CYIL 2014

ARE INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS BOUND BY INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS… on international law. This can be demonstrated 13 in their impact on the structure of international obligations, which was strongly influenced by the revolutionary conceptions of erga omnes obligations and jus cogens rules. 14 It was the character and the very nature of human rights accenting that there exist certain obligations, generally described as erga omnes obligations, 15 which are owed by a State to the international community as a whole and which are, contrary to the originally bilateral character of international law, not based on reciprocity. Relying on the words of the ICTY in the Kupreskič judgment, erga omnes obligations “ lay down obligations towards the international community as a whole, with the consequence that each and every member of the international community has a “legal interest” in their observance and consequently a legal entitlement to demand respect for such obligations ”. 16 In the same decision, the ICTY stated that “The absolute nature of most obligations imposed by rules of international humanitarian law reflects the progressive trend towards the so-called „humanisation“ of international legal obligations, which refers to the general erosion of the role of reciprocity in the application of humanitarian law over the last century“ 17 and recalled the Barcelona Traction decision of the ICJ, which dealt with erga-omnes obligations and in this context referred specifically to obligations concerning fundamental human rights. 18 The Humanisation of international law relates beyond any doubt also to the development of the jus cogens concept. 19 Human rights are common international community values, which the traditional structure of international obligations could hardly accommodate. In order to remedy this, the concept of peremptory norms, which changed the traditional view of international law being based solely on 13 Besides in MERON’s The Humanization of International Law ( supra note 4), an analysis of the impact of human rights law on areas of general international law (areas, which seem to be hard to reconcile with human rights law, such as law of treaties, their interpretation, structure of international obligations, immunity of States, diplomatic protection or international responsibility) was undertaken, for example, in the above mentioned study of the ILA’s Committee of International Human Rights and Practice; see KAMMINGA, Menno T., SCHEININ, Martin. The impact of human rights law on general international law . Supra note 4. 14 I admit that in practice the concept of erga omnes remained „largely rhetorical“ (MERON, Theodor. The humanization of international law. Supra note 4., p. 262); but in my opinion the question of practical utility does not doubt the validity of the concept as such. Finally, the UN International Law Commission also has supported the concept by including it in its Article 48 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (adopted 12 December 2001, UN GA Res. 56/83). 15 On the concept of obligations erga omnes , see for example RAGAZZI, Mauritio. The concept of international obligations erga-omnes. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. 16 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreskič et al., judgment from 14 January 2000, para. 519. 17 Ibid ., para. 518. 18 As the ICJ stated in Barcelona Traction , erga omnes obligations derive “in contemporary international law, from… the principles and rules concerning the basic rights of the human person …Some of the corresponding rights of protection have entered into the body of general international law … others are conferred by international instruments of a universal or quasi-universal character” (ICJ, Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1970, p. 3, paras. 33-34). 19 MERON, Theodor. The humanization of international law. Supra note 4, p. 201-203, esp. p. 203.

271