Category: Fever Research

  • Sources of international law

    International law, also known as “law of nations”, refers to the body of rules which regulate the conduct of sovereign states in their relations with one another. Sources of international law include treaties, international customs, general widely recognized principles of law, the decisions of national and lower courts, and scholarly writings. They are the materials and processes out of which the rules and principles regulating the international community are developed. They have been influenced by a range of political and legal theories.

    Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice is generally recognized as a definitive statement of the sources of international law. It requires the Court to apply, among other things,

    (a) international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;

    (b) international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;

    (c) the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;

    (d) subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law. Archived 2011-06-29 at the Wayback Machine

    During the 19th century, it was recognized by legal positivists that a sovereign could limit its authority to act by consenting to an agreement according to the principle pacta sunt servanda. This consensual view of international law was reflected in the 1920 Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, and was later preserved in Article 38(1) of the 1946 Statute of the International Court of Justice.

    The core of broad principles of law is general and dynamic, and they can sometimes be reduced to a proverb or a basic idea. Unlike other types of regulations, such as ordered law or agreements, broad standards of law have not been “established” according to the right sources of law. General norms of law, on the other hand, are regarded as a component of positive law, even if they are only used as auxiliary devices. They define critical principles for the framework’s actual operation and, in general, are drafted from the legal executive. General standards of law have been the subject of extensive doctrinal debate in international law, owing to the various connotations attributed to the concept and the hypothetical concerns that they raise. The use of the expression “central standards of international law,” which is at the top of the overall set of laws and begins in settlement or custom (e.g., the guideline of sovereign correspondence of states or the rule of the forbiddance of danger or the use of power), and which will not be managed here, causes a lot of confusion. Given the language used in Article 38, paragraph 1(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. (“universal standards of law as recognised by acculturated countries”), the beginning of universal standards of law as applied at the global level has also been a source of debate. The conventional wisdom holds that these standards have their origins in homegrown general systems of laws. Once it is established that some of these broad instruments are frequently shared rules found in domestic systems, they can be utilised in international law as well. They are rational derivations that can be found in any overall group of laws: the standard of restitution for harm committed, the standard of rule understanding, or those used for the purpose of rule struggles—many of them known through Latin adages—are true models. Various general legal standards, such as “audiatur et altera” standards, “actori incumbit onus probandi”, or the method that the designated authority of benefits is also judge of the coincidental locale, have been promoted by the legal executive policy is very important of any war.

    On the question of preference between sources of international law, rules established by treaty will take preference if such an instrument exists. It is also argued however that international treaties and international custom are sources of international law of equal validity; new custom may supersede older treaties and new treaties may override older custom. Also, jus cogens (peremptory norm) is a custom, not a treaty. Judicial decisions and juristic writings are regarded as auxiliary sources of international law, whereas it is unclear whether the general principles of law recognized by ‘civilized nations’ should be recognized as a principal or auxiliary source of international law. Nevertheless, treaty, custom, and general principles of law are generally recognized as primary sources of international law.

    Treaties and conventions are the persuasive source of international law and are considered “hard law.” Treaties can play the role of contracts between two or more parties, such as an extradition treaty or a defense pact. Treaties can also be legislation to regulate a particular aspect of international relations or form the constitutions of international organizations. Whether or not all treaties can be regarded as sources of law, they are sources of obligation for the parties to them. Article 38(1)(a) of the ICJ Statute, which uses the term “international conventions”, concentrates upon treaties as a source of contractual obligation but also acknowledges the possibility of a state expressly accepting the obligations of a treaty to which it is not formally a party.

    For a treaty-based rule to be a source of law, rather than simply a source of obligation, it must either be capable of affecting non-parties or have consequences for parties more extensive than those specifically imposed by the treaty itself.

    Thus, the procedures or methods by treaties become legally binding are formal source of law which is a process by a legal rule comes into existence: it is law creating.

    Some treaties are the result of codifying existing customary law, such as laws governing the global commons, and jus ad bellum. While the purpose is to establish a code of general application, its effectiveness depends upon the number of states that ratify or accede to the particular convention. Relatively few such instruments have a sufficient number of parties to be regarded as international law in their own right. The most obvious example is the 1949 Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims.

    Most multi-lateral treaties fall short of achieving such a near-universal degree of formal acceptance and are dependent upon their provisions being regarded as representing customary international law and, by this indirect route, as binding upon non-parties. This outcome is possible in a number of ways:

    When the treaty rule reproduces an existing rule of customary law, the rule will be clarified in terms of the treaty provision. A notable example is the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, which was considered by the ICJ to be law even before it had been brought into force.
    When a customary rule is in the process of development, its incorporation in a multilateral treaty may have the effect of consolidating or crystallizing the law in the form of that rule. It is not always easy to identify when this occurs. Where the practice is less developed, the treaty provision may not be enough to crystallize the rule as part of customary international law.

    Even if the rule is new, the drafting of the treaty provision may be the impetus for its adoption in the practice of states, and it is the subsequent acceptance of the rule by states that renders it effective as part of customary law. If a broad definition is adopted of state practice, the making of a treaty would fall within the definition. Alternatively, it is possible to regard the treaty as the final act of state practice required to establish the rule in question, or as the necessary articulation of the rule to give it the opinio juris of customary international law.
    Convention-based “instant custom” has been identified by the ICJ on several occasions as representing customary law without explanation of whether the provision in question was supported by state practice. This has happened with respect to a number of provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969. If “instant custom” is valid as law, it could deny to third parties the normal consequences of non-accession.

    Pursuant to Chapter XVI, Article 103 of the United Nations Charter, the obligations under the United Nations Charter overrides the terms of any other treaty. Meanwhile, its Preamble affirms the establishment of the obligations out of treaties and source of international law.

    Article 38(1)(b) of the ICJ Statute refers to “international custom” as a source of international law, specifically emphasizing the two requirements of state practice plus acceptance of the practice as obligatory or opinio juris sive necessitatis (usually abbreviated as opinio juris).

    Derived from the consistent practice of (originally) Western states accompanied by opinio juris (the conviction of States that the consistent practice is required by a legal obligation), customary international law is differentiated from acts of comity (mutual recognition of government acts) by the presence of opinio juris (although in some instances, acts of comity have developed into customary international law, i.e. diplomatic immunity). Treaties have gradually displaced much customary international law. This development is similar to the replacement of customary or common law by codified law in municipal legal settings, but customary international law continues to play a significant role in international law.

