduction

Traditionally, International Law operated on a state-centric model, focusing primarily on relations between nations. However, the latter half of the 20th century witnessed a significant shift towards recognizing the individual as a subject of international law. This evolution is largely attributable to the growing prominence of human rights and the proliferation of international human rights treaties. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), while not a treaty itself, laid the groundwork for this paradigm shift, establishing a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. This answer will explore the evolving status of the individual within the framework of International Law, particularly in the context of these crucial human rights treaties.

Historical Context: From State-Centric to Individual-Centric Law

Initially, International Law was concerned with regulating relations between sovereign states. Individuals were largely irrelevant. The concept of ‘crimes against humanity’ existed but lacked robust legal frameworks for prosecution. The horrors of World War II, particularly the Holocaust, dramatically underscored the inadequacy of this state-centric approach and propelled the movement towards recognizing individual rights and responsibilities under international law.

Human Rights Treaties and the Individual

The rise of human rights treaties signifies the increasing recognition of the individual's place in international law. Several key treaties have enshrined individual rights and obligations:

  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1966): Guarantees rights like freedom of expression, fair trial, and protection from arbitrary arrest.
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (1966): Focuses on rights like education, healthcare, and adequate standard of living.
  • Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) (1965): Prohibits racial discrimination and promotes equality.
  • Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (1979): Addresses gender-based discrimination.
  • Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (1989): Defines rights specific to children.

These treaties create individual rights, allowing individuals to petition state parties for redress if their rights are violated. However, the effectiveness of these petitions depends on the state's willingness to comply and the availability of effective remedies.

Enforcement Mechanisms and Challenges

While human rights treaties are crucial, enforcement remains a significant challenge.

  • State Reporting:** State parties are obligated to submit periodic reports to treaty bodies, who assess compliance. This is a relatively weak enforcement mechanism.
  • Individual Complaints:** Some treaties (e.g., ICCPR, ICESCR) allow individuals to file complaints against states, but these are subject to complex procedures and often face political obstacles.
  • International Criminal Court (ICC): The ICC can prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. However, its jurisdiction is limited and relies on state cooperation.
  • Universal Jurisdiction:** This principle allows states to prosecute individuals for certain grave crimes, regardless of where the crime was committed or the nationality of the perpetrator or victim. It remains controversial and is rarely invoked.

Limitations and Criticisms

Despite the progress, several limitations persist:

  • State Sovereignty:** The principle of state sovereignty often clashes with individual rights. States are reluctant to cede authority to international bodies.
  • Political Bias:** International human rights mechanisms are often influenced by political considerations.
  • Lack of Enforcement Power:** International courts and tribunals lack the power to enforce their decisions directly. They rely on state cooperation.
Treaty Key Rights Guaranteed Individual Complaint Mechanism?
ICCPR Civil and political rights (freedom of speech, fair trial) Yes (Optional Protocol)
ICESCR Economic, social, and cultural rights (education, health) Yes (Optional Protocol)
CRC Rights of the child (education, protection from exploitation) No

Case Study: The Gambia vs. Myanmar (Rohingya Crisis)

The Gambia brought a case against Myanmar before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) alleging violations of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in relation to the treatment of the Rohingya Muslim minority. This case highlights the potential for individual victims to trigger international legal action against states, even when direct evidence is challenging to obtain. The ICJ ordered Myanmar to take provisional measures to protect the Rohingya population, demonstrating a willingness to address human rights concerns.

Conclusion

The status of the individual in International Law has undergone a significant transformation, largely driven by the proliferation of human rights treaties. While these treaties have established a framework for protecting individual rights and holding states accountable, significant challenges remain regarding enforcement and the balance between state sovereignty and individual freedoms. The ongoing evolution of international law necessitates continuous efforts to strengthen mechanisms for individual redress and promote a truly universal respect for human rights.

Answer Length

This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.

Additional Resources

Key Definitions

State Sovereignty
The principle that a state has the exclusive right to govern itself without external interference. It often acts as a barrier to individual accountability under international law.
Universal Jurisdiction
A legal principle allowing a state to prosecute individuals for crimes committed in other jurisdictions, regardless of the perpetrator's or victim's nationality. It's primarily applied to serious crimes like genocide and crimes against humanity.

Key Statistics

According to the UN Human Rights Office, as of 2023, there are over 30 core international human rights treaties and over 80 optional protocols.

Source: UN Human Rights Office

The ICC has issued arrest warrants for 56 individuals as of October 2023, demonstrating its role in prosecuting individuals for international crimes.

Source: International Criminal Court

Examples

Pinochet Case (1998)

The arrest and subsequent extradition proceedings against former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in Spain demonstrated the potential for universal jurisdiction and the ability of national courts to prosecute human rights abusers, even when the crimes were committed outside their territory.

The Gambia vs. Myanmar (Rohingya Crisis)

This case illustrates how a state can bring a case on behalf of its citizens before the ICJ, alleging violations of a human rights treaty. It demonstrates the potential for individual victims to trigger international legal action.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is state consent so important in International Human Rights Law?

Most human rights treaties require state ratification. This signifies consent to be bound by the treaty's provisions and allows states to withdraw from treaties. Without consent, the treaty has no legal force.

What is the difference between a treaty and a declaration?

A treaty is a legally binding agreement between states, while a declaration is a statement of principles or intentions that is not legally binding. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a declaration.

Topics Covered

International RelationsLawHuman RightsInternational Humanitarian Law, Human Rights Law, Individual Accountability, Universal Jurisdiction