A Historical Perspective on Human Rights

Most scholars consider the Magna Charta (Latin for “Great Charter”), signed in England in 1215, to be the forerunner of the legal guarantees which exist today. King John of England, under heavy pressure from rebellious nobles, granted all English freemen certain rights “to be had and holden by them and their heirs…for ever.” At that time in history very few people in England were actually regarded as freemen, but it was a step in the right direction. Before the Magna Charta, any provisions for human rights were at the behest of the occasional benign ruler of the land.

More often than not rulers were prone to oppress their peoples using arbitrary authority that was only challenged when others wanted to seize the same powers for themselves. Efforts by peasants to win more economic freedom were ruthlessly suppressed. To this day in many lands, persons openly critical of government policy find themselves jailed or executed.

When American colonists began their struggle for freedom, they really just wanted the same basic rights as Englishmen that they thought they had been guaranteed since 1689. Only after repeated attempts to assert themselves had been rebuked did they proclaim independence, maintaining in the process that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

The purpose of government is “to secure these rights.” wrote Thomas Jefferson. Contained in his description of basic rights and their higher source was a concept that had been around since the days of ancient Greece and Rome – that of natural law higher than any law conceived by humanity. A country founded on those basic principles could be expected to write them into its basic laws and so it did. From the start of its history as a nation, the supreme law of the United States has been its Constitution, not the authority of any person.

Understanding Private And Public International Law

Private international law is a sector of international law that oversees all legal entanglements that involve foreign law elements. Private international law is also referred to as conflict of laws, as international law usually trumps federal or national laws if there is conflict and the countries in question have signed an agreement to submit to an international ruling.

Private international law determines, if there is a conflict of laws, who has jurisdiction over the specific case and which laws are to be applied by the country that is given jurisdictional rights.

This type of law has been practiced by ages, and was first implemented by the Romans, who established a tribunal to reside over cases brought by foreign states that had a conflict of laws with regards to a criminal, etc. the Roman courts might decide to apply the law of one nation over both Roman law and the other nation.

Thus, private international law is largely used to settle disputes between foreign countries; however, awarding a case to one may mean a backlash from the other. Because of this, international rulings often take into consideration the reality of the situation with regards to international law, and may come to a decision that both countries legal factors are okay with.

Challenging Times for International Law

This article takes a snapshot in time of the relevance of international law. It does so by taking the historic purposes of international law as the point of departure for floating the idea that international law must cater to the reality of contemporary times to be sufficient.

For long, international law or the law of nations was understood as the panacea for resolving inter-state disputes. Those who viewed international law through the lens of criticism could but quote a few instances of its absolute failure. However, even the biggest of its opponents could not criticize international law endlessly because there were no Iraqs, Afghanistans, 9/11s or 7/7s for that matter.

The same is no longer true. A layman or a lawyer alike would rather paint a bleak picture of international law through the brush of the realities of ongoing armed conflicts to which international law has failed to put an end. A very important question naturally comes to mind: is international law living through challenging times? It is indeed. Is it sufficient as it stands today? Yes and no.

Historically, international law has served two main purposes: it has provided a platform for like-minded states (the traditional subjects of international law) to resolve their disputes through mutual debate. Secondly, it has narrowed down exceptions to the use of force. Unfortunately, these very purposes continue to be cast in serious doubt by recent developments at the international level.

Powered by WordPress