Sources and Nature of International Human Rights Obligations: Custom, Treaties, and Judicial Interpretation

Customary International Law (CIL)

Definition

• Customary International Law (CIL): Derived from state practice + opinio juris.

• It is binding in nature, though unwritten.

• Recognized under ICJ Statute, art. 38(1)(b).

Elements of CIL

1. State Practice

   • Refers to the actual behavior of states (actions + omissions).

   • Evidenced through:

     • Legislation

     • Judicial decisions

     • Diplomatic correspondence

     • Military manuals

     • Government statements

     • Voting patterns in international organizations

   • Omissions can also count as state practice (e.g., failure to object to a practice).

2. Opinio Juris

   • The belief that a practice is legally obligatory.

   • Distinguishes law from comity, morality, or habit.

   • Without opinio juris, state practice alone = not binding law.

Sources & Evidence of CIL

• Diplomatic correspondence (shows official state positions).

• State reports/documentation (e.g., UN submissions).

• NGO/INGO reports (secondary evidence, not binding).

• ICJ decisions and national courts (evaluate practice + opinio juris).

CIL and Torture

• Torture prohibited under CIL before UNCAT (1984).

• Recognized as a jus cogens norm (peremptory, no derogation permitted).

• Even states that have not ratified UNCAT (e.g., India) are bound by the prohibition on torture.

Key Cases

1. Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980) (U.S.)

   • U.S. Court recognized torture as violation of CIL.

   • Held that freedom from torture is universally binding, irrespective of treaty law.

   • Landmark for Alien Tort Statute (ATS) litigation.

2. R v. Jones, [2006] UKHL 16

   • Concerned whether crime of aggression was CIL.

   • House of Lords: crime of aggression recognized internationally, but not enforceable domestically without statute.

   • Reinforces role of state practice in crystallizing CIL.

Jus Cogens

• Definition: Peremptory norms of international law from which no derogation is permitted.

• Examples: prohibition of torture, genocide, slavery, aggression.

• Referred to as “intransgressible principles of customary international law.”

• Binding on all states irrespective of consent or treaty ratification.

• Human Rights Link: Jus cogens norms closely tied to fundamental human rights (non-derogable, universal).

General Principles of Law

• Definition: Fundamental legal principles common to most national legal systems.

• Recognized under ICJ Statute, art. 38(1)(c).

• Do not require long practice or consent; derived from shared domestic legal foundations (e.g., good faith, equity, res judicata).

Judicial Decisions

• ICJ decisions: binding only on the parties and case (ICJ Statute, art. 59).

• Still influential as subsidiary means for determining rules of law.

• National courts may also provide evidence of CIL.

Impermissible Reservations & Human Rights Treaties

Severability Doctrine

• If a reservation is impermissible, the treaty stands without the reservation.

• Key case: Reservations to the Genocide Convention, ICJ, Advisory Opinion (1951).

General Comments

1. CESCR General Comment No. 3 (1990)

   • Nature of states’ obligations under ICESCR.

   • Progressive realization, but minimum core obligations (e.g., food, shelter) must be met immediately.

   • States must use maximum available resources (domestic + international, including IMF/WB support).

2. CCPR General Comment No. 31 (2004)

   • Nature of states’ obligations under ICCPR.

   • Negative duty: restrain from violations.

   • Positive duty: protect and ensure rights.

   • Requires effective remedies + guarantees of non-repetition.

3. CCPR General Comment No. 24 (1994)

   • On reservations to ICCPR.

   • Clarifies limits: reservations must not undermine object and purpose of treaty.

⚖️ Case Study:

Belilos v. Switzerland (ECtHR, 1988)

• Facts:

  • Marlene Belilos fined by Lausanne police board after demonstration.

  • She argued tribunal was not independent and impartial (Art. 6 ECHR).

  • Switzerland had filed an interpretative declaration (not reservation).

• Held:

  • ECtHR: interpretative declaration ≠ reservation.

  • Lausanne police board = administrative body, not impartial tribunal.

  • Violation of Art. 6(1) ECHR.

• Significance:

  • Distinction between interpretative declaration and reservation.

  • Reinforced right to independent and impartial tribunal.

References (Bluebook Style)

• Statute of the ICJ, art. 38(1).

• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, arts. 19–23.

• Convention Against Torture, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85.

• Cases:

  • Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980).

  • R v. Jones, [2006] UKHL 16 (appeal taken from Eng.).

  • Belilos v. Switzerland, App. No. 10328/83, 10 Eur. H.R. Rep. 466 (1988).

  • Reservations to the Genocide Convention, Advisory Opinion, 1951 I.C.J. 15.

• General Comments:

  • HRC, General Comment No. 31, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13 (2004).

  • CESCR, General Comment No. 3, U.N. Doc. E/1991/23 (1990).

  • HRC, General Comment No. 24, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.6 (1994).