Sunteți pe pagina 1din 17

Right to individual development in international law

INTRODUCTION
The ultimate object of every system of law, whether municipal or international law, is the well being of the individual. Therefore, the individual also is often the object of international regulation and protection. Primarily, States alone are the subjects of international law. Therefore, the real position of the individual with respect to international law is that they are subjects of international law. The rights and duties which individuals may derive may be either direct or indirect. As a rule, monarchs and other heads of the States, diplomatic envoys and even private citizens have certain privileges while in foreign territory. In such cases, law of nations impose upon all States the duty to grant certain privileges to such heads of State, diplomats and the like and the States, corresponding to this duty, make provisions in their municipal law granting such privileges. Therefore, international law is really the background of these rights. The same applies as regards special rights of individuals in foreign countries according to treaties between two or more States. Such treaties do not normally create these rights, but they impose a duty upon states to create such rights for individuals by their municipal law, and as a consequence the states provide such rights to individuals by their municipal laws. These are some of the instances in which international law indirectly impose rights and duties on individuals. However, occasionally States may confer upon individuals international rights and duties stricto senso., i.e, rights and duties which they acquire without the intervention of municipal legislation, and which they can enforce in their name before international tribunals. Moreover, the various developments since the two world wars have shown that States are not only the subjects of international law today. Nationality is the medium through which an individual can enjoy benefits from international law. A state exercises jurisdiction over its national, travelling or residing abroad, remain under its personal supremacy.1 International law permits the exercise of such jurisdiction, and sets the limits within which it can be exercised.

S.K. Agarwal, International Law- Indian Courts and Legislation

Right to individual development in international law

NATIONALITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS

The concept of nationality is the link between the state and individual for the purposes of international law. It is important since it determines the benefits to which persons may be entitled and the obligations which they must perform. There is no coherent, accepted definition of international law. Generally, the conditions for the grant of nationality are left to the domestic jurisdiction of the States. As a consequence, there are conflicting descriptions of nationality under different municipal laws and the rights and duties attached to nationality vary from state to state. According to ICJ, nationality is a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence, interests and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties.2 It is through the medium of their nationality that individuals can normally enjoy the benefits of the law of nations. Individuals who possess no nationality enjoy no protection whatever if they are aggrieved by a State. They have no means of redress since there is no State which is competent to take up their case. As far as International law is concerned, apart from morality and the general provision is the Charter to respect human rights, there is no restriction whatsoever to restrain a state from maltreating to any extent such stateless persons. On the other hand, if an individual who possess a nationality s wronged, his home has right to ask for redress. It is for this reason that nationality is very important for the law of nations. Oppenheim has very rightly stated that nationality of an individual is the quality of being a subject or a citizen of a State.3 Therefore it is for municipal law and not for international law to determine who is citizen. However, the Hague Convention (1930) has answered certain questions regarding conflict of nationality. Even though it is for states to determine who their subjects are, such law must be consistent with international conventions and international
2 3

The Nottebohm case(1995) ICJ Reports, Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. I, Ninth Edition.

Right to individual development in international law

custom generally recognized with respect to nationality. However nationality in the sense of citizenship of a State must not be confused with nationality as meaning membership of certain nation in the sense of race, e.g. Englishmen, Scotsmen. In Mavrommatis case, the Permanent Court of International Justice observed that it is an elementary principle of international law that a State is entitled to protect its subjects, when injured by acts contrary to international law committed by another state, from whom they have been unable to obtain satisfaction through ordinary channels.4 The right of protection extends to the property of nationals as well. Further, if a national of a State is expelled from a foreign State, it becomes the duty of the former to receive back its nationals. The refusal to receive and the expulsions of a States own nationals are inconsistent with International as they may involve burden on other states which they are not bound to undertake. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights lays down under article 12 Para 4 that No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country. Thus, in dealing with any International legal problems involving an individual, it is always essential to know his nationality, the legal bond which ties him personally to a given State for many purposes. It is therefore inconvenient for International law to permit the individuals to have multiple nationalities or no nationality. It is a goal of International Law that each individual possesses a single nationality. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 provides under Article 15, Para 1 that everyone has the right to nationality.

