Source: https://en.b-ok.org/book/2778326/2d9af0
Timestamp: 2020-01-24 10:26:02
Document Index: 454367994

Matched Legal Cases: ['UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'UKHL ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'Art.1', 'Art.2', 'Art.1', 'Art.28', 'Art.47', 'Art.44', 'Art.48', 'Art.49', 'Art.61', 'Art.1', 'Art.1', 'Art.2', 'Art.21', 'Art.41', 'Art.45', 'Art.61', 'Art.62', 'Art.1', 'Art.3', 'Art.2', 'Art.187', 'Art.291', 'Art.1', 'Art.3', 'Art.6', 'Art.12', 'Art.19', 'Art.37', 'Art.38', 'Art.1', 'Art.1', 'Art.2', 'Art.3', 'Art.4', 'Art.5', 'Art.6', 'Art.6', 'Art.7', 'Art.7', 'Art.7', 'Art.8', 'Art.9', 'Art.10', 'Art.10', 'Art.11', 'Art.11', 'Art.12', 'Art.13', 'Art.14', 'Art.17', 'Art.25', 'Art.33', 'Art.34', 'Art.55', 'Art.1', 'Art.2', 'Art.3', 'Art.5', 'Art.1', 'Art.3', 'Art.5', 'Art.19', 'Art.1', 'Art.2', 'Art.5', 'Art.9', 'Art. 14', 'Art.2', 'Art.2', 'Art.3', 'Art.4', 'Art.5', 'Art.10', 'Art.17', 'Art.20', 'Art.26', 'Art.27', 'Art.36', 'Art.12', 'Art.12', 'Art.22', 'Art.24', 'Art.7', 'Art.8', 'Art.12', 'Art.39', 'Art.43', 'Art.81', 'Art.82', 'Art.141', 'Art.240', 'Art.48', 'Art.56', 'Art.85', 'Art.86', 'Art.119', 'Art.1', 'Art.14', 'Art.41', 'Art.42', 'Art.48', 'Art.55', 'Art.56', 'Art.103', 'Art.31', 'Art.53', 'Art.64', 'Art.65', 'Art.66', 'Art.42', 'Art.8', 'Art.8', 'Art.6', 'Art. 1']

Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors | Andrew Clapham | download
Main Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors
Human rights activists increasingly address the activity of multinational corporations, the policies of international organizations such as the World Bank and World Trade Organization, and international crimes committed by entities such as armed opposition groups and terrorists. This book presents an approach to human rights which goes beyond the traditional focus on states and outlines the human rights obligations of non-state actors. It finishes with examples of how non-state actors can be held legally accountable for their actions in various jurisdictions and suggests a framework for understanding the limits of human rights in this context.
Pages: 648 / 641
ISBN 10: 0199288461
ISBN 13: 9780199288465
obligations1099
convention820
para634
state actors620
corporations394
humanitarian376
violations350
obligation315
declaration309
treaty298
rights obligations289
discrimination265
human rights obligations260
treaties240
humanitarian law233
constitutional231
governmental230
wto223
governments212
norms211
violation204
customary194
charter185
crimes182
international humanitarian173
sphere170
guidelines169
labour166
jurisdiction165
abuses160
state actor158
constitution158
international humanitarian law156
enterprises152
provisions148
un doc144
customary international143
accountability141
multinational139
transnational138
complicity136
liability131
customary international law118
inter116
european convention114
private sphere111
applicable110
File: RAR, 8.33 MB
Series Editors: Professor Gráinne de Búrca,
Professor Bruno de Witte, and
Professor Francesco Francioni,
Assistant Editor: Barbara Ciomei, European University
VOLUME XV/1
Edited by Professor Gráinne de Búrca,
Professor Bruno de Witte, and Professor Francesco Francioni
Assistant Editor: Barbara Ciomei
This series brings together the Collected Courses of the
Academy of European Law in Florence. The Academy’s mission is to
produce scholarly analyses which are at the cutting edge of the two
fields in which it works: European Union law and human rights law.
A ‘general course’ is given each year in each field, by a
distinguished scholar and/or practitioner, who either examines the
field as a whole through a particular thematic, conceptual, or
philosophical lens, or who looks at a particular theme in the context
of the overall body of law in the field. The Academy also publishes
each year a volume of collected essays with a specific theme in each
of the two fields.
ANDREW CL APHAM
© A. Clapham 2006
ISBN-13: 978–0–19–829815–1 (hardback : alk. paper)
ISBN-13: 978–0–19–928846–5 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Human rights. 2. Social responsibility of business. 3. Nongovernmental organizations. I. Title.
JC571.C597 2006
ISBN 0–19–829815–3 (hbk) 978–0–19–829815–1 (hbk)
ISBN 0–19–928846–1 (pbk) 978–0–19–928846–5 (pbk)
The Collected Courses of the Academy of
European Law Edited by Professor Gráinne de
Búrca, Professor Bruno de Witte, and Professor
Francesco Francioni Assistant Editor: Barbara
The Collected Courses of the
Academy of European Law Edited
by Professor Gráinne de Búrca,
Academy of European Law in Florence. The Academy's mission
is to produce scholarly analyses which are at the cutting edge
of the two fields in which it works: European Union law and
distinguished scholar and/or practitioner, who either examines
the field as a whole through a particular thematic, conceptual,
or philosophical lens, or who looks at a particular theme in the
context of the overall body of law in the field. The Academy
also publishes each year a volume of collected essays with a
specific theme in each of the two fields.
Several years ago Ian Brownlie kindly asked me to prepare a second edition of
my book, Human Rights in the Private Sphere; when I began work it transpired
that there was no electronic version of the book. Oxford University Press were
ready to retype the relevant chapters, but I came to realize (helped by Philip
Alston) that the absence of computer files might be a blessing in disguise, it
seemed I had better write a new book. The project took a new turn when I was
asked by Gráinne de Búrca and Bruno de Witte to give the General Course on
Human Rights for the Academy of European Law at the European University
Institute in Florence. This book is the result of the lectures given in Florence
in 2004 and has benefited from the challenging and stimulating discussion provoked by the Academy’s participants. I should like to thank all those involved
with the Academy for making the experience so pleasurable. Thank you Bruno,
Philip, and Gráinne for having me, thanks also to Francesco Francioni and
Wojciech Sadurski for their warm hospitality, and a special thank you to Anny
Bremner and Barbara Ciomei for the royal treatment I received during my stay
and in the preparation of this publication. Oxford University Press has provided
encouragement and wonderful editorial assistance throughout the publication
process. I should like to thank John Louth, Gwen Booth, Rowena Lennon,
Rebecca Smith, and Alison Floyd for their hard work and patience.
I have been lucky to be able to work on this project with talented students
from the Graduate Institute of International Studies. At an early stage Silvia
Danailov helped me to research and define the context for a study of non-state
actor obligations under international law, her continuing interest in the topic is
helping to shape thinking about the recruitment of child soldiers and to find
new ways of holding armed groups accountable. Later on, Michelle Healy
worked on the manuscript, skilfully adjusting the prose, and improving the
argumentation. In the final stage Claire Mahon cast an expert eye over the whole
manuscript. Thank you Silvia, Michelle, and Claire for all your input.
I should also like to thank those friends and colleagues who have invited me
to try out the ideas developed in this book on various audiences, and then
encouraged me to continue to look for new ways of thinking about the problem. Thank you Ben Emmerson, Walter Kälin, Jonathan Cooper, Mary
Robinson, Bill Schabas, and Susan Marks for giving me the opportunity to air
some of these ideas. Lastly, special thanks to my wife Mona Rishmawi, whose
unfailing support ensured that the book was written, and whose human rights
insights have certainly improved the final product.