    This element involves an examination of what rules states are observing. When examining state practice to determine relevant rules of international law, it is necessary to take into account every activity of the organs and officials of states that relate to that purpose. There has been continuing debate over where a distinction should be drawn as to the weight that should be attributed to what states do, rather than what they say represents the law. In its most extreme form, this would involve rejecting what states say as practice and relegating it to the status of evidence of opinio juris A more moderate version would evaluate what a state says by reference to the occasion on which the statement was made. It is only relatively powerful countries with extensive international contacts and interests that have regular opportunities of contributing by deed to the practice of international law. The principal means of contribution to state practice for the majority of states will be at meetings of international organizations, particularly the UN General Assembly, by voting and otherwise expressing their view on matters under consideration. Moreover, there are circumstances in which what states say may be the only evidence of their view as to what conduct is required in a particular situation.

    The notion of practice establishing a customary rule implies that the practice is followed regularly, or that such state practice must be “common, consistent and concordant”.[13] Given the size of the international community, the practice does not have to encompass all states or be completely uniform. There has to be a sufficient degree of participation, especially on the part of states whose interests are likely to be most affected, and an absence of substantial dissent. There have been a number of occasions on which the ICJ has rejected claims that a customary rule existed because of a lack of consistency in the practice brought to its attention.

    Within the context of a specific dispute, however, it is not necessary to establish the generality of practice. A rule may apply if a state has accepted the rule as applicable to it individually, or because the two states belong to a group of states between which the rule applies.

    A dissenting state is entitled to deny the opposability of a rule in question if it can demonstrate its persistent objection to that rule, either as a member of a regional group or by virtue of its membership of the international community. It is not easy for a single state to maintain its dissent. Also, rules of the jus cogens have a universal character and apply to all states, irrespective of their wishes.

    Demand for rules that are responsive to increasingly rapid changes has led to the suggestion that there can be, in appropriate circumstances, such a concept as “instant custom”. Even within traditional doctrine, the ICJ has recognized that passage of a short period of time is not necessarily a bar to the formation of a new rule. Because of this, the question is sometimes raised as to whether the word “custom” is suitable to a process that could occur with great rapidity.

    It may be argued that the practice of international organizations, most notably that of the United Nations, as it appears in the resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, are an additional source of international law, even though it is not mentioned as such in Article 38(1) of the 1946 Statute of the International Court of Justice. Article 38(1) is closely based on the corresponding provision of the 1920 Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, thus predating the role that international organizations have come to play in the international plane. That is, the provision of Article 38(1) may be regarded as ‘dated, and this can most vividly be seen in the mention made of ‘civilized nations’, a mentioning that appears all the more quaint after the decolonization process that took place in the early 1960s and the participation of nearly all nations of the world in the United Nations.

    Opinio juris
    Main article: Opinio juris sive necessitatis

    A wealth of state practice does not usually carry with it a presumption that opinio juris exists. “Not only must the acts concerned amount to a settled practice, but they must also be such, or be carried out in such a way, as to be evidence of a belief that this practice is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it.”

    In cases where practice (of which evidence is given) comprises abstentions from acting, consistency of conduct might not establish the existence of a rule of customary international law. The fact that no nuclear weapons have been used since 1945, for example, does not render their use illegal on the basis of a customary obligation because the necessary opinio juris was lacking.

    Although the ICJ has frequently referred to opinio juris as being an equal footing with state practice, the role of the psychological element in the creation of customary law is uncertain.

    Jus cogens
    Main article: Peremptory norm
    A peremptory norm or jus cogens (Latin for “compelling law” or “strong law”) is a principle of international law considered so fundamental that it overrides all other sources of international law, including even the Charter of the United Nations. The principle of jus cogens is enshrined in Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:

    For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognised by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.
    Rules of jus cogens generally require or forbid the state to do particular acts or respect certain rights. However, some define criminal offenses which the state must enforce against individuals. Generally included on lists of such norms are prohibitions of such crimes and internationally wrongful acts as waging aggressive war, war crimes, crimes against humanity, piracy, genocide, apartheid, slavery and torture.

    The evidence supporting the emergence of a rule of jus cogens will be essentially similar to that required to establish the creation of a new rule of customary international law. Indeed, jus cogens could be thought of as a special principle of custom with a superadded opinions juries. The European Court of Human Rights has stressed the international public policy aspect of the jus cogens.

    The scope of general principles of law, to which Article 38(1) of the Statute of the ICJ refers, is unclear and controversial but may include such legal principles that are common to a large number of systems of municipal law. Given the limits of treaties or custom as sources of international law, Article 38(1) may be looked upon as a directive to the Court to fill any gap in the law and prevent a non liquet by reference to the general principles.

    In earlier stages of the development of international law, rules were frequently drawn from municipal law. In the 19th century, legal positivists rejected the idea that international law could come from any source that did not involve state will or consent but were prepared to allow for the application of general principles of law, provided that they had in some way been accepted by states as part of the legal order. Thus Article 38(1)(c), for example, speaks of general principles “recognized” by states. An area that demonstrates the adoption of municipal approaches is the law applied to the relationship between international officials and their employing organizations, although today the principles are regarded as established international law.

    The significance of general principles has undoubtedly been lessened by the increased intensity of treaty and institutional relations between states. Nevertheless, the concepts of estoppel and equity have been employed in the adjudication of international disputes. For example, a state that has, by its conduct, encouraged another state to believe in the existence of a certain legal or factual situation, and to rely on that belief, may be estopped from asserting a contrary situation in its dealings. The principle of good faith was said by the ICJ to be “one of the basic principles governing the creation and performance of legal obligations”. Similarly, there have been frequent references to equity. It is generally agreed that equity cannot be employed to subvert legal rules (that is, operate contra legem). This “equity as law” perception is reinforced by references to equitable principles in the text of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, though this may be little more than an admission as to the existence, and legitimation, of the discretion of the adjudicator.

    However, the principles of estoppel and equity in the international context do not retain all the connotations they do under common law. The reference to the principles as “general” signify that, if rules were to be adapted from municipal law, they should be at a sufficient level of generality to encompass similar rules existing in many municipal systems. Principles of municipal law should be regarded as sources of inspiration rather than as sources of rules of direct application.