PCIJ Series A, No.2 at p.12

Right to individual development in international law

MODES OF ACQUIRING NATIONALITY

The conditions to be fulfilled to be a citizen of a State are purely a matter for the municipal law of the State concerned. It implies that municipal law determines as to who may a national of a particular State. Modes of acquiring of nationality are therefore not uniform. They differ from State to State. Following are the modes by which nationality may be acquired: 1) By Birth Nationality is conferred to a person by many States on the basis of birth. All those persons whose birth takes place within territorial limits of a State acquire the nationality of that State. The above principle is called jus soli. The United Kingdom, the United States and many States of Latin America follow this principle. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1955 under Section 3 had provided nationality on the basis of birth.

2) By Descent Nationality of a State may also be acquired by a person on the basis of nationality of either parent. Thus, a child may become a national of that State of which his parents are nationals. This principle is known as jus sanguinis. Germany and France confer nationality on the basis of this principle. The U.S.A. and the United Kingdom also recognize this principle in addition to the principle of jus soli. So is the case with India. Section 4 of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1955 provides that a person may be an Indian national on the basis of the principle of jus sanguinis.

3) By Naturalization A person acquires nationality at birth. However, his nationality may, later on, change. When the nationality of a person changes subsequently, and he acquires nationality of some other State, the process of acquisition is known as naturalization. A person may acquire nationality through naturalization in different ways. They are: through marriage, legitimating, option, acquisition of domicile, appointment as Government Official and grant of application. Adoption of children by parents who are nationals of other states are also entitles the children to acquire nationality of
4

Right to individual development in international law

his parents. It may be stated that State has discretion to confer nationality by naturalization. It may grant nationality on the fulfillment of or conditions it deems appropriate. A person who wants to acquire nationality through naturalization is required to give an application and to make request for the acquisition of nationality through naturalization. Thus, a person may acquire nationality through naturalization when it is granted by State. It follows that no person has claim a claim to become naturalized in a Foreign State. The State is entitled to refuse the naturalization of aliens without indicating any reasons.

4) By Resumption

A person, who has lost his nationality by naturalization or by any other reasons, may acquire the nationality of the same State again. The acquisition of this kind is called reintegration and resumption. Section 8, Para 2 of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1955 permits the minor, and not to adults, to resume his nationality within one year from the date of attaining the age of majority upon application, if he has lost Indian Citizenship due to their parents. The procedure for restoration is laid down under Section 20 of the Citizenship Rules, 1956.

5) By Subjugation A person may acquire nationality through subjugation after conquest. When a part of territory of a State or a State itself is subjugated by another State, all the inhabitants of the territory become the nationals of the latter States.

Right to individual development in international law

MODES OF LOSS OF NATIONALITY


A person may loss the nationality of a State in many ways. They are 1) By Release Some States give their citizens the right to ask to be released from their nationality. Release occurs only when application is made to that effect, and if it has been accepted by the State concerned.

2) By Deprivation A national of State may be deprived of nationality in case of certain happenings. Legislation of many States recognizes numerous grounds of deprivation of nationality. For instance, if a citizen enters into foreign civil or military service without permission, he may be deprived of his nationality.

3) By Renunciation A person may renounce his nationality of a State. The question of renunciation of nationality arises when a person acquires it of more than one State. In such cases he has an option to retain the nationality of one State and to renounce the other.

4) A person may loss the nationality of a State when he acquires nationality in some other State by naturalization. Its purpose is to ensure no citizen have dual citizenship. In such cases, nationality of a person is substituted from one State to another State.

5) By Expiration A person may lose nationality of a State by expiration. For instance, some States have provided by legislation that citizenship expires in the case of such of their subjects as have left the country and stayed abroad for a certain period of time.