Commission Nationale des Droits de l’Homme et des Libertés v Chad
(Comm. 74/92) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .433–434
Mouvement Burkinabé des Droits de l’Homme et des Peuples v Burkino Faso
(Comm. 204/97) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .434
Social and Economic Rights Action Centre v Nigeria (Comm. 155/96) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .434–436
Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA (Case C–281/98)
[2000] All ER (EC) 577; [2000] ECR I–4139; [2000] 2 CMLR 1120 . . . . . . . . . . . . .191–192
Defrenne v SA Belge de Navigation Aerienne (SABENA) (Case C–43/75)
[1981] 1 All ER 122; [1976] ECR 455; [1976] 2 CMLR 98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .191
Elliniki Radiophonia Tileorassi AE (ERT) v Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis (DEP)
(Case C–260/89) [1991] ECR I–2925; [1994] 4 CMLR 540 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183–184
Eugen Schmidberger Internationale Transporte Planzuge v Austria (Case C–112/00)
[2003] ECR I–5659; [2003] 2 CMLR 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184
Friedrich Stork & Co v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community
(Case C–1/58) [1959] ECR 17; [1959] ECR 433 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182
Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz (Case C–44/79) [1979] ECR 3727; [1980] 3 CMLR 42;
(1981) 3 EHRR 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182
J Nold Kohlen- und Baustoffgrosshandlung v Commission of the European Communities
(Case C–4/73) [1975] ECR 985; [1974] ECR 491; [1974] 2 CMLR 338 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182
Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA (Case C–106/89)
[1990] ECR I–4135; [1993] BCC 421; [1992] 1 CMLR 305 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .504–505
Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire AHA (No 1) (Case C–152/84)
[1986] QB 401; [1986] 2 WLR 780; [1986] 2 All ER 584; [1986] ECR 723;
[1986] 1 CMLR 688 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192
NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse
Administratie der Belastingen (Case C–26/62) [1963] ECR 1; [1963] CMLR 105 . . . . . . .190
Racke GmbH & Co v Hauptzollamt Mainz (Case C–162/96) [1998] ECR I–3655;
[1998] 3 CMLR 219 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181
Von Colson v Land Nordrhein-Westfahlen (Case C–14/83) [1984] ECR 1891;
[1986] 2 CMLR 430 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192–193
Wachauf v Germany (Case C–5/88) [1989] ECR 2609; [1991] 1 CMLR 328 . . . . . . . . .182–184
Walrave v Association Union Cycliste Internationale (Case C–36/74)
[1974] ECR 1405; [1975] 1 CMLR 320 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190–191
Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (Case C–32/93) [1994] QB 718; [1994]
3 WLR 941; [1994] 4 All ER 115; [1994] ECR I–3567; [1994] 2 CMLR 729 . . . . . .193, 505
Ahmed v Austria (report of July 5, 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .377
Altun v Germany (App. 10308/83) (1983) 5 EHRR CD611; (1985) 7 EHRR CD154 . . . . . .376
App. 10018/82 v Ireland and United Kingdom (Unreported, March 7, 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . .360
Ayuntamient de M v Spain (App. 15090/98) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .478
Ayuntamiento de Mula v Spain (App. 55346/00) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .478
Baggs v United Kingdom (App. 9310/81) (1987) 9 EHRR CD235 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .390
Baumgartner v Austria (App. 23085/93) (May 15, 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .383
BBC v United Kingdom (App. 25798/94) (1996) 21 EHRR CD93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .478
BBC Scotland et al v United Kingdom (App. 34324/96) (October 23, 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . .483
Earl Spencer v United Kingdom (App. 28851/95) (1998) 25 EHRR CD105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .400
H v United Kingdom (1986) 48 D&R 258 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .369
M & Co v Federal Republic of Germany (App. 13258/87, 64 D & R 138) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187
Osman v United Kingdom (Report of July 1, 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .362–3
Rothenthurm Commune v Switzerland (App. 13252/87) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .478
Twenty-One Detained Persons v Federal Republic of Germany
(App. 3134/67, 3172/67, 3188–3206/67) 27 Collection 97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .381
W v Ireland (App. 9360/81) 32 D & R 211 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .359–60
W v United Kingdom (App. 9348/81) 32 D & R 190 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .359–60
Whiteside v United Kingdom (March 7, 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .388
X and Y v Netherlands (App. 8978/80) (1986) 8 EHRR 235 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .370, 387, 390
X v Ireland (App. 6040/73) (1974) 44 CD 121 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .359
X v Netherlands (App. 9322/81) 32 D&R 180 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .382
A v United Kingdom (1999) 27 EHRR 611 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .356–357, 373
Ahmed v Austria (1997) 24 EHRR 278 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .343, 377
Akkoç v Turkey (2002) 34 EHRR 51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .366
Albert v Belgium (Case A/58) (1983) 5 EHRR 533 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .384
Appleby v United Kingdom (2003) 37 EHRR 38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .412–413, 417, 439
Arnott v United Kingdom (App. 44866/98) (November 7, 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .400
Calvelli v Italy (January 17, 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .370
Chahal v United Kingdom (1997) 23 EHRR 413; 1 BHRC 405 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117
Costello-Roberts v United Kingdom (A/247–C) [1994] (1995)
19 EHRR 112 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .355–356, 358, 373, 382, 388, 420, 467
Cyprus v Turkey (May 10, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .353–354
D v United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 423; 2 BHRC 273 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .340
E v United Kingdom (2003) 36 EHRR 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .373
Deumeland v Germany (A/100) [1996] 8 EHRR 448 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .384
Edwards v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .367–368
Ergi v Turkey (2001) 32 EHRR 18; [1998] HRCD 726 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .366–367
Feldbrugge v Netherlands (A/99) 8 EHRR 425 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .384
Garaudy v France (Admissibility) (App. 15814/02) (Unreported, July 8, 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . .409
Guerra v Italy (1998) 26 EHRR 357 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .390, 392
Gustafsson v Sweden (1996) 22 EHRR 409 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .415, 417, 420, 441
Hatton v United Kingdom (2003) 37 EHRR 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .358, 390, 420
HLR v France (1998) 26 EHRR 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .377–379
Holy Monasteries v Greece (A/301–A) (1995) 20 EHRR 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82, 407
James v United Kingdom (A/98) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .552
Kaya v Turkey (1999) 28 EHRR 1; [1998] HRCD 291 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .365
Kokkinakis v Greece (A/260–A) (1994) 17 EHRR 397 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .405
Krone Verlag GmbH & Co KG v Austria (2003) 36 EHRR 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .397
Lingens v Austria (No.2) (A/103) (1986) 8 EHRR 407 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .546
Lopez Ostra v Spain (A/303–C) (1995) 20 EHRR 277 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .389, 392
Matthews v United Kingdom (1999) 28 EHRR 361 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .186
MC v Bulgaria (2005) 40 EHRR 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .373, 387
Minelli v Switzerland (A/62) (1983) 5 EHRR 554 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .385
News Verlags GmbH & Co KG v Austria (2001) 31 EHRR 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .397
Norwood v United Kingdom (Admissibility) (App. 23131/03) (November 16, 2004) . . . . . . .410
Osman v United Kingdom (2000) 29 EHRR 245 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .361–365, 367, 388, 420, 525
Otto-Preminger Institute v Austria (A/295–A) (1995) 19 EHRR 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .402–40
Peck v United Kingdom (2003) 36 EHRR 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .399
Pellegrini v Italy (2002) 35 EHRR 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189
Plon (Societé) v France (App. 58148/00) (May 18, 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .398
Powell v United Kingdom (A/172) (1990) 12 EHRR 355 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .389–390, 420
Seurot v France (App. 57383/00) (May 18, 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .409
Sibson v United Kingdom (A/258–A) (1994) 17 EHRR 193 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .414
Sigurjónsson v Iceland (A/264) (1993) 16 EHRR 462 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .414–417
Siliadin v France (App. 73316/01) (July 26, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .383
Societé Colas Est v France (App. 37971/97) (2004) 39 EHRR 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .406
Societé Prisma v France (App. 66910/01) (July 1, 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .399
Steel v United Kingdom (2005) 41 EHRR 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .385, 410–411
Streletz v Germany (2001) 33 EHRR 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .386
Sunday Times v United Kingdom (A/38) (1981) 3 EHRR 317 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
SW v United Kingdom (A/355–B) [1996] 1 FLR 434; (1996) 21 EHRR 363 . . . . . . . . . . . . .385
Tanrkulu v Turkey (2000) 30 EHRR 950 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .366–367
TI v United Kingdom (App. 43844/98) (Decision of March 7, 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .379
Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom (A/323) (1995) 20 EHRR 442 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .411
Van der Mussele v Belgium (A/70) (1984) 6 EHRR 163 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .381
Van Droogenbroeck v Belgium (A/63) (1991) 13 EHRR 546 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .381
Van Marle v Netherlands (A/101) (1983) 5 EHRR 533 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .384
Verlière v Switzerland (App. 41953/98) (June 28, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .400
VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v Switzerland (2002) 34 EHRR 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .408, 420
Vo v France (2005) 40 EHRR 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .371
Von Hannover v Germany (2005) 40 EHRR 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .395–396, 398, 512, 518, 522–523
Waite v Germany (2000) 30 EHRR 261 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109, 187
Wilson v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .353, 416, 420
