Terrorism, in one way or another, touches everyone's lives. Its affect could be as small as watching media stories on the nightly news and waiting longer in a security line at the airport or as significant as losing a loved one in an attack. As individuals come to grips with living with increased terrorist violence, individual nation-states and the international community have to prepare themselves to prevent, react to, and counter terrorism. This thesis examines whether international law provides an adequate framework for states victimized by terrorism to respond within the law. It highlights how international law currently addresses terrorism and the benefits and disadvantages of applying national and transnational criminal law and international human rights law compared with international humanitarian law to terrorism. Three case studies, the 11 September 2001 attacks on the United States, the 5 September 1972 attack against Israeli athletes in Munich, Germany, and the 11 March 2004 bombings of the train system in Madrid, Spain, investigate how international law has been used in actual terrorist incidents, lending insight into how international law has been interpreted and used in the face of terrorism. They also allow analysis of other factors besides international law that impact a victim-state's response. Finally, this thesis proposes criteria that can be weighed by victim-states and the international community in order to develop an appropriate response to terrorist incidents and recommendations for modifications to international law that will maintain international law's relevance as the international community fights terrorism. / Master of Arts

The United Nations has created an abundance of human rights treaties and declarations over the decades to promote a culture of human rights and to set normative provisions of human rights standards for all states to follow. This broad effort is supplemented by the work of regional human rights organisations, which aim to ensure implementation of these fundamental precepts, and to enhance its work to suit its regional circumstances, offering a protective source of jurisprudence at the domestic level. One such organisation, which this thesis examines, is the Arab League. In critically examining the history and the work of the Arab League, the study highlights the deficiencies in promoting and protecting human rights. In this context, this thesis critically examines the Arab League’s development and relationship with the wider international human rights apparatus. It provides a comprehensive overview of the system of the United Nations and its specialised organs that with the resolutions adopted helped the League establish its own regional human rights systems. It traces the history of the application of international human rights discourse in the Arab world. Accordingly, an attempt is made to conceptualise the universality of human rights in the region and the impact of the Shariah discourse. It then attempts to provide an analytic description of the Arab League and background to the region and undertakes an in-depth critical analysis of the structure of the League and assesses its impact in the region, all of which may have incentives to the League’s attempt to institutionalise, promote and protect human rights. The study considers the efforts made by the Arab Permanent Commission on Human Rights and its specialised agencies that ultimately led to the adoption of the Arab Charter on Human Rights (1994). After examining the limitations of the Commission and its work, the scope and structure of the revised Arab Charter on Human Rights (2004) is critically analysed. The study also examines and evaluates the legislative framework of the Arab Human Rights Committee (the Charter’s enforcement mechanism as per Art.45). A case study of the Syrian Arab Republic and the analysis of continuing violations of human rights in the region illustrate the deficiencies and limitations of the Arab League as a regional organisation.

The United States has justified targeted operations against suspected terrorists as a legitimate tool in the war against terrorism. In response to international criticism that a November 2002 targeted killing operation in Yemen violated human rights standards, the US asserted that the right to life was suspended during war. While this assertion is prima facie incorrect, many legal experts, scholars and authors agree in principle that a military response to international terrorism -- along with the concomitant dilution of the right to life -- is not only appropriate, but also complies with international law. However, the modern jus ad bellum limit the circumstances in which a state may lawfully resort to armed force. A fulsome understanding of international humanitarian law and the characteristics of groups such as Al Qaeda reveals that international law does not permit states to employ their military forces to responde to the international crime of international terrorism.

Recent Inter-American Court of Human Rights jurisprudence has resulted in major amendments to Mexican military justice law that were previously thought to be impossible, considering the historical role of the armed forces and Mexico's civil-military pact. Yet, with a recent Supreme Court decision, Mexican law has been modified to bring it into compliance with the Inter-American Court's decisions. However, their efficacy has been undermined by aspects of the decisions which were not made on a principled basis.

Recent Inter-American Court of Human Rights jurisprudence has resulted in major amendments to Mexican military justice law that were previously thought to be impossible, considering the historical role of the armed forces and Mexico's civil-military pact. Yet, with a recent Supreme Court decision, Mexican law has been modified to bring it into compliance with the Inter-American Court's decisions. However, their efficacy has been undermined by aspects of the decisions which were not made on a principled basis.