    Judicial decisions and juristic writings

    According to Article 38(1)(d) of its Statute, the ICJ is also to apply “judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law”. It is difficult to tell what influence these materials have on the development of the law. Pleadings in cases before the ICJ are often replete with references to case law and to legal literature.

    Judicial decisions

    The decisions of international and municipal courts and the publications of academics can be referred to, not as a source of law as such, but as a means of recognizing the law established in other sources. In practice, the International Court of Justice does not refer to domestic decisions although it does invoke its previous case-law.

    There is no rule of stare decisis in international law. The decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case. Nevertheless, often the Court would refer to its past decisions and advisory opinions to support its explanation of a present case.

    Often the International Court of Justice will consider General Assembly resolutions as indicative of customary international law.

    Juristic writings

    Article 38(1)(d) of the International Court of Justice Statute states that the ‘teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations’ are also among the ‘subsidiary means for the determination of the rules of law’. The scholarly works of prominent jurists are not sources of international law but are essential in developing the rules that are sourced in treaties, custom and the general principles of law. This is accepted practice in the interpretation of international law and was utilized by the United States Supreme Court in The Paquete Habana case (175 US (1900) 677 at 700–1). In the practice of the International Court of Justice, citations to teachings in decisions are exceptional, but Judges routinely refer to them in their individual opinions.

  • Economic sanctions

    Economic sanctions or embargoes are commercial and financial penalties applied by states or institutions against states, groups, or individuals. Economic sanctions are a form of coercion that attempts to get an actor to change its behavior through disruption in economic exchange. Sanctions can be intended to compel (an attempt to change an actor’s behavior) or deterrence (an attempt to stop an actor from certain actions).

    Sanctions can target an entire country or they can be more narrowly targeted at individuals or groups; this latter form of sanctions are sometimes called “smart sanctions”. Prominent forms of economic sanctions include trade barriers, asset freezes, travel bans, arms embargoes, and restrictions on financial transactions.

    The efficacy of sanctions in achieving intended goals is a subject of debate. Scholars have also considered the policy externalities of sanctions. The humanitarian consequences of country-wide sanctions have been a subject of controversy. As a consequence, since the mid-1990s, United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sanctions have tended to target individuals and entities, in contrast to the country-wide sanctions of earlier decades.

    One of the most comprehensive attempts at an embargo occurred during the Napoleonic Wars of 1803–1815. Aiming to cripple the United Kingdom economically, Emperor Napoleon I of France in 1806 promulgated the Continental System—which forbade European nations from trading with the UK. In practice the French Empire could not completely enforce the embargo, which proved as harmful (if not more so) to the continental nations involved as to the British. By the time of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, diplomats and legal scholars regularly discussed using coordinated economic pressure to enforce international law. This idea was also included in reform proposals by Latin American and Chinese international lawyers in the years leading up to World War I.

    World War I and the Interwar period

    Sanctions in the form of blockades were prominent during World War I. Debates about implementing sanctions through international organizations, such as the League of Nations, became prominent after the end of World War I. Leaders saw sanctions as a viable alternative to war.

    The League Covenant permitted the use of sanctions in five cases:

    When Article 10 of the League Covenant is violated
    In case of war or threat of war (Article 11)
    When a League member does not pay an arbitration award (Article 12)
    When a League member goes to war without submitting the dispute to the League Council or League Assembly (Articles 12–15)
    When a non-member goes to war against a League member (Article 17)
    The Abyssinia Crisis in 1935 resulted in League sanctions against Mussolini’s Italy under Article 16 of the Covenant. Oil supplies, however, were not stopped, nor the Suez Canal closed to Italy, and the conquest proceeded. The sanctions were lifted in 1936 and Italy left the League in 1937.

    In the lead-up to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States imposed severe trade restrictions on Japan to discourage further Japanese conquests in East Asia.

    From World War II onwards

    After World War II, the League was replaced by the more expansive United Nations (UN) in 1945. Throughout the Cold War, the use of sanctions increased gradually. After the end of the Cold War, there was a major increase in economic sanctions.

    According to the Global Sanctions Data Base, there have been 1,325 sanctions in the period 1950–2022.

    Politics of sanctions

    Economic sanctions are used as a tool of foreign policy by many governments. Economic sanctions are usually imposed by a larger country upon a smaller country for one of two reasons: either the latter is a perceived threat to the security of the former nation or that country treats its citizens unfairly. They can be used as a coercive measure for achieving particular policy goals related to trade or for humanitarian violations. Economic sanctions are used as an alternative weapon instead of going to war to achieve desired outcomes.

    The Global Sanctions Data Base categorizes nine objectives of sanctions: “changing policy, destabilizing regimes, resolving territorial conflicts, fighting terrorism, preventing war, ending war, restoring and promoting human rights, restoring and promoting democracy, and other objectives.”

    Effectiveness of economic sanctions

    According to a study by Neuenkirch and Neumeier, UN economic sanctions had a statistically significant impact on targeted states by reducing their GDP growth by an average of 2.3–3.5% per year—and more than 5% per year in the case of comprehensive UN embargoes—with the negative effects typically persisting for a period of ten years. By contrast, unilateral US sanctions had a considerably smaller impact on GDP growth, restricting it by 0.5–0.9% per year, with an average duration of seven years.

    Oryoie, A. R. demonstrates that economic sanctions result in welfare losses across all income groups in Iran, with wealthier groups suffering greater losses compared to poorer groups.

    Imposing sanctions on an opponent also affects the economy of the imposing country to a degree. If import restrictions are promulgated, consumers in the imposing country may have restricted choices of goods. If export restrictions are imposed or if sanctions prohibit companies in the imposing country from trading with the target country, the imposing country may lose markets and investment opportunities to competing countries.

    Hufbauer, Schott, and Elliot (2008) argue that regime change is the most frequent foreign-policy objective of economic sanctions, accounting for just over 39 percent of cases of their imposition. Hufbauer et al. found that 34 percent of the cases studied were successful. However, when Robert A. Pape examined their study, he found that only 5 of their reported 40 successes were actually effective, reducing the success rate to 4%. In either case, the difficulty and unexpected nuances of measuring the actual success of sanctions in relation to their goals are both increasingly apparent and still under debate. In other words, it is difficult to determine why a regime or country changes (i.e., whether it was the sanction or inherent instability) and doubly so to measure the full political effect of a given action.