Wingrove v United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .405
Yaÿa v Turkey (September 2, 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .366–367
Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom (A/44) (1982) 4 EHRR 38 . . . . . . .352, 382, 409,
413–414, 420, 471
Z v United Kingdom (2002) 34 EHRR 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .364, 373, 384
Case 4425 (Guatemala) (Res. 38/81 June 25, 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .424
La Tablada Case (Case 11,137) (Report 59/97, October 30, 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107
Yanomami v Brazil (Case 7615) (Res. 12/85, March 5, 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .427–428
Canese v Paraguay (31 August, 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .429
Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants OC–18/03
of September 17, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96, 429–432
Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v Nicaragua (August 31, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .429
Paniagua-Morales v Guatemala (March 8 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .427
Riofrio Massacre Case (April 6, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .427
Rodriguez v Honduras (July 29, 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .425–426
Ulloa v Costa Rica (July 2, 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .429
Urso Branco Prison Case (18 June 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .427
Villagran Morales v Guatemala (November 19, 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .427
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SET TLEMENT OF
Compania de Desarrollo de Santa Elena SA v Republic of Costa Rica
(Case ARB/96/1) (2000) 39 ILM 1317 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156, 157
Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (July 9, 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121–122
[1996] ICJ Rep 226 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103, 121
Advisory Opinion on Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service
of the United Nations [1949] ICJ Rep 174 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63–64, 69
Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara of 16 October 1975 [1975] ICJ Rep 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co Ltd Case (Belgium v Spain) [1970] ICJ Rep 3 . . .96, 147
Bosnia-Herzegovina v Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) [1996] ICJ Rep 595 . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 Between the WHO and Egypt
[1980] ICJ Rep 73 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65–66, 83
LaGrand (Germany v United States) (June 27, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States)
(1986) ICJ Rep 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America)
(November 6, 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169–170
United States v Iran [1980] ICJ Rep 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .148
Akayesu Case (Case ITCR–96–4–T) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18, 562
Musema (Alfred) v Prosecutor (ICTR–96–13–T) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .257, 543, 562
FORMER YUGOSL AVIA
Aleksovski Case (Case IT–95–14/1–T) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .542–543
Furundzija Case (Case IT–95–17/1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18, 87, 90–91, 257, 376, 543, 544
Kunarac, Kovad and Vukovid Case (Case IT–96–23
and IT–96–23/1–A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18, 341, 380–381, 446, 543
Kupreskid Case (Case IT–95–16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88, 336
Simid (July 27, 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .313
Tadid Case (Case IT–94–1–AR72) (October 2, 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48, 267–268, 287, 297
Tadid Case (Case IT–94–1–R AIT–94–1–AR72 and IR–94–1–T) (May 7, 1997) . . . . . . .29, 103
Trial of Major War Criminals (Goering et al) (October 1, 1946) . . . . . . . . . . . . .53, 244, 251, 561
Sam Hinga Norman Case (Case SCSL–2004–14–AR72) (May 31, 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . .95, 277
Berghuys v United Nations Joint Staff Pensions Board (July 26, 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF THE ILO
Mr R. A.-O. v United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) 94th Session, Judgment No. 2193 (February 5, 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125–126
UNITED NATIONS COMMIT TEE AGAINST TORTURE
Elmi v Australia CAT/C/22/D/120/1998 (May 25, 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .344–346
H.M.H.I. v Australia CAT/C/28/D/177/2001 (May 1, 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .346
UNITED NATIONS COMMIT TEE ON THE ELIMINATION
Habassi v Denmark CERD/C/54/D/10/1997 (April 6, 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .319–321
UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMIT TEE
Cabal and Pasini Bertran v Australia CCPR/C/78/D/1020/2001 (September 19, 2003) . . . . . .330
Francis Hopu and Tepoaitu Bessert v France CCPR/C/60/D/549/1993/Rev.1
(December 29, 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .331
Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v Canada (1991) 77 DLR (4th) 385 . . . . . . . .514
Eldridge v Attorney General of British Columbia 3 BHRC 137 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .461–462, 524
Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto [1995] 2 SCR 1130 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .520, 534
McKinney v University of Guelph [1990] 3 SCR 229 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .462
Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union v Dolphin Delivery Ltd [1986] 2 SCR 573 . .507
Société Nikon France SA c M. Féderic O. Cour de Cassation (Chambre sociale), Arrêt no. 4164
(October 2, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .349
Opac de Paris c Mme Mel Yedei, Cass. 3rd civ. J.C.P., éd. G (1996) IV, 973. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .350
Application of Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft [1987] 3 CMLR 225 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182
Caroline of Monaco v Burda Press (Unreported, December 19, 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .522
Hong Kong Polytechnic University v Next Magazine Publishing Ltd [1997] HKLRD 514 . . .462
Tam Hingg-yee v Wu Tai-wai (1991) 1 HKPLR 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .500–502
Murphy v Stewart [1973] IR 97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .554
Rodgers v ITGWU [1978] ILRM 51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .554
Tierney v Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers [1959] IR 254 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
Military Prosecutor v Kassem [1971] 42 ILR 470 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .274
Frontini v Ministero delle Finanze (No 183) [1974] 2 CMLR 372 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182
X v Y (an apartment owner, a real estate agent and Osaka Prefecture) HJ (1468) 122 [1993] . .523
Public Prosecutor v Folkerts [1987] 74 ILR 695 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .274
Lange v Atkinson and Australian Consolidated Press NZ Ltd [1997] 2 NZLR 22 . . . . . . . . . .508
Azanian Peoples Organisation (AZAPO) v South Africa 1 BHRC 52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .278
Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education [2000] (4) SA 757 (CC);
[2000] (10) BCLR 1051 (CC); 9 BHRC 53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .555
Du Plessis v De Klerk 1996 (3) SA 850 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .451–456, 506
Khumalo v Holomisa 12 BHRC 538 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .457, 519, 533–534
S v Mogoerane Transvaal Provincial Division of the South African Supreme Court
(August 6, 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .274
S v Petane 1988 (3) SA (C) 56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .274
S v Sagarius [1983] 1 SA 833 (SWA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .274
Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley Parochial Church Council v Wallbank
[2003] UKHL 37; [2004] 1 AC 546; [2003] 3 WLR 283; [2003] 3 All ER 1213;
[2003] HRLR 28; [2003] UKHRR 919; [2003] 27 EGCS 137;
(2003) 100(33) LSG 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .474–476, 478–482, 484, 525
Attorney-General v Nissan [1970] AC 179; [1969] 2 WLR 926; [1969]
1 All ER 629; 113 SJ 207 (HL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135
Blathwayt v Baron Cawley [1976] AC 397; [1975] 3 WLR 684;
[1975] 3 All ER 625; 119 SJ 795 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .512
Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd (No.1) [1972] AC 1027; [1972] 2 WLR 645;
[1972] 1 All ER 801; 116 SJ 199 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .512
Callin v Leonard Cheshire Foundation [2002] EWCA Civ 366 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .475, 482–48
Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22; [2004] 2 AC 457;
[2004] 2 WLR 1232; [2004] 2 All ER 995; [2004] EMLR 15; [2004] HRLR 24;
[2004] UKHRR 648; 16 BHRC 500; (2004) 101(21) LSG 36;
(2004) 154 NLJ 733 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .511, 515–516
Cheall v Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff (APEX)
[1983] 2 AC 180; [1983] 2 WLR 679; [1983] 1 All ER 1130; [1983] ICR 398;
[1983] IRLR 215; (1983) 133 NLJ 538 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .513
Dockers Labour Club and Institute v Race Relations Board [1976] AC 285;
[1974] 3 WLR 533; [1974] 3 All ER 592; 118 SJ 738 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .512
Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No.6) [2005] EWCA Civ 595; [2005] 3 WLR 881;
[2005] 4 All ER 128; [2005] EMLR 28; [2005] 2 FCR 487;
[2005] HRLR 27; (2005) 28(8) IPD 28057; (2005) 155 NLJ 828 . . . .352, 398, 512, 516–518
DPP v Jones (Margaret) [1999] 2 AC 240; [1999] 2 WLR 625; [1999] 2 All ER 257;
[1999] 2 Cr App R 348; (1999) 163 JP 285; 6 BHRC 513; [1999] Crim LR 672;
(1999) 163 JPN 355; [1999] EGCS 36; (1999) 96(13) LSG 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .513
Fornah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 680;
[2005] INLR 483 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .339
Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2002] EWCA Civ 1533; [2003] Ch 380;
[2003] 2 WLR 478; [2002] 4 All ER 1162; [2002] 3 FCR 591; [2003] UKHRR 254;
13 BHRC 608; [2003] HLR 35; [2003] L & TR 14; [2003] ACD 12;
[2003] Fam Law 87; [2002] 46 EGCS 197 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .503
Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30; [2004] 2 AC 557; [2004] 3 WLR 113;
[2004] 3 All ER 411; [2004] 2 FLR 600; [2004] 2 FCR 481; [2004] HRLR 31;
[2004] UKHRR 827; 16 BHRC 671; [2004] HLR 46; [2005] 1 P & CR 18 . . . . . . . .503–504
Horvath v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 1 AC 489;
[2000] 3 WLR 379; [2000] 3 All ER 577; [2000] Imm AR 552;
[2000] INLR 239; (2000) 150 NLJ 1075 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .339
Islam v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1999] 2 AC 629;
[1999] 2 WLR 1015; [1999] 2 All ER 545; 6 BHRC 356; [1999] Imm AR 283;
[1999] INLR 144; (1999) 96(17) LSG 24; (1999) 143 SJLB 115 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .338
Jammel (Yousef ) v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] EWCA Civ 75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .511