Right to individual development in international law

FUNCTIONS OF NATIONALITY
Nationality is the principle link between individuals and the benefits of the law of nations. This function of nationality becomes apparent with regard to individuals abroad, or to property abroad, belonging to the nationals. Every State holds and occasionally exercises the right of protection over its citizen abroad. Since no State is bound to receive foreigners it may expel foreigners from the State and it is the duty of home State to receive them on home territory. EXCEPTIONS TO THE NATIONALITY RULE OF INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION Although nationality is ordinarily the point of contact between individuals and the benefits of the law of nations, there are four exceptions to this rule: 1. A State may undertake by an International agreement the diplomatic protection of another States citizens abroad. Such protected foreign subjects are called proteges. This may be temporary because of a rupture in diplomatic relations or it may be permanent because of the fact that a particular State may not have diplomatic envoy in the State concerned. 2. A State may afford diplomatic protection to the subjects of a protected State, or any other area under its protection. For example, subjects of the former native States were given protection by British legislation when abroad. 3. States have, on occasion, afforded diplomatic protection within the boundaries of certain native usually connected with the legislations of the protecting State. They are called de facto subjects of the protecting State. 4. Mandated areas and Trusteeship areas are under the protection of administering authority when abroad.

Right to individual development in international law

RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF INDIVIDUAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.

RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS A number of rights have been given to the individuals in International law through the adoption of international conventions which are as follows: 1) Human Rights One of the principles of the United Nations is to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by General Assembly in 1948 which provides various rights to the individuals. However, since the declaration was adopted by the General Assembly, it did not impose any legal obligations on the States to give effect to its provisions. Later, two Covenants: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, along with an optional protocol to the covenant on civil and political right were adopted in 1966, where in the contracting parties declared that they would provide different rights as stipulated in the covenants to the individuals.

2) Right to Make Petitions: The rise of Human Rights consciousness has given rise to the individual a right to make petitions before the International forum if their rights are violated. For instance, the Optional protocol to the Covenant on Civil and political rights of 1966 provide for the petitions by the individual before the Human rights Committee against its own state. Similarly the Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination shall receive communication from individual or group of individual for the violation of right mentioned in the Conventions.

3)

Right to arbitration and conciliation proceedings: The convention for the settlement of investment disputes between states and nationals of other states concluded on March 18, 1965 provided for the machinery of conciliation and arbitration on the consensual basis so that private foreign investors mights have direct access their toe to settle legal disputes with investment receiving states.
8

Right to individual development in international law

DUTIES OF INDIVIDUALS

International law has imposed direct responsibility upon individual for the offences committed by them. In customary international law piracy and slavery were the only recognized offences, where individuals could be given punishment, presently they are responsible for numbers of crimes. 1) Offence of piracy: 2) The offence of piracy has been traditionally regarded as a crime against international law. It is punishable by any state which ceases the offender5. Every state has right to arrest, trail and punish the pirates, and vessels involved in the act of piracy may be seized.

3) Violation of Rules of warfare: Individual members of armed forces of belligerent states are criminally liable for the violation of the rules of warfare and may be given punishment by other belligerent. In some cases sanction is imposed upon individual committing offences by the state having custody of them, by the exercise of domestic jurisdiction and an in few cases by international procedure. After the Second World War, certain cases occurred in which responsibility under International law has been imputed directly to the individuals, who have been punished under international procedure.

4) Offence of Espionage: Espionage is an act of a soldier or other individual who clandestinely, or under false pretence, seeks to obtain information concerning a belligerent with the intention of communicating it to the other belligerent, Article 24 of the Hague Regulations enacted the old customary rule that the method necessary to obtain information about the enemy and the country is considered

permissible. However, it has not protected those individuals from punishment who are engaged

In re Piracy Jure Gentium case the Privy Council was asked to consider whether the actual robbery committed by Chinese nationals on the high seas has an element. The council was of the view that a person guilty of such piracy has placed himself beyond the protection of any state. He is no longer a national but hostis humani generis and as such he is justiable by any state any where. (1934 AC 586)

Right to individual development in international law

in procuring information. Individuals committing espionage and war treason are considered war criminals and may be punished.6 The usual punishment for praying is hanging or shooting, those less severe punishments are, of course, admissible and are sometimes inflicted.