    Offering an explanation as to why sanctions are still imposed even when they may be marginally effective, British diplomat Jeremy Greenstock suggests sanctions are popular not because they are known to be effective, but because “there is nothing else [to do] between words and military action if you want to bring pressure upon a government”. Critics of sanctions like Belgian jurist Marc Bossuyt argue that in nondemocratic regimes, the extent to which this affects political outcomes is contested, because by definition such regimes do not respond as strongly to the popular will.

    A strong connection has been found between the effectiveness of sanctions and the size of veto players in a government. Veto players represent individual or collective actors whose agreement is required for a change of the status quo, for example, parties in a coalition, or the legislature’s check on presidential powers. When sanctions are imposed on a country, it can try to mitigate them by adjusting its economic policy. The size of the veto players determines how many constraints the government will face when trying to change status quo policies, and the larger the size of the veto players, the more difficult it is to find support for new policies, thus making the sanctions more effective.

    Francesco Giumelli writes that the “set of sanctions … that many observers would be likely to consider the most persuasive (and effective)”, namely, UN sanctions against “central bank assets and sovereign wealth funds”, are “of all the types of measures applied … the one least frequently used”. Giumelli also distinguishes between sanctions against international terrorists, in which “the nature of the request is not as important as the constraining aspect”, and sanctions imposed in connection with “post-conflict scenarios”, which should “include flexible demands and the potential for adaptation if the situation changes”.

    Economic sanctions can be used for achieving domestic and international purposes.

    Foreign aid suspensions are typically considered as a type of economic sanctions. Previously mentioned work by Hufbauer, Schott, Elliot, and Oegg is a prominent example. Claas Mertens finds that “suspending aid is more effective than adopting economic sanctions because

    (1) aid suspensions are economically beneficial for the adopting state, while sanctions are costly,

    (2) aid suspensions directly affect the targeted government’s budget,

    (3) market forces undermine sanctions but not aid suspensions, and

    (4) aid suspensions are less likely to spark adverse behavioral reactions. […] The findings suggest that economic sanctions are less effective than previously thought and that large donor states have a higher chance of achieving political goals through economic coercion.”

    Criticism

    Sanctions have been criticized on humanitarian grounds, as they negatively impact a nation’s economy and can also cause collateral damage on ordinary citizens. Peksen implies that sanctions can degenerate human rights in the target country. Some policy analysts believe that imposing trade restrictions only serves to hurt ordinary people as opposed to government elites, and others have likened the practice to siege warfare. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has generally refrained from imposing comprehensive sanctions since the mid-1990s, in part due to the controversy over the efficacy and civilian harms attributed to the sanctions against Iraq.

    Sanctions can have unintended consequences.

    Smart Sanctions

    One of the most popular suggestions to combat the humanitarian issues that arise from sanctions is the concept of “smart sanctions”, and a lot of research has been done on this concept also known as targeted sanctions. The term “smart sanctions” refers to measures like asset freezes, travel bans, and arms embargoes that aim to target responsible parties like political leaders and elites with the goal of avoiding causing widespread collateral damage to innocent civilians and neighboring nations.

    Though there has been enthusiasm about the concept, as of 2016, the Targeted Sanctions Consortium (TSC) found that targeted sanctions only result in policy goals being met 22% of the time.

    Smart Sanctions have also not been totally successful in avoiding civilian harm or unintended consequences. For example, arms embargoes can impact the self-defense efforts of those under attack, aviation bans can affect a nation’s transportation sector and the jobs of civilians associated with them, and financial sanctions targeting individuals raise due process issues. One example of smart sanctions in practice can be seen with sanctions imposed by the United States on the Russian Federation following the latter’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, which were intended to exert pressure on Russia’s financial sector. The sanctions resulted in American credit card companies Visa and MasterCard suspending all transactions of sanctioned Russian banks, effectively canceling the credit cards of ordinary Russian consumers.

    Implications for businesses

    There is an importance, especially with relation to financial loss, for companies to be aware of embargoes that apply to their intended export or import destinations. Properly preparing products for trade, sometimes referred to as an embargo check, is a difficult and timely process for both importers and exporters.

    There are many steps that must be taken to ensure that a business entity does not accrue unwanted fines, taxes, or other punitive measures. Common examples of embargo checks include referencing embargo lists, cancelling transactions, and ensuring the validity of a trade entity.

    This process can become very complicated, especially for countries with changing embargoes. Before better tools became available, many companies relied on spreadsheets and manual processes to keep track of compliance issues. Today, there are software based solutions that automatically handle sanctions and other complications with trade.

    United States sanctions

    Main article: United States sanctions
    US Embargo Act of 1807

    Main article: Embargo Act of 1807
    The United States Embargo of 1807 involved a series of laws passed by the US Congress (1806–1808) during the second term of President Thomas Jefferson. Britain and France were engaged in the War of the Fourth Coalition; the US wanted to remain neutral and to trade with both sides, but both countries objected to American trade with the other. American policy aimed to use the new laws to avoid war and to force both France and Britain to respect American rights. The embargo failed to achieve its aims, and Jefferson repealed the legislation in March 1809.

    US embargo of Cuba

    Main article: United States embargo against Cuba
    The United States embargo against Cuba began on March 14, 1958, during the overthrow of dictator Fulgencio Batista by Fidel Castro during the Cuban Revolution. At first, the embargo applied only to arms sales; however, it later expanded to include other imports, eventually extending to almost all trade on February 7, 1962. Referred to by Cuba as “el bloqueo” (the blockade), the US embargo on Cuba remains as of 2022 one of the longest-standing embargoes in modern history. Few of the United States’ allies embraced the embargo, and many have argued it has been ineffective in changing Cuban government behavior. While taking some steps to allow limited economic exchanges with Cuba, American President Barack Obama nevertheless reaffirmed the policy in 2011, stating that without the granting of improved human rights and freedoms by Cuba’s current government, the embargo remains “in the national interest of the United States”.