Kaye v Robertson [1991] FSR 62 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .525
Lubbe v Cape Plc (No.2) [2000] 1 WLR 1545; [2000] 4 All ER 268; [2000] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 383; [2003] 1 CLC 655; [2001] ILPr 12; (2000) 144 SJLB 250 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199
Maclaine Watson & Co Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry [1990] 2 AC 418;
[1989] 3 WLR 969; [1989] 3 All ER 523; (1989) 5 BCC 872; [1990] BCLC 102;
(1990) 87(4) LSG 68; (1989) 139 NLJ 1559; (1989) 133 SJ 1485 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135
Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2003] UKHL 66; [2004] 2 AC 42;
[2003] 3 WLR 1603; [2004] 1 All ER 135; [2004] BLR 1; 91 Con LR 1;
[2004] Env LR 25; [2004] HRLR 10; [2004] UKHRR 253; [2003] 50 EGCS 95;
(2004) 101(4) LSG 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .468, 475
Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2003] UKHL 4; [2003] 1 AC 1163;
[2003] 2 WLR 435; [2003] 1 All ER 689; [2003] ICR 247; [2004] HRLR 2;
[2003] UKHRR 453; 14 BHRC 585; [2003] PIQR P24; [2003] ACD 42;
(2003) 100(13) LSG 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .384
Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1993] AC 593; [1992] 3 WLR 1032;
[1993] 1 All ER 42; [1992] STC 898; [1993] ICR 291; [1993] IRLR 33;
[1993] RVR 127; (1993) 143 NLJ 17; [1992] NPC 154 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .474
Poplar Housing & Regeneration Community Association Ltd v Donoghue
[2001] EWCA Civ 595; [2002] QB 48; [2001] 3 WLR 183; [2001] 4 All ER 604;
[2001] 2 FLR 284; [2001] 3 FCR 74; [2001] UKHRR 693; (2001) 33 HLR 73;
(2001) 3 LGLR 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .475
R. (on the application of A) v Partnerships in Care Ltd [2002] EWHC 529;
[2002] 1 WLR 2610; (2002) 5 CCL Rep. 330; (2002) 99(20) LSG 32;
(2002) 146 SJLB 117 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .475
R. (on the application of Adan (Lul Omar)) v Secretary of State for the
Home Department [1999] 1 AC 293; [1998] 2 WLR 702; [1998] 1 WLR 624;
[1998] 2 All ER 453; [1998] Imm AR 338; [1998] INLR 325; (1998) 95(18) LSG 33;
(1998) 148 NLJ 552 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .339
R. (on the application of Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2005] UKHL 38; [2005] 2 WLR 1359; [2005] 4 All ER 263; [2005] HRLR 24;
[2005] INLR 422 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .340, 380
R. (on the application of Beer (t/a Hammer Trout Farm)) v Hampshire Farmers Markets Ltd
[2003] EWCA Civ 1056; [2004] 1 WLR 233; [2004] UKHRR 727; [2003]
31 EGCS 67; (2003) 100(36) LSG 40; (2003) 147 SJLB 1085; [2003] NPC 93 . . . . .475, 482
R. (on the application of Haggerty) v St Helens BC [2003] EWHC 803;
[2003] HLR 69; (2003) 6 CCL Rep 352; (2003) 74 BMLR 33; [2003] ACD 73 . . . . . . . . .475
R. (on the application of ProLife Alliance) v BBC [2002] EWCA Civ 297;
[2002] 3 WLR 1080; [2002] 2 All ER 756; [2002] EMLR 41;
[2002] UKHRR 1096; (2002) 152 NLJ 433 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .484, 504
R. (on the application of ProLife Alliance) v BBC [2003] UKHL 23;
[2004] 1 AC 185; [2003] 2 WLR 1403; [2003] 2 All ER 977; [2003] EMLR 23;
[2003] HRLR 26; [2003] UKHRR 758; [2003] ACD 65;
(2003) 100(26) LSG 35; (2003) 153 NLJ 823 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .484, 504
R. (on the application of Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26;
[2004] 2 AC 323; [2004] 3 WLR 23; [2004] 3 All ER 785; [2004] HRLR 33;
[2004] UKHRR 995; [2004] Imm AR 419; [2004] INLR 381;
(2004) 101(28) LSG 33; (2004) 154 NLJ 985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .380
R. (on the application of Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education and
Employment [2005] UKHL 15; [2005] 2 AC 246; [2005] 2 WLR 590;
[2005] 2 All ER 1; [2005] 2 FLR 374; [2005] 1 FCR 498; [2005] HRLR 14;
[2005] UKHRR 339; 19 BHRC 99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .358, 557
R. v Bow Street Magistrates Court Ex p. Choudhury [1991] 1 QB 429;
[1990] 3 WLR 986; (1990) 91 Cr App R 393; [1990] Crim LR 711;
[1990] COD 305; (1990) 87(24) LSG 40; (1990) 140 NLJ 782 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .401–402
R. v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No.3)
[2000] 1 AC 147; [1999] 2 WLR 827; [1999] 2 All ER 97; 6 BHRC 24;
(1999) 96(17) LSG 24; (1999) 149 NLJ 497 (HL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94
R. v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Ex p. Shah [1999] 2 AC 629; [1999] 2 WLR 1015;
[1999] 2 All ER 545; [1999] Imm AR 283; [1999] INLR 144; 6 BHRC 356;
(1999) 96(17) LSG 24; (1999) 143 SJLB 115 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .338
R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p. Aitseguer (No.2)
[2001] 2 AC 477; [2001] 2 WLR 143; [2001] 1 All ER 593; [2001] Imm AR 253;
[2001] INLR 44; (2001) 98(4) LSG 49; (2001) 145 SJLB 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .339
R. v Zardad (Unreported, 7 April, 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .342–343
Rubython v Federation Internationale de L’Automobile (Unreported, March 6, 2003) . . . . . . .475
Venables v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] Fam 430; [2001] 2 WLR 1038;
[2001] 1 All ER 908; [2001] EMLR 10; [2001] 1 FLR 791; [2002] 1 FCR 333;
[2001] HRLR 19; [2001] UKHRR 628; 9 BHRC 587; [2001] Fam Law 258;
(2001) 98(12) LSG 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .525–526
Viking Line Abp v International Transport Workers Federation [2005]
EWHC 1222; [2005] 1 CLC 951; [2005] 3 CMLR 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192
Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No.2) [1995] 1 WLR 1454; [1995] 4 All ER 577;
[1996] 2 CMLR 990; [1995] ICR 1021; [1995] IRLR 645 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .505
Whitehouse v Lemon [1979] AC 617; [1979] 2 WLR 281; [1979] 1 All ER 898;
(1979) 68 Cr App R 381; [1979] Crim LR 311; (1979) 143 JPN 300; 123 SJ 163 . . . . . . .513
Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633; [2002] QB 74;
[2001] 3 WLR 42; [2001] 3 All ER 229; [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 134;
[2001] ECC 37; [2001] HRLR 44; [2001] UKHRR 1175;
(2001) 98(24) LSG 44; (2001) 145 SJLB 125 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .506
Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40; [2004] 1 AC 816;
[2003] 3 WLR 568; [2003] 4 All ER 97; [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 491;
[2003] HRLR 33; [2003] UKHRR 1085; (2003) 100(35) LSG 39;
(2003) 147 SJLB 872 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .506
Amalgamated Food Employees Union v Logan Valley Plaza Inc 391 US 308 (1968) . . . .489–491
Arias v DynCorp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .446
Blum v Yaretski 457 US 991 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .487
Bowoto v Chevron Texaco Corp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .446
Burton v Wilmington Parking Authority 365 US 715 (1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486
Correctional Services Corp v Malesko 534 US 61 (2001) 66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .442, 449, 494
Crosby v National Foreign Trade Council 120 S Ct 2288 (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173
Doe v Exxon Mobil Corp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .446
Doe v Unocal Corp (September 18, 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45, 253, 256–261, 443, 446
Estate of Rodrigues v Drummond Co Inc 256 Supp 2d 1250 (WD A1 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . .446
Evans v Newton 382 US 296 (1966) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486
Ex parte Virginia 100 US 339 (1880) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .493
Filartiga v Pena-Irala 630 F 2d 876 (1980) (2d Cir) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .448
Flores v Southern Peru Copper Corp 342 F 3d 140 (2nd Cir 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .447
Hudgens v NLRB 424 US 507 (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .491–492
Jackson v Metropolitan Edison Co 419 US 345 (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .487
Jama v Esmor Correctional Services Inc (Unreported, April 11, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .448–449
Kadic v Karadz̀id 70 F 3d (2nd Cir 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30, 106, 247, 253–254, 445–446
Lebron v National Railroad Passenger Corp 69 F 3d 650 (2nd Cir 1995) . . . . . . . . .486, 492–493
Lloyd Corp v Tanner 407 US 551 (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .490–492
Marsh v Alabama 326 US 501 (1946) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .413, 488–489
Moose Lodge No 107 v Irvis 407 US 163 (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .486
National Foreign Trade Council v Baker (1998) 26F Supp 2d 287 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173
Presbyterian Church of Sudan v Talisman Energy Inc (March 19, 2003) . . . . . . . . . . .45, 91, 246
Presbyterian Church of Sudan v Talisman Energy Inc (June 13, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . .46, 254, 447
PruneYard Shopping Centre v Robins 447 US 74 (1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .491
Rendell-baker v Kohn 457 US 83 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .487
Richardson v McKnight 521 US 399 (1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .495, 498
Rosborough v Management & Training Corp (November 7, 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .498
Shelley v Kraemer 334 US 1 (1948) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .508
Sinaltrainal v Coca-Cola Co 256 F Supp 2d 1345 (SD Fla 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .253, 446
Sosa v Alvarez-Machain (2004) 542 US 692 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .246, 252, 444–445, 448
South African Apartheid Litigation, Re (US District Court,
Southern District of New York, November 29, 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254, 445, 447
Tel-Oren v Libyan Arab Republic (1984) 726 F 2d 774 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .246, 445–446
US v Thomas (Court of Appeals 5th Circuit, Case 99–21044, January 24, 2001) . . . . . . . . . .499
US v Marilyn Buck [1988] 690 F Supp 1291 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .274
Villeda v Del Monte Fresh Produce Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .446
Wiwa v Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell) (2000) 226 F 3d 88 (2nd Cir) . . . . . . . . . . .261–262, 446
Table of Treaties, Legislation, and
Additional Protocol concerning
Biomedical Research 2005 . . . . . . . . . 538
Additional Protocol to the 1961 European
Social Charter providing for a System of
Collective Complaints 1995 (Council of
Art.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Art.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92, 315
Peoples’ Rights 1981. . . . . . . . . 107, 407,
432–433, 537
Art.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434
Art.28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433
Art.47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Art.44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Art.48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Art.49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Art.61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
1994 (WTO). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
American Convention on Human
Rights 1969 . . . . 422, 425–426, 428, 537
Art.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
Art.1(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427
