Nigel S. Rodley

After Bangladesh: The Law of Humanitarian Intervention by Military Force

In the Bangladesh crisis, two important objectives of international law appeared to be in conflict: that of peace and that of justice. The former objective is set out in the rules of the U.N. Charter against the use of force by states except in self-defense against an armed attack. The second is found in the provisions of the Charter and in various resolutions, declarations, and covenants pertaining to fundamental human rights and self determination.

Integrity of the Person

This chapter examines rights at the core of the concept of integrity of the person. Specifically, it considers the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment and the right to life. The chapter addresses complex definitional issues of what constitutes torture, and addresses other ill-treatment, mainly in the light of treaty definitions and case law of courts and other bodies charged with applying relevant treaties. The same approach is taken with respect to the right to life, where the central issues of the limits international law places on the death penalty and on the use of force by security forces and law enforcement officials are considered. Both rights are considered to be rules of customary international law and probably peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens).

On the responsibility of special rapporteurs

While acclaimed for their activities in addressing human rights violations on behalf of the United Nations, the special procedures of the Human Rights Council have also been criticised by UN member states for actions asserted to be incompatible with their obligations. The criticisms have generally been self-serving and unconvincing, but some have had plausibility. The obligations of the special procedures are examined from the perspective of the main documents governing the activities of UN ‘experts on mission’ generally, as well as those specifically applicable to the special procedures. Existing and proposed channels for dealing with complaints about their activities are considered.

Looking-Glass Laws:

‘WHEN I USE A WORD IT MEANS EXACTLY WHAT I WANT IT TO MEAN,’ SAYS HUMPTY DUMPTY TO ALICE IN THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS. WHICH IS MORE OR LESS WHERE WE ARE WITH THE US AND ITS INTERPRETATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

12 Updating the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners

2. In view of the great variety of legal, social, economic and geographical conditions of the world, it is evident that not all of the rules are capable of application in all places and at all times. They should, however, serve to stimulate a constant endeavour to overcome practical difficulties in the way of their application, in the knowledge that they represent, as a whole, the minimum conditions which are accepted as suitable by the United Nations.

The International Court of Justice and Human Rights Treaty Bodies

1 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948, 78 u.n.t.s. 277; Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, advisory opinion, 1951 i.c.j. 15. See generally, Gentian Zyberi, The Humanitarian Face of the International Court of Justice: Its Contribution to Interpreting and Developing International Human Rights and Humanitarian Rules and Principles (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2008); Egon Schwelb, “The International Court of Justice and the Human Rights Clauses of the Charter,” American Journal of International Law 66 (1972): 337; Nigel Rodley, “Human Rights and Humanitarian Intervention: The Case Law of the World Court,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 38 (1989): 321; Rosalyn Higgins, “Human Rights in the icj,” Leiden Journal of International Law 20 (2007): 745; and Bruno Simma, “Mainstreaming Human Rights: The Contribution of the icj,” Journal of International Dispute Settlement 3 (2012): 7. chapter 1

The Singarasa Case: Quis Custodiet: A Test for the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct

This Essay considers the 2006 Sri Lankan Supreme Court case, Singarasa v. Attorney General, which declared unconstitutional the states eight-year-old accession to the Protocol permitting the Human Rights Committee to examine complaints of violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It places the decision in the context of the Committees earlier findings of Covenant violations by Sri Lanka resulting from actions by the Court. This forms the basis of a discussion of problems of identifying questionable judicial conduct and the relevance of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.