    Other countries

    Main articles: United States sanctions against Iran and Humanitarian impacts of U.S. sanctions against Iran
    Russian sanctions

    Russia has been known to utilize economic sanctions to achieve its political goals. Russia’s focus has been primarily on implementing sanctions against the pro-Western governments of former Soviet Union states. The Kremlin’s aim is particularly on states that aspire to join the European Union and NATO, such as Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia. Russia has enacted a law, the Dima Yakovlev Law, that defines sanctions against US citizens involved in “violations of the human rights and freedoms of Russian citizens”. It lists US citizens who are banned from entering Russia.

    Russia sanctions on Ukraine

    Main article: Russian sanctions against Ukraine
    Viktor Yushchenko, the third president of Ukraine who was elected in 2003, lobbied during his term to gain admission to NATO and the EU. Soon after Yushchenko entered office, Russia demanded Kyiv pay the same rate that it charged Western European states. This quadrupled Ukraine’s energy bill overnight. Russia subsequently cut off the supply of natural gas in 2006, causing significant harm to the Ukrainian and Russian economies. As the Ukrainian economy began to struggle, Yushchenko’s approval ratings dropped significantly; reaching the single digits by the 2010 election; Viktor Yanukovych, who was more supportive of Moscow won the election in 2010 to become the fourth president of Ukraine. After his election, gas prices were reduced substantially.

    Russian sanctions on Georgia

    The Rose Revolution in Georgia brought Mikheil Saakashvili to power as the third president of the country. Saakashvili wanted to bring Georgia into NATO and the EU and was a strong supporter of the US-led war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Russia would soon implement a number of different sanctions on Georgia, including natural gas price raises through Gazprom and wider trade sanctions that impacted the Georgian economy, particularly Georgian exports of wine, citrus fruits, and mineral water. In 2006, Russia banned all imports from Georgia which was able to deal a significant blow to the Georgian economy. Russia also expelled nearly 2,300 Georgians who worked within its borders.

    United Nations sanctions

    The United Nations issues sanctions by consent of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and/or General Assembly in response to major international events, receiving authority to do so under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. The nature of these sanctions may vary, and include financial, trade, or weaponry restrictions. Motivations can also vary, ranging from humanitarian and environmental concerns to efforts to halt nuclear proliferation. Over two dozen sanctions measures have been implemented by the United Nations since its founding in 1945.

    Most UNSC sanctions since the mid-1990s have targeted individuals and entities rather than entire governments, a change from the comprehensive trade sanctions of earlier decades. For example, the UNSC maintains lists of individuals indicted for crimes or linked to international terrorism, which raises novel legal questions regarding due process. According to a dataset covering the years 1991 to 2013, 95% of UNSC sanction regimes included “sectoral bans” on aviation and/or the import (or export) of arms or raw materials, 75% included “individual/group” sanctions such as asset freezes or restrictions on travel, and just 10% targeted national finances or included measures against central banks, sovereign wealth funds, or foreign investment. The most frequently used UNSC sanction documented in the dataset is an embargo against imported weapons, which applied in 87% of all cases and was directed against non-state actors more often than against governments. Targeted sanctions regimes may contain hundreds of names, a handful, or none at all.

    Sanctions on Somalia, 1992

    Main article: United Nations arms embargo on Somalia
    The UN implemented sanctions against Somalia beginning in April 1992, after the overthrow of the Siad Barre regime in 1991 during the Somali Civil War. UNSC Resolution 751 forbade members to sell, finance, or transfer any military equipment to Somalia.

    Sanctions on North Korea, 2006

    Main article: Sanctions against North Korea
    The UNSC passed Resolution 1718 in 2006 in response to a nuclear test that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) conducted in violation of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The resolution banned the sale of military and luxury goods and froze government assets. Since then, the UN has passed multiple resolutions subsequently expanding sanctions on North Korea. Resolution 2270 from 2016 placed restrictions on transport personnel and vehicles employed by North Korea while also restricting the sale of natural resources and fuel for aircraft.

    The efficacy of such sanctions has been questioned in light of continued nuclear tests by North Korea in the decade following the 2006 resolution. Professor William Brown of Georgetown University argued that “sanctions don’t have much of an impact on an economy that has been essentially bankrupt for a generation”.

    Sanctions on Libya

    On February 26, 2011, the UNSC issued an arms embargo against the Libya through Security Council Resolution 1970 in response to humanitarian abuses occurring in the First Libyan Civil War. The embargo was later extended to mid-2018. Under the embargo, Libya has suffered severe inflation because of increased dependence on the private sector to import goods. The sanctions caused large cuts to health and education, which caused social conditions to decrease. Even though the sanctions were in response to human rights, their effects were limited.

    Sanction on the Central African Republic

    In 2013 the UN decreed an arms embargo against the CAR. The arms embargo was established in the context of an intercommunity conflict between the Séléka rebels, with a Muslim majority, and the predominantly Christian militias. to fight back. Raised UN Security Council lifts arms embargo on CAR on August 1, 2024.

    Sanctions on apartheid South Africa

    Main article: International sanctions during apartheid
    In effort to punish South Africa for its policies of apartheid, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a voluntary international oil-embargo against South Africa on November 20, 1987; that embargo had the support of 130 countries. South Africa, in response, expanded its Sasol production of synthetic crude.

    All United Nations sanctions on South Africa ended over the Negotiations to end Apartheid, Resolution 919 and the 1994 South African elections, in which Nelson Mandela was elected as the first post-Apartheid president. When asked in 1993 if economic sanctions had helped end apartheid, Mandela replied “Oh, there is no doubt.”

    Other multilateral sanctions

    The United States, Britain, the Republic of China and the Netherlands imposed sanctions against Japan in 1940–1941 in response to its expansionism. Deprived of access to vital oil, iron-ore and steel supplies, Japan started planning for military action to seize the resource-rich Dutch East Indies, which required a preemptive attack on Pearl Harbor, triggering the American entry into the Pacific War.

    In 1973–1974, OAPEC instigated the 1973 oil crisis through its oil embargo against the United States and other industrialized nations that supported Israel in the Yom Kippur War. The results included a sharp rise in oil prices and in OPEC revenues, an emergency period of energy rationing, a global economic recession, large-scale conservation efforts, and long-lasting shifts toward natural gas, ethanol, nuclear and other alternative energy sources. Israel continued to receive Western support, however.