Art.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
Art.21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
Art.41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
Art.45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Art.61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Art.62 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
and Duties of Man 1948 . . . . . 422–423,
427, 537
1994/2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92, 537
Bamako Convention on the Ban of the
Import into Africa and the Control of
Transboundary Movement and
within Africa 1991. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Basic Principles for the Protection of
Civilian Populations in Armed Conflicts
1970 (United Nations) . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Basic Principles for the Treatment of
Prisoners 1990 (United Nations) . . . . 102
Body of Principles for the Protection
of All Forms of Detention or
Imprisonment 1988
(United Nations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
in Islam 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537
Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of
States 1974 (United Nations). . . . . . . 238
European Union 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . 539
Civil Law Convention on Corruption 1999
(Council of Europe). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Officials 1979 (United Nations) . . . . 102
(United Nations) . . . . . . . . . 91, 93, 101,
130, 342, 346
Art.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 88, 120, 345
Art.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343–344
Organised Crime 2000
(United Nations) . . . . . . . . . . . . 250–251
Convention for the Elimination of
Mercenarism in Africa 1977
(OAU). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
Human Rights and Dignity of the Human
Being with Regard to the Application
of Biology and Medicine 1996
(Council of Europe). . . . . . . . . . 538, 541
Aviation 1971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft 1970 . . . . 95
Convention on Offences and certain
other Acts Committed on Board
Aircraft 1963 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on
the Use of Certain Conventional
Weapons which may be Deemed to be
Excessively Injurious or to have
Indiscriminate Effects 1980 . . . . 273, 291
1979 (United Nations) . . . . 91, 101, 105,
120, 130,333–334, 348
Art.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Art.187 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
Art.291(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
Convention on the Physical Protection of
Nuclear Material 1980(IAEA) . . . . . . . 95
Genocide 1948 (United Nations)
Art.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
of the United Nations 1946 . . . . . . . . 118
Stockpiling, Production and
Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines
and on Their Destruction 1997
(Ottawa Convention) . . . . . . . . 291–292,
295, 298–299
Convention on the Protection of the
Environment through Criminal
Law 1998 (Council of
Europe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247–249
1989 (United Nations) . . . 121, 130, 557
Art.3(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
Art.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
Art.12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323–324
Art.19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
Art.37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
Art.38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Convention on the Safety of United Nations
and Associated Personnel 1994
(United Nations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
1951 (United Nations) . . . . . . . 335–336,
Art.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
1999 (Council of Europe) . . . . . . . . . 249
of Intolerance Based on Religion or
Belief 1981 (United Nations). . . . . . . 102
(United Nations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Concerning Friendly Relations and
Cooperation of States in Accordance
with the Charter of the United Nations
Declaration on Social and Legal
Principles relating to the Protection and
Welfare of Children, with Special
Reference to Foster Placement and
Adoption Nationally and Internationally
1986 (United Nations) . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Declaration on Social Progress and
Development 1969 (United
Nations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Declaration on the Basic Principles of Justice
for Victims of Crime and the Abuse of
Power 1985 (United Nations) . . . . . . 102
Violence against Women 1993
(United Nations) . . . . . . . . 102, 104–105
Peoples 1960 (United Nations) . . . . . 101
Declaration on the Human Rights of
Individuals who are not Nationals of the
Country in Which They Live 1985
Declaration on the Promotion among Youth
of the Idea of Peace, Mutual Respect
and Understanding between Peoples
1965 (United Nations) . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Persons from Enforced Disappearances
1992 (United Nations) . . . . . . . 102, 105
Declaration on the Protection of Women and
Children in Emergency and Armed
Conflict 1974 (United Nations). . . . . 101
Individuals, Groups and Organs of
Society to Promote and Protect
Universally Recognized Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms 1998
(United Nations) . . . . . 99, 102, 227, 232
Declaration on the Right of Peoples to
Peace 1984 (United Nations) . . . . . . . 102
1986 (United Nations) . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Declaration on the Rights of Disabled
People 1975 (United Nations) . . . . . . 102
Declaration on the Rights of Mentally
Retarded Persons 1971
Declaration on the Rights of Persons
Belonging to National or Ethnic,
Religious and Linguistic Minorities 1992
Declaration on the Use of Scientific and
Technical Progress in the Interests of
Peace and for the Benefit of Mankind
1974 (United Nations) . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Directive 2000/43/EC OJ 2000
L180/22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190, 541
Directive 2000/78/EC OJ 2000
L303/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190, 541
Directive 2002/73/EC OJ 2002
L269/15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541
Rights 1950 . . . . . . . 129–130, 349–350,
499, 513–514
Art.1 . . . . . . . 352–355, 357, 367, 419–420
Art.2 . . . . . . . . . . . 358–372, 379–380, 525
Art.3 . . . 356, 373–380, 440–441, 525, 557
Art.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380–383
Art.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
Art.6 . . . . . . . . 81, 364, 380–382, 384–385
Art.6(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180, 484
Art.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380, 385–386
Art.7(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
Art.7(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
Art.8. . . . . . . . . . . . 81, 351, 356, 375, 380,
387–396, 515–516, 557
Art.9 . . . . . . . . . . . 380, 400–405, 415, 557
Art.10. . . . . . . . . . 380, 396–399, 403–410,
415, 515
Art.10(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
Art.11. . . . . . . . . . 351, 353, 380, 411–418,
Art.11(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484
Art.12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
Art.13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357–358, 391, 393,
399, 420
Art.14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380–381, 401, 410
Art.17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409–410, 433
Art.25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Art.33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81, 92
Art.34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80–81, 481
Art.55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Protocol 1 Art.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81, 418
Protocol 1 Art.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81, 418
Protocol 1 Art.3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Protocol 7 Art.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
Protocol 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354
Protocol 12 Art.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418–419
Protocol 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91, 186
Terrorism 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Trade 1994 (WTO) . . . . . . . . . . 167, 174
Protection of Civilian Persons in
Time of War 1949
Art.3. . . . . . . . . . . . . 48–51, 119, 272–273,
275–276, 294, 297, 541
Art.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment
of Prisoners of War 1949 . . . . . . 281, 313
Global Compact (United
Nations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218–222, 225,
229, 235–236
(OECD) . . . . . . 201–211, 238, 563, 566
Armed Conflict 1954
Art.19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
Inter-American Convention Against
Terrorism 2002 (OAS). . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Violence Against Women 1994 . . . . . . . 3
Recruitment, Use, Financing and
Training of Mercenaries 1989
(United Nations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
Taking of Hostages 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Suppression of Terrorist Bombings
1998 (United Nations) . . . . . . . . 96, 369
Suppression of Terrorist Financing
(United Nations) . . . . . . . . 96, 239–240,
(United Nations) . . . . . . 91, 93, 101, 130
Art.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Art.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
Art.5(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
Art.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
Art. 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92, 120, 319
International Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of Crimes against
including Diplomatic Agents 1973 . . . 95
Members of their Families 1990 . . . . . 91
International Convention on the Suppression
of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of
Maritime Navigation 1988 . . . . . . . . . 95
Rights 1966 (United Nations) . . . 91–92,
120–122, 129–130,
231–232, 329, 341,
348, 407, 537
Art.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328, 332
Art.2(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
Art.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331–332
Art.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Art.5(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Art.10(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
Art.17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
Art.20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Art.26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
Art.27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
Art.36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
Social and Cultural Rights 1966
(United Nations) . . . . . 5, 120–121, 130,
150, 324–325, 537, 547
Art.12(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
Art.12(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
Art.22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Art.24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the
World Trade Organization 1994 . . . . . 69
Montreal Protocol for the Suppression of
Unlawful Acts of Violence at
Airports Serving International
Civil Aviation 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Rights of the Child on the Sale of Child
2002 (United Nations) . . . . . . . . . 74–75
Partnership Agreement between the Members
of the African Caribbean and Pacific
Group of States and the European
(Cotonou) 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Principles of International Co-operation in the
Detection, Arrest, Extradition and
Punishment of Persons Guilty of War