The United States has justified targeted operations against suspected terrorists as a legitimate tool in the war against terrorism. In response to international criticism that a November 2002 targeted killing operation in Yemen violated human rights standards, the US asserted that the right to life was suspended during war. While this assertion is prima facie incorrect, many legal experts, scholars and authors agree in principle that a military response to international terrorism -- along with the concomitant dilution of the right to life -- is not only appropriate, but also complies with international law. However, the modern jus ad bellum limit the circumstances in which a state may lawfully resort to armed force. A fulsome understanding of international humanitarian law and the characteristics of groups such as Al Qaeda reveals that international law does not permit states to employ their military forces to responde to the international crime of international terrorism.

This thesis interrogates the continued statelessness of more than 12 million stateless people around the world, in the face of Article 15 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which provides that everyone has a right to a nationality. Its principal argument is that the continued unresolved presence of stateless groups around the world exposes international law’s inadequate protection of the ‘right to a nationality’. It advocates the adoption of a robust approach to protect and enforce this right to nationality of stateless people. Article 15 of the UDHR has been complemented by a host of international and regional instruments relating to the right to nationality. In developing its argument, the thesis reviews the relevant instruments, as well as local and international judicial decisions relating to the right. The review is juxtaposed with local legislation and state practices on the issue of citizenship, for the purpose of determining the status of the right, and whether the right forms part of customary international law. This thesis also examines the emergence of nationality as a human right under international law and the interplay between states sovereignty and the right to nationality, for the purpose of showing the lacuna in international law that allows continued statelessness. It examines the relationship between the possession of nationality and the enjoyment of other human rights vis-à-vis the sufferings that arise from statelessness, as well as the extent to which denationalization is a step toward genocide, for the purpose of showing that protection of the right qualifies as erga omnes obligation. It also argues that suffering of stateless people must be taken seriously, as a step toward taking the right to nationality of stateless people seriously. While the thesis does not necessarily provide the final solution to all the problems arising out of statelessness, it is anticipated that it will make a worthy contribution to addressing the legal questions on statelessness and, more importantly, provide a sound basis for further discussions on the status, importance and the need to protect and enforce the right to nationality of stateless people.

This research focuses on the desirability and feasibility of allowing individuals to access the International Court of Justice when their rights under international human rights treaties have been violated. International law now recognizes individuals as its subjects and that from such recognition flows a right of access to international courts. Using the Inter-American and European Courts of Human Rights as models, it is examined whether the right of individual access supersedes the will of states, the arguments for and against a global human rights court and how the ICJ’s statute and rules could be changed to allow individuals a) to participate in the court’s proceedings and b) gain direct access to the court as parties. Individuals could have both locus standi before the ICJ if the Court modifies its procedural rules and jus standi, which requires not only procedural changes, but the modification of the U.N. Charter.

This research focuses on the desirability and feasibility of allowing individuals to access the International Court of Justice when their rights under international human rights treaties have been violated. International law now recognizes individuals as its subjects and that from such recognition flows a right of access to international courts. Using the Inter-American and European Courts of Human Rights as models, it is examined whether the right of individual access supersedes the will of states, the arguments for and against a global human rights court and how the ICJ’s statute and rules could be changed to allow individuals a) to participate in the court’s proceedings and b) gain direct access to the court as parties. Individuals could have both locus standi before the ICJ if the Court modifies its procedural rules and jus standi, which requires not only procedural changes, but the modification of the U.N. Charter.

Magister Legum - LLM / Africa seemingly cursed with instability, conflict and gross human rights violations has been the largest scene of operation of international criminal justice. This understanding led African States to be some of the key proponents in the push for an International Criminal Court. Of late however, mounting policy and operational fluxes between African States and international criminal justice has put Africa's relationship with international justice on ice. This in turn has awoken within the region's geopolitical body, the African Union, the need for an exclusively African response to international criminal justice as it is currently considering extending the jurisdiction of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights to cover international crimes. This Research Paper aims to chart the genesis of this move through the decision-making system of the African Union and within the broader context of the Union's emerging Human Rights, Peace and Security Architecture. It will simultaneously assess the viability of this proposal within the backdrop of recent global developments with a view to identifying key legal and policy ramifications. It aims to show that there may be room for the adoption of an empowered African Court as a regional complement to the international criminal justice system.