    In 2010, the European Union made the decision to sanction Iran due to their involvement in their nuclear program. Theresa Papademetriou states the exact restrictions the EU posed on Iran, “prohibition on the provision of insurance, increased restrictions on and notifications needed for transfers of funds to and from Iran, restrictions on the supply of or traffic in technology and equipment to be used in certain oil and gas fields and prohibition of investment in such fields, expansion of the list of goods and technology whose supply to Iran is either subject to prior authorization or is completely banned and new visa restrictions.” Also in 2010, the UN Council imposed sanctions on Iran due to their involvement in their nuclear program. These sanctions banned Iran from carrying out tests on their nuclear weapons and imposed an embargo on the transfer of weapons into the country. These sanctions resulted in drastic macroeconomic downturns for the Iranian economy including volatility in GDP, increase in unemployment, and increase in inflation.

  • Peremptory norm

    A peremptory norm (also called jus cogens) is a fundamental principle of international law that is accepted by the international community of states as a norm from which no derogation is permitted.

    There is no universal agreement regarding precisely which norms are jus cogens nor how a norm reaches that status, but it is generally accepted that jus cogens bans genocide, maritime piracy, enslaving in general (i.e. slavery as well as slave trade), wars of aggression and territorial aggrandizement, and generally as well torture, and refoulement.

    Status of peremptory norms under international law
    Unlike ordinary customary law, which has traditionally required consent and allows the alteration of its obligations between states through treaties, peremptory norms may not be violated by any state “through international treaties or local or special customs or even general customary rules not endowed with the same normative force”.

    Discussions of the necessity of such norms could be traced back as far as 1758 (in Vattel’s The Law of Nations) and 1764 (in Christian Wolff’s Jus Gentium), clearly rooted in principles of natural law. But it was the judgments of the Permanent Court of International Justice that indicate the existence of such a peremptory norm, in the S.S. Wimbledon case in 1923, not mentioning peremptory norms explicitly but stating how state sovereignty is not inalienable.

    Under Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, championed by Third World and socialist states during the 1960s, any treaty that conflicts with a peremptory norm is void. The treaty allows for the emergence of new peremptory norms, but does not specify any peremptory norms. It does mention the prohibition on the threat of use of force and on the use of coercion to conclude an agreement:

    A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of states as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

    The number of peremptory norms is considered limited but not exclusively catalogued. They are not listed or defined by any authoritative body, but arise out of case law and changing social and political attitudes. Generally included are prohibitions on waging aggressive war, crimes against humanity, war crimes, maritime piracy, genocide, apartheid, slavery, and torture. As an example, international tribunals have held that it is impermissible for a state to acquire territory through war.

    Despite the seemingly clear weight of condemnation of such practices, some critics disagree with the division of international legal norms into a hierarchy. There is also disagreement over how such norms are recognized or established. The relatively new concept of peremptory norms seems to be at odds with the traditionally consensual nature of international law considered necessary to state sovereignty.

    Some peremptory norms define criminal offences considered to be enforceable against not only states but also individuals. That has been increasingly accepted since the Nuremberg Trials (the first enforcement in world history of international norms upon individuals) and now might be considered uncontroversial. However, the language of peremptory norms was not used in connection with these trials; rather, the basis of criminalisation and punishment of Nazi atrocities was that civilisation could not tolerate their being ignored because it could not survive their being repeated.

    There are often disagreements over whether a particular case violates a peremptory norm. As in other areas of law, states generally reserve the right to interpret the concept for themselves.

    Many large states have accepted this concept. Some of them have ratified the Vienna Convention, while others have stated in their official statements that they accept the Vienna Convention as “codificatory”. Some have applied the concept in their dealings with international organizations and other states.

    The case of Michael Domingues v. United States provides an example of an international body’s opinion that a particular norm is of a jus cogens nature. Michael Domingues had been convicted and sentenced to death in Nevada, United States for two murders committed when he was 16 years old. Domingues brought the case in front of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights which delivered a non-legally binding report. The United States argued that there was no jus cogens norm that “establishes eighteen years as the minimum age at which an offender can receive a sentence of death”. The Commission concluded that there was a “jus cogens norm not to impose capital punishment on individuals who committed their crimes when they had not yet reached 18 years of age”.

    The United States has subsequently banned the execution of juvenile offenders. Although not necessarily in response to the above non-binding report, the Supreme Court cited evolving international norms as one of the reasons for the ban (Roper v. Simmons).

    Torture

    The prohibition of torture is a rule of customary international law regarded as jus cogens. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia stated in Prosecutor v. Furundžija that there is a jus cogens for the prohibition against torture. It also stated that every state is entitled “to investigate, prosecute and punish or extradite individuals accused of torture, who are present in a territory under its jurisdiction”. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated in Filártiga v. Peña-Irala that “the torturer has become, like the pirate and the slave trader before him, hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind”.

  • Treaty

    A treaty is a formal, legally binding written agreement between sovereign states and/or international organizations that is governed by international law. A treaty may also be known as an international agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms; however, only documents that are legally binding on the parties are considered treaties under international law. Treaties may be bilateral (between two countries) or multilateral (involving more than two countries).

    Treaties are among the earliest manifestations of international relations; the first known example is a border agreement between the Sumerian city-states of Lagash and Umma around 3100 BC. International agreements were used in some form by most major civilizations and became increasingly common and more sophisticated during the early modern era. The early 19th century saw developments in diplomacy, foreign policy, and international law reflected by the widespread use of treaties. The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) codified these practices and established rules and guidelines for creating, amending, interpreting, and terminating treaties, and for resolving disputes and alleged breaches.

    Treaties are roughly analogous to contracts in that they establish the rights and binding obligations of the parties. They vary in their obligations (the extent to which states are bound to the rules), precision (the extent to which the rules are unambiguous), and delegation (the extent to which third parties have authority to interpret, apply and make rules). Treaties can take many forms and govern a wide range of subject matters, such as security, trade, environment, and human rights; they may also be used to establish international institutions, such as the International Criminal Court and the United Nations, for which they often provide a governing framework. Treaties serve as primary sources of international law and have codified or established most international legal principles since the early 20th century. In contrast with other sources of international law, such as customary international law, treaties are only binding on the parties that have signed and ratified them.