1973 (United Nations) . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Principles for the Protection of Persons with
Mental Illness and the Improvement
of Mental Health Care 1991
to . . . Health Personnel particularly
Physicians, in the Protection of
Prisoners . . . against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman Degrading
Treatment or Punishment 1982
Convention on the Suppression of
Terrorism 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful
Acts against the Safety of Fixed
Platforms Located on the Continental
Shelf 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Protocol II Additional to the 1949
Geneva Conventions and Relating
to the Protection of Victims of
Non-International Armed
Conflicts 1977. . . . 51–52, 277–278, 286
and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of
Women 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 53
Art.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
States of the South Asian Association for
Regional Convention on Suppression of
Terrorism 1987 (South Asia) . . . . . . . . 96
Resolution on Permanent Sovereignty
over Natural Resources 1962
Rules for the Protection of Juveniles
Deprived of their Liberty 1990
Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial
Measures 1990 (United Nations) . . . . 102
Standard Minimum Rules for the
Administration of Juvenile Justice 1985
Statute for an International Criminal Court
1998 (United Nations) . . . 2, 15, 31, 541
Art.8(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Treaty establishing a Constitution for
Europe 2004. . . . . . . . . 70, 91, 180, 181,
193, 539
Community (TEC)
Art.12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189–190
Art.39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Art.43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Art.81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Art.82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Art.141 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189–190, 191
Art.240 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and
Consular Rights 1955 . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Treaty of the European Economic Community
(Treaty of Rome) 1957
Art.48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Art.56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183–184, 241
Art.85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Art.86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Art.119 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Treaty on European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Tripartite Declaration of Principles
Concerning Multinational
Enterprises 1977 (ILO) . . . . 211–218, 220
United Nations Charter 1945 . . . . . 5, 69, 537
Art.1(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Art.14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Art.41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Art.42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Art.48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Art.55(c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Art.56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Art.103 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Rights 1948 (United
Nations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33, 40, 86, 104,
127, 130, 144, 221, 227,
228, 264, 313, 431,
447, 537, 546
Universal Declaration on the Human
Genome and Human Rights 1997
(UNESCO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540
of Treaties 1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166–168
Art.31(3)(c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Art.53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Art.64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Art.65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Art.66(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Treaties between States and International
Organisations or between International
Organisations 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . 67, 90
Investment Disputes Between States and
Nationals of Other States 1965
(ICSID). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Art.42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
NATIONAL LEGISL ATION
Media Act 1987. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
Constitution of Bulgaria 1991 . . . . . . . . . . 442
1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461, 505–507, 509
Constitution of France 1958 . . . . . . . . . . . 539
Basic Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522
s.2(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396
Bill of Rights 1991 . . . . . . . . . . 463, 500–502
s.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462, 501
Constitution of Hungary 1989 . . . . . . . . . 441
Constitution of Ireland 1937 . . . . . . . . . . . 441
Bill of Rights Act 1990 . . . 461, 504, 507–508
Privacy Act 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
Constitution of Nicaragua 1987 . . . . . . . . 428
Constitution of Poland 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . 441
Constitution of Romania 1991 . . . . . . . . . 442
Constitution of South Africa 1996 . . . . . . 534
Art.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
Art.8(2) . . . . . . . . . 458–459, 550, 552–553
s.8(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
s.8(4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
s.32(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
Interim Constitution of South
Africa 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451, 506
Ch.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451, 456
Ch.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452–457
Regulation of Foreign Military
Assistance Act 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Constitution of Sweden 1975 . . . . . . . . . . 441
Reindeer Husbandry Act 1971. . . . . . . . . . 332
Chancel Repairs Act 1932 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479
s.52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
Human Rights Act 1998. . . . . . . . . . 463–464,
504–505, 510–512, 514,
516, 524–525, 556, 565
Art.6(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
s.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464
s.6(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465
s.6(3) . . . . . . . . . . . 465–480, 482–483, 509
s.11(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484
s.12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516
s.12(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517
Act Regulating Contracts with
or in Burma (Myanmar) 1996
(Massachusetts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Alien Tort Claims Act 1789 . . . . . . 20, 22, 45,
91, 237, 252–256,
258, 443–449, 564
s.1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487
Constitution of the United States . . . . . . . 442,
493–494, 565
Act 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Neutrality Act 1937. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Organisations Act 1970
(United States). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Torture Victims Protection Act 1991 . . . . . 253
African Charter on Human Peoples’ Rights
Alien Tort Claims Act (US) (see also ATS below)
Committee on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises
(also known as the Investment Committee)
Export Credit Guarantees Department (UK)
International Military Tribunal (at Nuremberg)
Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo
Nations Peace Forces
Nations Treaty Series
Ford ILJ
Harv CR-CLLR
Harv HRJ
and Comparative Law Quarterly
Journal of Refugee Law
UCLA JIL & FA
University of California Los Angeles Journal of International Law
Van JTL
Yale HRDLJ
This book examines the legal protection of human rights in situations where the
threats to the enjoyment of human rights come from non-state actors rather than
directly from state agents. Such an application of human rights law to the private
sphere has implications for the ways in which we conceive human rights generally.
In turn it also affects the ways in which we imagine and promote human freedom,
human security, and human development.
The premise of this book is that through the analysis of recent human rights
cases we can elaborate ideas in order to develop an understanding of the importance of human rights accountability for corporations, international organizations, multilateral development banks, multinational peace-keeping operations,
and even for individuals and their associations.
Rethinking human rights obligations in this way will inevitably affect the implementation of a wide range of programmes and legal protection. In particular, it forces
us to reconfigure traditional approaches to violence against women, working conditions, and unfair discrimination of all kinds. This paradigm shift, away from what has
usually been an exclusively state-centric approach to human rights protection, also
means that our appreciation of the traditional importance of the boundary between
public and private may need adjusting if we are going to develop a coherent theory of
human rights protection capable of practical application to protect the victims of
indignities everywhere. We need not only to develop a framework for non-state
actors, but also to re-examine the effect of the distinction we make between state and
non-state activity—between public and private—between governmental and nongovernmental. To highlight this distinction is to admit that: ‘Today, the heart of political debate is about choosing among competing conceptions of what should be
treated as public and what should not.’¹ We cannot pretend that the public/private
distinction is a pre-ordained static border. It is closer to a battleground, with ideological forces wishing to shift the frontline in order to consolidate their own gains.
In order to ‘privatize’ human rights in this way, we will have to consider many
of the pitfalls of such an approach. For many, the sanctity of a private sphere, protected from invasion by the state or the law, is an ideal which goes to the heart of
the way we want to live with each other. This study will, among other things, seek
to show that one can retain respect for privacy through law without excluding
abuses committed in the private sphere from the world of human rights.
¹ P. Cerney, ‘Globalization, governance and complexity’, in A. Prakash and J. Hart (eds)
Globalization and Governance (London: Routledge, 1999) 188–212, at 199.
Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors. Andrew Clapham.
© Oxford University Press 2006. Published 2006 by Oxford University Press.
The basic premise of my book Human Rights in the Private Sphere (1993) was that
we need to think about human rights law in new ways in order to meet the challenges
posed by private actors to the enjoyment of human rights. Two approaches were suggested. First, it was suggested that international human rights law demands that states
protect individuals from private acts which threaten their rights; and that where a state
has failed to take preventive or punitive action with regard to this abuse, then that state
could be found in violation of its international obligations. The second approach
suggested that the difference between private and public acts may be a difficult, even
dangerous, distinction to draw, and that, in some circumstances, human rights obligations may give rise to directly enforceable duties on the private actors themselves. This
may not be the case for all rights in all circumstances. But in some jurisdictions such
direct enforceability is already legally possible in order to prevent the dangerous public/private distinction being used to shield private power from human rights scrutiny.