5) Crime of Genocide: Genocide was regarded as a crime under International Law, for which the perpetrators, whether they were statesmen, public officials or private individuals were punishable. The above rule was made by the General Assembly in a resolution adopted on December 11, 1946.7 Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide, commonly known as Genocide Convention, was adopted by the General Assembly on December 9, 1948 which came into force on January 12, 1951. The Convention under Article 1 provides that the contracting parties confirm that Genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war is a crime under International Law, which they undertake to prevent and punish. The Convention also provided that those who are guilty of committing genocide must be punished whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

EXTRADITION AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS: Extradition law8 and practice have not kept pace with the expanding rights of individuals under international law.9 Extradition involves the surrender, by one nation to another, of an individual who has been accused or convicted of an offense outside the territory of the former and within the jurisdiction of the latter.10 Extradition law focuses on the role of the individual in the process
6 7

See Oppenheim, International law Vol. II p.422 General Assembly resolution 96(1), dated December 11, 1946. 8 Kristin Berda Weissman, Comment, ExtraterritoriaAl bduction: The Endangerment of Future Peace, 27 U.C. DAvis L. REv. 459, 467 (1994). Extradition law refers to a formal process, governed by treaty or custom, through which one nation surrenders an individual to another nation. 9 Report of the Task Force on an International Criminal Court of the American Bar Association, A.B.A. IrT'L L. & PRic. 1, 46 (1994) [hereinafter A.B.A. Report]; see John Quigley, The Rule of Non-Inquiry and the Impact of Human Rights On Extradition Law, 15 N.C.J. INT'L L. & CoM. REG 401, 415 (1990) (noting extradition law developed long before human rights law). International law concerns the conduct and relations of nations and, to some extent, of individuals. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OFTHE UNITED STATES 101 (1990) [hereinafter RESTATEMENT]. 10 JOHN BASSETr MOORE, 1 TREATISE ON Ex-TRADITION AND INTERSTATE RENDITION 1 (1891); BLACK'S LAW DIcrIONARv 585 (6th ed. 1990).

10

Right to individual development in international law

of rendition.11 Until recently, international law addressed only the actions of states12 and individuals had no standing to allege a nation's violation of international laws.13 The minimal protection given the individual in the extradition process derived froi' traditional limitations on state power, namely extraterritoriality,14 and internal mechanisms, such as specialty,15 dual criminality,16 and the political offense exception.17 Within the last fifty years, however, various international agreements have propelled the importance of individual rights to the forefront of international law.18 International agreements, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" ("UDHR")19 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights20 ("ICCPR') recognized the individual's standing to assert violations of her rights.

MUNICIPAL EXTRADITION LAW Some States have enacted special municipal laws and such laws enumerate those crimes for which extradition shall be granted and the procedure to be followed. These countries are competent to grant extradition treaty exists.
11

M. CHERIF BAssIOUNI, INTERNATIONAL EXTRADITION AND WORLD PUBLIC ORDER 572 (1974) [hereinafter WORLD PUBLIC ORDER]. Rendition refers to the formal process of extradition through a treaty. Weissman, supra note 1, at 467. Irregular rendition, such as abduction, evolved from the concept of reprisal and occurs outside of a treaty. Id. at 465. 12 John H. Barton & Barry E. Carter, InternationalL aw and Institutionsf or a New Age, 81 CEO. LJ. 535, 538 (1993). "The traditional concept of international law was one of law between nations." 13 WORLD PUBLIC ORDER, supra note 4, at 564. "[T]he individual is still not considered a full-fledged subject of international law, and hence, no practical means for the implementation of human rights have been developed which would allow individual redress of wrongs against a given state .... " 14 Extraterritoriality is the right of a nation to control everything that occurs within its borders. 15 Under the doctrine of specialty, an individual may only be tried by the extraditing country for those crimes specified in the extradition request. 16 Dual criminality means that the crime alleged must be illegal in both the requesting and asylum state. Id. Dual criminality is also called double criminality. IvN A. SHEARER, EXTRADITION IN INTERNATIONAL LAw 138 (1971). 17 No clear definition of what constitutes a political offense exists. Id. It is commonly left up to the courts and commentators to determine what constitutes a political offense. Id. Under the generally recognized political offense exception, the requested state may deny extradition if it considers the crime to be politically motivated or connected. Miriam E. Sapiro, Note, Extradition in an Era of Terrorism: The Need to Abolish the Political Offense Exception, 61 N.Y.U. L. REV. 654, 656 (1986). "[T]he political offense exception was created to protect individuals from unjust persecution for political beliefs and acts ... ."
18