    Notwithstanding the VCLT and customary international law, treaties are not required to follow any standard form, and differ widely in substance and complexity. Nevertheless, all valid treaties must comply with the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda (Latin: “agreements must be kept”), under which parties are committed to perform their duties and honor their agreements in good faith. A treaty may also be invalidated, and thus rendered unenforceable, if it violates a preemptory norm (jus cogens), such as permitting a war of aggression or crimes against humanity.

    A treaty is an official, express written agreement that states use to legally bind themselves. It is also the objective outcome of a ceremonial occasion that acknowledges the parties and their defined relationships. There is no prerequisite of academic accreditation or cross-professional contextual knowledge required to publish a treaty.

    However, since the late 19th century, most treaties have followed a fairly consistent format. A treaty typically begins with a preamble describing the “High Contracting Parties” and their shared objectives in executing the treaty, as well as summarizing any underlying events (such as the aftermath of a war in the case of a peace treaty). Modern preambles are sometimes structured as a single very long sentence formatted into multiple paragraphs for readability, in which each of the paragraphs begins with a gerund (desiring, recognizing, having, etc.).

    The High Contracting Parties—referred to as either the official title of the head of state (but not including the personal name), e.g. His Majesty The King of X or His Excellency The President of Y, or alternatively in the form of ” Government of Z”—are enumerated, along with the full names and titles of their plenipotentiary representatives; a boilerplate clause describes how each party’s representatives have communicated (or exchanged) their “full powers” (i.e., the official documents appointing them to act on behalf of their respective high contracting party) and found them in good or proper form. However, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties if the representative is the head of state, head of government or minister of foreign affairs, no special document is needed, as holding such high office is sufficient.

    The end of the preamble and the start of the actual agreement is often signaled by the words “have agreed as follows”.

    After the preamble comes numbered articles, which contain the substance of the parties’ actual agreement. Each article heading usually encompasses a paragraph. A long treaty may further group articles under chapter headings.

    Modern treaties, regardless of subject matter, usually contain articles governing where the final authentic copies of the treaty will be deposited and how any subsequent disputes as to their interpretation will be peacefully resolved.

    The end of a treaty, the eschatocol (or closing protocol), is often signaled by language such as “in witness whereof” or “in faith whereof”, followed by the words “DONE at”, then the site(s) of the treaty’s execution and the date(s) of its execution. The date is typically written in its most formal, non-numerical form; for example, the Charter of the United Nations reads “DONE at the city of San Francisco the twenty-sixth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and forty-five”. If applicable, a treaty will note that it is executed in multiple copies in different languages, with a stipulation that the versions in different languages are equally authentic.

    The signatures of the parties’ representatives follow at the very end. When the text of a treaty is later reprinted, such as in a collection of treaties currently in effect, an editor will often append the dates on which the respective parties ratified the treaty and on which it came into effect for each party.

    Bilateral treaties are concluded between two states or entities. It is possible for a bilateral treaty to have more than two parties; for example, each of the bilateral treaties between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) has seventeen parties: The parties are divided into two groups, the Swiss (“on the one part”) and the EU and its member states (“on the other part”). The treaty establishes rights and obligations between the Swiss and the EU and the member states severally—it does not establish any rights and obligations amongst the EU and its member states.

    A multilateral treaty is concluded among several countries, establishing rights and obligations between each party and every other party. Multilateral treaties may be regional or may involve states across the world. Treaties of “mutual guarantee” are international compacts, e.g., the Treaty of Locarno which guarantees each signatory against attack from another.

    The United Nations has extensive power to convene states to enact large-scale multilateral treaties and has experience doing so. Under the United Nations Charter, which is itself a treaty, treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it, or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the practice of secret treaties, which proliferated in the 19th and 20th centuries and often precipitated or exacerbated conflict. Article 103 of the Charter also states that its members’ obligations under the Charter outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.

    After their adoption, treaties, as well as their amendments, must follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations, as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force.

    In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the United States federal government under the Articles of Confederation.

    Reservations are essentially caveats to a state’s acceptance of a treaty. Reservations are unilateral statements purporting to exclude or to modify the legal obligation and its effects on the reserving state. These must be included at the time of signing or ratification, i.e., “a party cannot add a reservation after it has already joined a treaty”. Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties in 1969.

    Originally, international law was unaccepting of treaty reservations, rejecting them unless all parties to the treaty accepted the same reservations. However, in the interest of encouraging the largest number of states to join treaties, a more permissive rule regarding reservations has emerged. While some treaties still expressly forbid any reservations, they are now generally permitted to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the goals and purposes of the treaty.

    When a state limits its treaty obligations through reservations, other states party to that treaty have the option to accept those reservations, object to them, or object and oppose them. If the state accepts them (or fails to act at all), both the reserving state and the accepting state are relieved of the reserved legal obligation as concerns their legal obligations to each other (accepting the reservation does not change the accepting state’s legal obligations as concerns other parties to the treaty). If the state opposes, the parts of the treaty affected by the reservation drop out completely and no longer create any legal obligations on the reserving and accepting state, again only as concerns each other. Finally, if the state objects and opposes, there are no legal obligations under that treaty between those two state parties whatsoever. The objecting and opposing state essentially refuses to acknowledge the reserving state is a party to the treaty at all.

    There are three ways an existing treaty can be amended. First, a formal amendment requires State parties to the treaty to go through the ratification process all over again. The re-negotiation of treaty provisions can be long and protracted, and often some parties to the original treaty will not become parties to the amended treaty. When determining the legal obligations of states, one party to the original treaty and one party to the amended treaty, the states will only be bound by the terms they both agreed upon. Treaties can also be amended informally by the treaty executive council when the changes are only procedural, technical change in customary international law can also amend a treaty, where state behavior evinces a new interpretation of the legal obligations under the treaty. Minor corrections to a treaty may be adopted by a procès-verbal; but a procès-verbal is generally reserved for changes to rectify obvious errors in the text adopted, i.e., where the text adopted does not correctly reflect the intention of the parties adopting it.

    In international law and international relations, a protocol is generally a treaty or international agreement that supplements a previous treaty or international agreement. A protocol can amend the previous treaty or add additional provisions. Parties to the earlier agreement are not required to adopt the protocol, and this is sometimes made explicit, especially where many parties to the first agreement do not support the protocol.

    A notable example is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which established a general framework for the development of binding greenhouse gas emission limits, followed by the Kyoto Protocol contained the specific provisions and regulations later agreed upon.

