This thesis will reassess the traditional doctrine of diplomatic protection in light of two significant and related developments in modern international law: (i) the proliferation of international human rights law and its granting of rights to individuals as subjects of international law; and (ii) the evolving conception of State sovereignty as including responsibility pursuant to the U.N.’s “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine. It will argue that the traditional doctrine – which holds that States have a discretionary right to espouse claims on behalf of their own nationals for wrongs committed against them by other States, but that the individuals harmed have no right to protection – is outdated and that these developments should lead to the recognition of a limited individual right and concomitant State obligation to provide diplomatic protection in certain circumstances. Responsibility to protect thus confirms a duty to protect using diplomatic means.

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.

Abstract 20 century end, the third wave democratization wave tide cause the snowballing effects, lead to the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe communist nation disintegration and walk the road that democracy transform. The Mainland China nature receives to relatively big impact, especially U.S¡Bformer Soviet Union the breakup of two very confrontation systems, make the western nation as to it¡¦s the military strategy and western value a victory of peaceful evolution believe deeply to do not move, cause the western nation more do not accept China domestic human rights to record not good. Under the effort of United Nations, the convenant of international human rights have become the human the lowest human rights standard possessed of 21 century, differ from the PRC regime words is a new imperialism to the China sovereignty of interfere with. The research believes at the world widespread acceptance democracy and human rights value, China will increase to the possibility that democracy transform.

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.

A core function of the United Nations over the past six decades has been the promotion and protection of human rights. In pursuit of this goal, the UN General Assembly has adopted numerous human rights treaties covering a vast array of rights. Because it has the highest number of ratifications, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC), is often lauded as the most successful of all the human rights treaties. Although the breadth and depth of human rights treaties is impressive, the amount of research into their effectiveness is not. Very little scholarship has been undertaken to evaluate the extent to which human rights treaties are being complied with by countries that have ratified them and whether ratification of a human rights treaty has a positive impact on the human rights situation within a State Party’s jurisdiction. The research that has been undertaken has been largely quantitative and limited to studies of compliance with civil and political rights. This thesis builds on this limited scholarship by qualitatively analysing the ‘compliance’ levels of two States, Australia and the United States, with the norm in Article 29(1) of CROC relating to human rights education (HRE). Although the United States has not ratified CROC, it was selected as one of the case studies for this research in order to enable comparison to be made between HRE in a State that has ratified CROC, and a State that has not, thereby shedding light on whether ratification of a human rights treaty makes a difference.

Teilw. zugl.: Diss. / Literaturverz. S. [459] - 481.

Thesis (M.A.) - Carleton University, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 167-173). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.