The present study takes a fresh look at the scope of human rights law today. The
problèmatique of the human rights obligations of non-state actors has been at the
heart of discussions within human rights organizations over the last twenty years.
The issue has proven difficult for all concerned. It was often felt that by investigating and reporting on abuses committed by armed opposition groups, the human
rights movement would play into the hands of those governments which wanted
the international debate to shift to the human rights violations committed by
rebels or terrorists. Such a shift in focus might remove the spotlight from governments and unwittingly ‘legitimize’ crackdowns on their opposition that might
involve further violations of human rights.
This apparent conundrum has been partly resolved at one level due to the
greater use of the international humanitarian law of armed conflict in human
rights monitoring and reporting. This international law applies in part to armed
opposition groups in times of armed conflict and allows for a degree of specificity
and certainty with regard to the behaviour expected of all parties to an armed conflict. Furthermore, the adoption in 1998 of the Rome Statute for an International
Criminal Court has clarified the international obligations that attach to individuals,
from both the government side and from the non-state actor side, in different
types of armed conflict. In addition to clarifying who can be tried for such
international war crimes, the Rome Statute includes genocide and other crimes
against humanity that can be committed outside the context of any armed conflict. Again, these definitions have dissipated much of the confusion and doctrinal
debate which surrounded the issue of international human rights obligations of
non-state actors in conflict and non-conflict situations. The Statute is clear that
crimes against humanity can be committed not only by state actors but also by
non-state actors where the individual attacks on the civilian population are
pursuant to, or in furtherance of, an organizational policy to commit such attack.
With regard to war crimes and crimes against humanity, there are international
yardsticks against which to judge criminal acts by certain non-state actors. But, as
we shall see, this development has not resolved the debate.
In this introduction I should like to highlight four forces, or phenomena,
which I consider are important for understanding the relevance of the question of
the obligations of non-state actors. These forces recur as background elements to
the situations discussed throughout the book.
First, the globalization of the world economy has highlighted the power of large
corporations and their limited accountability in law for human rights abuses. The
emerging framework for ensuring greater responsibility in this sphere is international human rights law.
The second phenomenon is privatization. The privatization of sectors such as
health, education, prisons, water, communications, security forces, and military
training has forced us to think again about the applicability of human rights law in
the private sector. When Human Rights in the Private Sphere was published, few
observers imagined that privatization meant much more that insisting that the
state retain some supervision over traditional functions of the state. The debate is
set to move into a new phase as claims are brought directly against the private contractors that operate prisons, detention centres, and hospitals, alleging violations
Third, the increase in internal armed conflict situations involving the fragmentation of states has led to greater demands on non-state rebel groups. Such
demands may go beyond the accepted core minimum of international humanitarian law. The debate over ‘fundamental standards of humanity’ has evolved at the
United Nations into an attempt to consider what sorts of human rights demands
one might make on an armed group. The demands go beyond the law of international individual criminal responsibility and the developing body of international
criminal law. Human rights reporting in the United Nations’ Charter-based
bodies already includes reports on human rights violations by all sides to a
conflict, and the state/non-state actor boundary again seems less and less relevant.
In this context we should also consider the assumption of state-like tasks carried
out by the United Nations in situations such as those of Kosovo and East Timor.
This has led to new developments as to the applicability of human rights law to
the United Nations and other international organizations in the context of
protection work in fragmented states.
Fourth, the developments surrounding the international human rights of
women have led to a complete reappraisal of the way in which the public/private
divide has been constructed to delimit human rights law. Some treaties now
specifically require the state to take action to protect women in the ‘private sphere’
or to guarantee women’s rights in public and private life.² International obligations and commitments have been redesigned to ensure that they cover daily harm
to women and not only a narrow range of concerns of men. The feminization of
² See Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence
Against Women (1994), Art. 1. See also the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (2003) which covers violence whether committed in ‘private or public’ as well as covering rights in the ‘private sector’.
human rights has shifted the emphasis to issues of violence against women, certain
unfair labour practices, sexual exploitation, trafficking, and traditional practices.
Let us look now at each of these phenomena in a little more detail.
Familiar aspects of globalization include: the sense that breaking news on one side
of the world is simultaneously broadcast to the rest of the world through global
communications giants like CNN, the BBC, and Reuters; the sense that decisionmaking is conducted away from national parliaments and under the influence of
powerful states; the realization that large multinationals may not only control
more resources than the smallest states, but that corporate global influence can
overwhelm local cultures and initiatives; and lastly, a realization that national
policies are sometimes dictated with deference to certain economic models which
aim almost exclusively to provide the conditions for ‘free markets’ and foreign
direct investment, with little regard for the immediate effect of these policies on
the marginalized or the poor.
Governments and individuals have for a long time been subject to a sense that
their future is governed by forces outside their territory. For centuries there have
been networks of economic and cultural interaction that have never corresponded
to the political space of states. Governments have always been constrained, and
have had to cope with extensive extra-territorial networks of cultural, economic, and
military power. What is new about the contemporary processes, described as globalization, however, is the speed at which changes in these processes are taking place.
What is interesting in the context of a book about non-state actors is the stress
which commentators place on an appreciation that the state’s traditional capabilities are being undermined by globalization. Caroline Thomas suggests:
‘Globalization is privileging the private over the public sphere and over the commons. It is eroding the authority of states differentially to set the social, economic
and political agenda within their respective political space. It erodes the capacity
of states in different degrees to secure the livelihoods of their respective citizens by
narrowing the parameters of legitimate state activity.’³ There is a assumption
among some commentators that states are no longer in a position to function as
the main actors on the international stage and that their room for manoeuvre has
We are often reminded of the increased power of associations of states (such as the
European Union or NAFTA), global corporations, and global non-governmental
organizations.⁴ Particular concern is focused on the role of international financial
³ C. Thomas, ‘International Financial Institutions and social and economic rights: an exploration’
in T. Evans (ed) Human Rights Fifty Years On: A reappraisal (Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 1998) 161–185, at 163.
⁴ I. Ramonet, ‘La mutation du monde’ Le Monde Diplomatique, October 1997.
institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF which, despite their insistence
on the rule of law and good governance, are seen to act outside any global good
governance regime for the protection of the rights of those affected by their
policies. It is clear that there has been a profound transformation of the world economy over recent decades through the progressive elimination of barriers to trade
and investment and the international mobility of capital. In turn, the state’s role is
seen as changing due to the growing importance and pressures of global forces
outside the state’s control, and social justice is seen as increasingly threatened.⁵
According to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
the actual developments associated with globalization are not themselves ‘necessarily incompatible with the principles of the Covenant [on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights of 1966] or with the obligations of governments thereunder’.
Nevertheless, they go on to warn that:
Taken together, however, and if not complemented by appropriate additional policies,
globalization risks downgrading the central place accorded to human rights by the
United Nations Charter in general and the International Bill of Rights in particular.
This is especially the case in relation to economic, social and cultural rights. Thus, for
example, respect for the right to work and the right to just and favorable working conditions of work is threatened where there is an excessive emphasis upon competitiveness to
the detriment of respect for the labour rights contained in the Covenant. The right to
form and join trade unions may be threatened by restrictions upon freedom of association, restrictions claimed to be ‘necessary’ in a global economy, or by the effective exclusion of possibilities for collective bargaining, or by the closing off of the right to strike
for various occupational and other groups. The right of everyone to social security
might not be ensured by arrangements which rely entirely upon private contributions
and private schemes.⁶
It is not simply the development of the global market, deregulation, or privatization
which is threatening the enjoyment of human rights, but rather, it is the ways in
which governments are responding to these developments. Instead of abandoning
the state as a focus for human rights activism, we may need to refocus on the
existing obligations of the state. Whether globalization is really leading to the
demise of the nation state is still an open question. It may be argued that, in at
least some contexts, the globalization of certain decision-making processes is
actually leading to a greater role for the state, and for international law, and
⁵ Theo van Boven put it as follows: ‘In this process, the interdependent and joint powers of
national and international economic and financial actors, in particular transnational corporations
and financial institutions, are gaining a great deal of strength and influence at the expense of the state,
thus weakening the state’s role as the protector of social rights and social welfare. Due to the process of
globalization, the imperatives of social justice aimed at promoting and protecting the rights of the
weak and the marginalized are increasingly being jeopardized. The gap between the rich and the poor
is becoming more pronounced, in both the North and the South.’ ‘A Universal Declaration of
Human Responsibilities?’ in B. Van der Heijden and B. Tahzib-Lie (eds) Reflections on the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1998) 73–79, at 76.
