CONCEPT NOTE
Human Dignity in International Law: Issues and Challenges
Human Dignity is
essentially the expression used to signify that an individual has an inherent,
right to respect and ethical treatment. At its core, human dignity contains
three elements—intrinsic value, autonomy, and community value ; and each element having
an unique legal implications.
Over the past several decades, human dignity has become an omnipresent idea in contemporary law, and of more an ubiquitous idea in International Law. One can see that the term has been prominently placed in a wide range of declarations and treaties,[1] several of which are enforced by International Courts. In fact, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) has used the concept of human dignity to support its decisions in a varied assortment of cases
Classical International Law, with Sovereignty as its firm foundation, rejected all individuals and organizations, other than a sovereign State, to be its subjects. However, in the case concerning Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, it fell to the International Court of Justice to decide whether or not the United Nations Organization with its given purposes and principles- centered in its reaffirmation of respect for Human Rights and Human Dignity of “We, the People of the United Nations”- had been granted any legal personality by the UN Charter. Not having found any express provisions in the Charter to that effect, the Court proceeded to inquire if such a personality could be implied from the Charter provisions. It is with such Human Dignity-oriented judicial ideology that the Court reasoned and came to the conclusion that:
“The subjects of law in any legal system are not necessarily identical in their nature or in their extent of their rights, and their nature depends upon the needs of the community.”
Human dignity , as a judicial ideology , is a liberal and yet firmly legalistic approach to the application and interpretation of law. In the absence of
(i) a strong international criminal law regime and
(ii) a strong enforcement component of global governance ,
there are serious violations of human dignity in war as well as in peace times.
All these limited areas of concern are Calling for a continuous debate and discussion and commitment amongst the international community.
[1] These include UN Charter (1945), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), the American Convention on Human Rights (1978), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979), the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1981), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), the Convention on the Rights of the Child(1989), the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000), and the Arab Charter on Human Rights (2004).
Over the past several decades, human dignity has become an omnipresent idea in contemporary law, and of more an ubiquitous idea in International Law. One can see that the term has been prominently placed in a wide range of declarations and treaties,[1] several of which are enforced by International Courts. In fact, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) has used the concept of human dignity to support its decisions in a varied assortment of cases
Classical International Law, with Sovereignty as its firm foundation, rejected all individuals and organizations, other than a sovereign State, to be its subjects. However, in the case concerning Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, it fell to the International Court of Justice to decide whether or not the United Nations Organization with its given purposes and principles- centered in its reaffirmation of respect for Human Rights and Human Dignity of “We, the People of the United Nations”- had been granted any legal personality by the UN Charter. Not having found any express provisions in the Charter to that effect, the Court proceeded to inquire if such a personality could be implied from the Charter provisions. It is with such Human Dignity-oriented judicial ideology that the Court reasoned and came to the conclusion that:
“The subjects of law in any legal system are not necessarily identical in their nature or in their extent of their rights, and their nature depends upon the needs of the community.”
Human dignity , as a judicial ideology , is a liberal and yet firmly legalistic approach to the application and interpretation of law. In the absence of
(i) a strong international criminal law regime and
(ii) a strong enforcement component of global governance ,
there are serious violations of human dignity in war as well as in peace times.
All these limited areas of concern are Calling for a continuous debate and discussion and commitment amongst the international community.
[1] These include UN Charter (1945), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), the American Convention on Human Rights (1978), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979), the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1981), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), the Convention on the Rights of the Child(1989), the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000), and the Arab Charter on Human Rights (2004).