Richard B. Bilder, An Overview of International Human Rights Law, in INTERNATIONAL LAw 894, 895 (Barry E. Carter & Phillip R. Trimble eds., 1995) [hereinafter INTERNATIONAL LAW].
19

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A, U.N. Doc. A/810, at 71 (1948) [hereinafter UDHR]. "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law." Id. art. VI, at 73. 20 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, 6 1.L.M. 368 (1967) [hereinafter ICCPR]. "Everyone shall have the right to be recognized everywhere as a person before the law.

11

Right to individual development in international law

Indian Law of extradition is governed by the Extradition Act 1962 and the various treaties signed by India. The extradition act 1962 does not define the word extradition but defines an extradition offence to mean a) In relation to a Foreign State, being a treaty State, an offence provided for in the extradition treaty with State. b) In relation to a Foreign State, other than a treaty State, an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year under the laws of India or of a Foreign State and includes composite offence. A composite offence is defined as an act or conduct of a person occurred, wholly or in part, in a Foreign State or in India but its effect or its intended effects, taken as a whole, would constitute an extradition offence in India or in a Foreign State, as the case may be. The procedure for extradition is elaborately given in the Act.

An important provision in the Act relates to restrictions on the surrender of Fugitive criminal. A Fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered to a Foreign State if the offence in respect of which his surrender is sought is of a Political Character. The Schedule to the Extradition Act enlists offences which are not being regarded as political offences. They include: i) ii) iii) Offences under Anti-Hijacking Act 1982. Offence against the suppression of Unlawful Acts against safety of Civil Aviation Act 1982. An offence within the scope of the Convention on the Punishment of Crime Against International Protected Persons including Diplomatic Agents 1973. iv) An offence within the scope of the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages 1979. v) The following offences under the Indian Penal Code a) Culpable Homicide and Murder. b) Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by a dangerous weapon; c) Wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement. d) Kidnapping and abduction and e) Causing of loss or damage to property used for public utilities or otherwise with endanger life. vi) Possession of a firearm or ammunition with intention to endanger life.

12

Right to individual development in international law

vii) viii)

The use of fire arm with the intention to resist or prevent arrest or detention. Offence relating to terrorism and terrorist attack.

Abetting, conspiring, or attempting to commit, inciting, participating as an accomplice in the commission of any of the offences listed above, is also to be considered an offence which is not to be regarded as political offences. India has signed extradition treaties with UK (1992), USA (1997), Hong Kong (1997), Russia (2000), and Germany (2001).

13

Right to individual development in international law

OBJECT OF EXTRADITION

The object of extradition may be any individual whether he is a subject of the prosecuting State, or of the State where he resides, or of a third state. Many States like France and Germany have adopted the principle of never extraditing one of their own subjects to a foreign State, but punishing their own subjects for grave crimes committed abroad. The object of extradition is an individual who is alleged to have committed a crime abroad whether or not he was physically present on the territory of the State during the commission of the crime. A conflict between international law and municipal law may arise if a certain individual must be extradited according to the extradition treaty, but not according the municipal law of the State from where the individual is to be extradited.

EXTRADITABLE CRIMES Unless restricted by an extradition law, a person can be extradited for any crime. Similarly, unless a State is bound by an extradition treaty it can refuse extradition for any crime. Usually States frame their extradition treaties in conformity with their extradition laws and specify all those crimes for which they would grant extradition. The function of the court, in case of extradition, is not to try the case on the merits, but merely to ascertain whether the evidence submitted justifies a prima facie judicial proceeding against the accused. Political Criminals as a rule are not extradited. Similarly, military deserters and persons who have committed offences against religion are excluded from the list of extraditable persons.