⁶ Statement by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 11 May 1998.
international decision-making processes. Indeed, globalization may in fact be
stimulating new forms of accountability for non-state actors and a new global
polity which increasingly finds a place for international law. Many do not share
this proposition—indeed some would argue that international law is part of the
problem rather than part of the solution.
First, there is a counter-assumption that because international law is almost
exclusively about inter-state relations it is useless to expect this legal order to be of
much use in regulating the behaviour of non-state actors.⁷ Second, for many
commentators, globalization has to be understood as operating through new
networks operating transnationally and outside the state.⁸ Rather than an accumulation of power through superpower hegemony or a federation of nation states,
globalization is seen as a social phenomenon driven by non-state actors outside
the control of individual states; the protection of human dignity required civil
society mobilization around the language of human rights rather than relying on
states and their institutions. Third, the very process of globalization could be seen
as the antithesis of human rights accountability. As Philip Alston explains:
Globalization (at least as an ideal type) is premised upon flexibility, adaptability,
poly-centrality, informality, and speedy, tailored and innovative responses to rapidly
changing circumstances. In less positive terms it conjures up adjectives such as opportunistic, ad hoc, uncontrollable, unprincipled, and undemocratic (in the sense that
many of its targets have no choice but to conform to its imperatives). The human rights
regime (especially the non-ideal type portrayed by its critics) is very different. In positive
terms it might be characterized as being solid, principled, not easily manipulated,
committed to procedural integrity, and careful not to reach beyond its authorized grasp.
In more pejorative terms it might be considered to be stolid, excessively gradualist,
cautious, rigid, resistant to innovation, and legalistic. In essence then, globalization has
a variety of characteristics that are largely alien to the regime of human rights accountability, and the latter is not at all well constructed in order to enable it to adapt, let alone
transform itself, in response to new challenges.⁹
For Anne-Marie Slaughter, the bankers, lawyers, business people, public-interest
activists, and criminals look to transnational government networks as the foci of
decision-making processes. The state is not disappearing, it is disaggregating into
its separate, functionally distinct parts. These parts—courts, regulatory agencies,
executives, and even legislatures—are networking with their counterparts abroad,
⁷ E.g. Thomas (1998: 182) ‘International law is a legal code operating between states. This applies
equally to the international law of human rights. Yet the institutions of globalization which are intimately involved in eroding social and economic rights, such as multinational banks and transnational
corporations, can operate largely outside of national regulation, and outside of international law pertaining to rights.’
⁸ A. Brysk, Human Rights and Private Wrongs: Constructing Global Civil Society (New York and
London: Routledge, 2000).
⁹ P. Alston, ‘Downsizing the State in Human Rights Discourse’ in N. Dorden and P. Gifford (eds)
Democracy and the Rule of Law (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2001) 357–368, at
359 (footnote omitted).
creating a dense web of relations that constitutes a new transgovernmental order.
Today’s international problems—terrorism, organized crime, environmental
degradation, money laundering, bank failure, and securities fraud—created and
sustain these relations.¹⁰
This implies a move away from arenas of relative transparency into back-rooms;
the bypassing of the national political arenas. However, as Alston remarks, there
are multiple strata of decision-makers, including a variety of public, private, and
‘transgovernmental’ fora with many interactions between them. ‘While ease of
travel and communications have enhanced and facilitated their functioning, it is
far from clear that the result has involved such a fundamental shift in the locus of
power that one can conclude that the state is “disaggregating”. ’¹¹
The planned ‘burial’ of the state as the central player in the international
context is still premature. From a human rights perspective, this issue is not so
much about increasing complexity in decision-making at the international level,
but rather, what can be done to adapt our thinking and procedures to ensure the
best protection of human rights. Clearly, the traditional understanding of the
human rights dynamic—as protecting individuals from an overarching state—is
There is also what could be called a ‘bottom-up’ globalization (as opposed to a
‘top-down’ globalization, implied principally by the globalization of trading systems). These bottom-up demands relate to general objectives such as ‘better living
standards’, the ‘good life’, and universal respect for all human rights. A growing
mobilization against the perceived dangers posed by global economic forces and
actors has created a network of civil society groups which are trying to act with
regard to new challenges. And indeed, accompanying the development of global
actors and forces, there is a global spread of ideas, which include debates over the
advantages of respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as
different democratic forms of governance. An important consequence of this
interdependence of civil responses to ‘top-down’ globalization is that the global
peoples’ networks, by their common action, are claiming rights that need to be
protected from non-state actors in the sphere of economics and finance.
If one regards globalization in terms of the top-down effects of more open markets for transnational actors, as well as the opportunities created by a bottom-up
network of global demands, one could start to exploit the dynamics to ensure
better respect for human rights.¹² To demonize globalization or the World Trade
Organization, per se, is to let those with international responsibilities off the hook.
¹⁰ A.-M. Slaughter, ‘The Real New World Order’, 76 Foreign Affairs (1997) 183, at 184.
¹¹ P. Alston, ‘The Myopia of the Handmaidens: International Lawyers and Globalization’ 8 EJIL
(1997) 435–448, at 441.
¹² Cf N. Aziz, ‘The Human Rights Debate in an Era of Globalization’ in P. Van Ness (ed)
Debating Human Rights (London: Routledge, 1999) 32–55.
Thinking about globalization means considering the new ways in which states are
acting at the international level. It would be short-sighted indeed to consider that
states are somehow less important as attention switches to the global trading system, the international financial institutions (IFIs), and regional organizations.
States themselves are creating these new regimes and those states remain
more than ever responsible for the evolving international law in this field.¹³ Part of
the challenge is to find ways to hold governments accountable for these new diffuse activities, activities which tend to take place in fora which, while not opaque,
are less than transparent. Analysing globalization highlights change and
developments in various sectors—but human rights abuses are committed by
legal entities, not by an abstract phenomenon named globalization.
The phenomenon of privatization should force us to think about the implications
of the shrinking nature of state functions at the national level. As Alston notes:
‘insufficient attention has been given to the implications for international law of
the changing internal role of the state, as opposed to the implications of the
changing international context for the state’s external relations’.¹⁴
The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union have paved the
way for a yen for privatization in many former communist countries. At the same
time, global trade liberalization, an ideological predilection for privatization in a
number of Western countries, and the convergence criteria demanded for entry
into European Monetary Union, have ensured a shift in many fields from the
public to the private sector. In addition, international financial institutions and
other lenders have increasingly imposed conditions on debtors that include accelerated privatization of state concerns. Often the transition to a market economy,
or the rush to privatize, is at the expense of established economic and social
state-provided benefits. Little attention has been paid to considering how to
ensure that such transitions do not lead to violations of the international human
rights obligations which the state has undertaken in the economic and social
rights sphere. Furthermore, the privatization of functions such as law enforcement, health care, education, telecommunications, and broadcasting has meant in
some cases the evaporation of controls which were placed on these sectors to
ensure respect for civil and political rights. Similarly, it is even more difficult to
apply the benchmarks and procedures for ‘achieving progressively the rights
recognized’ in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights. At the international level, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that most
procedures for ensuring the protection of human rights and accountability for
¹³ Cf S. V. Scott, ‘International Lawyers: Handmaidens, Chefs, or Birth Attendants: A Response
to Philip Alston’ 9 EJIL (1998) 750–756.
¹⁴ Alston (1997: 446).
violations are designed to bring states, and only states, to account. These
international procedures are ill-equipped to tackle violations committed in these
‘new private spheres’.
However, one must admit that the move to privatize is tied to the move to
deregulate global markets. To start to impose new restrictions (albeit for the
protection of fundamental human rights) runs counter to the Zeitgeist for less law
and more market ‘freedom’. The ideology of privatization has captured the imagination of certain sectors of public opinion and of decision-makers in governments
and in opposition. The controversial approach taken by Robert Nozick in his
1974 book Anarchy, State and Utopia no longer seems to attract the sort of
dismissive attitude he himself expected. The opening page of his book contains
Our main conclusions about the state are that a minimal state, limited to the narrow
functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on,
is justified; that any more extensive state will violate persons’ rights not to be forced to
do certain things, and is unjustified; and that the minimal state is inspiring as well as
right. Two noteworthy implications are that the state may not use its coercive apparatus
for the purpose of getting some citizens to aid others, or in order to prohibit activities to
people for their own good or protection.
Despite the fact that it is only the coercive routes towards these goals that are
excluded, while voluntary ones remain, many persons will reject our conclusions
instantly, knowing that they don’t want to believe anything so apparently callous
towards the needs and suffering of others. I know that reaction; it was mine when I first
began to consider such views.¹⁵
Alston has highlighted the fact that:
. . . the means which are always assumed to be an indispensable part of the globalization
process, have in fact acquired the status of values in and of themselves. Those means/values include, for example: privatization of as many functions as possible; deregulation,
particularly of private power, at both national and international levels; reliance upon the
free market as the most efficient and appropriate value-allocating mechanism; minimal
government except in relation to law and order fu