CONDITIONS OF EXTARDITION Extradition is granted only if asked for and that too after the formalities required by law are satisfied. It is affected by handing over the criminal by the police of the extraditing State, to the police of the prosecuting State; and the surrendered individual can be tried and punished only for those crimes exclusively for which the extradition is asked for. If they are punished for other crimes the extraditing State has a right to complain. This is called the principle of speciality

14

Right to individual development in international law

In the Savarkar case21, a British subject, was prosecuted for high treason and abetment of murder. He escaped to Britain from where he was being conveyed in the P & O Boar Morea to India for the purpose of standing his trial. He escaped to French territory while the vessel was in the harbor of Marseilles. He was, however, arrested by the French policemen who erroneously handed him over to the British policemen in the belief that he was handing back a member of crew who had committed an offence on board. Savarkar was admittedly a political criminal. France demanded that Great Britain should give him up to them and demand for extradition in a formal way. Great Britain refused to comply with this demand. The parties therefore agreed to have matter decided by arbitration at Hague. The award while admitting the irregularity, decided in favor of Britain. They asserted that there was no rule of international law imposing in the circumstances such as these any obligation on the power which has a prisoner in its custody to restore him on account of the mistake committed by him up to the power.

If an accused person is forcibly brought before the court by an abuse of the process in contravention of the Extradition Act, it amounts to a violation of International Law. In R v Horseferry Magistrate Court ex p Bennett22, when such a situation arose, the House of Lords held that the UK courts should refuse to exercise jurisdiction. The question, whether an extradition treaty between the British Government and a native State in India, stood abrogated when the State merged into the Indian Union, was raised in Ram Babu Saxena(Dr) v State23 while affirming the Rajasthan High Courts decision, the Supreme Court held that even if the treaty was not abrogated, the arrest of Dr. Saxena under sec 7 of the Extradition Act was not rendered unlawful by anything contained in the Extradition Treaty of 1869.

21 22

(1911) 11 RIAA 243 (1993) 3 All ER 138 23 AIR 1950 SC 155

15

Right to individual development in international law

CONCLUSION

Thus we can say that individual play a significant role in the International law. The primary subject of every State is the Individual only. Traditional constraints upon the individual in international law should not be seen as a greater barrier than they are in reality. They must be seen in their modern day context, where they have often been modified and at times completely rejected. In recent decades there has been a return to the principles advocated by the founders of international law; The United Nations Charter perhaps marking the turning point in international practice by transforming the individual from an object of international benevolence into a subject of international rights. Such modern day state practice provides strong support for the existence of a new customary international law recognizing the individual as an international juristic entity, with international rights and procedural capacity. Even if international law does not as yet recognize the individual as possessing such procedural capacity, international practice suggests States are at least obliged to acknowledge and enforce individual rights. If as a matter of practice State acknowledge the existence of individual rights and act on the behalf of aggrieved individuals, it could be that States are now obliged to respect and enforce these international rights on the behalf of individuals. In this case, it would be trite to try to argue, as positivists do, that these rights are no longer the individual's just because it is the State that ultimately has the power of enforcement. International law is a flexible system of law which has for centuries adapted and changed to complement the needs of the international community. It is not a rigid body of unchangeable archaic notions glorifying State sovereignty. Given this flexibility, there is nothing to prevent further developments recognizing the individual as a subject of international law and acknowledging the collective interests of all States. As outlined in this article, we are more than half way there, and there seems nothing to prevent the establishment of a broader basis for international rights and adjudication.

16

Right to individual development in international law

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books referred: International Law & Human Rights by Dr. H. O. Agawam International Law & Human Rights by N K Jayakumar International Law & Human Rights by K.C. Joshi

Articles referred EMERGENCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL AS AN INTERNATIONAL JURISTIC ENTITY: ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS BY JULIE CASSIDY. THE INDIVIDUAL IN INTERNATIONAL LAW BY KUNUT TRAISBACH THE ROLE OF INDIVIDUAL IN INTERNATIONAL LAW BY ANDREW CLAPHAM

17

S-ar putea să vă placă și