    Treaties may be seen as “self-executing”, in that merely becoming a party puts the treaty and all its obligations in action. Other treaties may be non-self-executing and require “implementing legislation”—a change in the domestic law of a state party that will direct or enable it to fulfill treaty obligations. An example of a treaty requiring such legislation would be one mandating local prosecution by a party for particular crimes.

    The division between the two is often unclear and subject to disagreements within a government, since a non-self-executing treaty cannot be acted on without the proper change in domestic law; if a treaty requires implementing legislation, a state may default on its obligations due to its legislature failing to pass the necessary domestic laws.

    The language of treaties, like that of any law or contract, must be interpreted when the wording does not seem clear, or it is not immediately apparent how it should be applied in a perhaps unforeseen circumstance. The Vienna Convention states that treaties are to be interpreted “in good faith” according to the “ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose”. International legal experts also often invoke the “principle of maximum effectiveness”, which interprets treaty language as having the fullest force and effect possible to establish obligations between the parties.

    No one party to a treaty can impose its particular interpretation of the treaty upon the other parties. Consent may be implied, however, if the other parties fail to explicitly disavow that initially unilateral interpretation, particularly if that state has acted upon its view of the treaty without complaint. Consent by all parties to the treaty to a particular interpretation has the legal effect of adding another clause to the treaty – this is commonly called an “authentic interpretation”.

    International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. To establish the meaning in context, these judicial bodies may review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty as well as the final, signed treaty itself.

    One significant part of treaty-making is that signing a treaty implies a recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States, agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding.

    Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law, but the other party does not. This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation.

    The definition of the English word “treaty” varies depending on the legal and political context; in some jurisdictions, such as the United States, a treaty is specifically an international agreement that has been ratified, and thus made binding, per the procedures established under domestic law.

    While the Vienna Convention provides a general dispute resolution mechanism, many treaties specify a process outside the convention for arbitrating disputes and alleged breaches. This may by a specially convened panel, by reference to an existing court or panel established for the purpose such as the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Justice or processes such as the Dispute Settlement Understanding of the World Trade Organization. Depending on the treaty, such a process may result in financial penalties or other enforcement action.

    Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification (“denunciation”). For example, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs provides that the treaty will terminate if, as a result of denunciations, the number of parties falls below 40. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that where a treaty is silent over whether or not it can be denounced there is a rebuttable presumption that it cannot be unilaterally denounced unless:

    it can be shown that the parties intended to admit the possibility, or a right of withdrawal can be inferred from the terms of the treaty. The possibility of withdrawal depends on the terms of the treaty and its travaux preparatory. It has, for example, been held that it is not possible to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When North Korea declared its intention to do this the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting as registrar, said that original signatories of the ICCPR had not overlooked the possibility of explicitly providing for withdrawal, but rather had deliberately intended not to provide for it. Consequently, withdrawal was not possible.

    The Organization of American States (OAS) offers the ability of member states to withdraw from its framework by allowing states to officially inform the General Secretariat of the OAS of such intended withdrawal and being subject to a two-year long sunset period in accordance with Article 143 of the body’s charter.

    In practice, state legislatures or other officials where so structured sometimes use their sovereignty or provisions of supreme law to declare their withdrawal from and stop following the terms of a treaty even if this violates the terms of the treaty. Other parties may accept this outcome, may consider the state to be untrustworthy in future dealings, or may retaliate with sanctions or military action. Withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty is typically considered to terminate the treaty. Multilateral treaties typically continue even after the withdrawal of one member, unless the terms of the treaty or mutual agreement causes its termination.

    If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.

    A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. It depends on how the other parties regard the breach and how they resolve to respond to it. Sometimes treaties will provide for the seriousness of a breach to be determined by a tribunal or other independent arbiter. An advantage of such an arbiter is that it prevents a party from prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspending or terminating its own obligations due to another’s an alleged material breach.

    Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.

    A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.

    Cartels (“Cartells”, “Cartelle” or “Kartell-Konventionen” in other languages) were a special kind of treaty within the international law of the 17th to 19th centuries. Their purpose was to regulate specific activities of common interest among contracting states that otherwise remained rivals in other areas. They were typically implemented on an administrative level. Similar to the cartels for duels and tournaments, these intergovernmental accords represented fairness agreements or gentlemen’s agreements between states.

    In the United States, cartels governed humanitarian actions typically carried out by cartel ships were dispatched for missions, such as to carry communications or prisoners between belligerents.

    From the European history, a broader range of purposes is known. These “cartels” often reflected the cohesion of authoritarian ruling classes against their own unruly citizens. Generally, the European governments concluded – while curbing their mutual rivalries partially – cooperation agreements, which should apply generally or only in case of war:

    Deserters, escaped serfs and criminals were to be mutually extradited.

    Prisoners of war should be handed out according to rank in different exchange ratios.

    The maintenance of postal and commercial traffic including the entry and exit of couriers should be guaranteed in the fields of communication and transport.

    “Customs cartels” (“Zollkartelle”) and “coin cartels” (“Münzkartelle”) were “regulatory” agreements between Continental-European states in the 19th century.

    Against smugglers and counterfeiters, a joint action approach was adopted by the governments contracting on international trade treaties. The latter often contained the relevant “cartel” regulations in their annexes. The measures against criminals and unruly citizens were to be conducted regardless of the nationality and origin of the relevant persons. If necessary, national borders could be crossed by police forces of the respective neighboring country for capture and arrest. In the course of the 19th century, the term “cartel” (or “Cartell”) gradually disappeared for intergovernmental agreements under international law. Instead, the term “convention” was used.

    An otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement on several grounds. For example, the Japan–Korea treaties of 1905, 1907, and 1910 were protested by several governments as having been essentially forced upon Korea by Japan; they were confirmed as “already null and void” in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.

    Ultra vires treaties

    If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.

    A party’s consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state’s domestic laws. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a “manifest violation” is required such that it would be “objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter”. A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.

    Consent is also invalid if it was given by a representative acting outside their restricted powers during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his or her signing.

    Misunderstanding, fraud, corruption, coercion

    Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.

    A governmental leader’s consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the “essential basis” of the state’s consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state’s own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.

    Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect “corruption” of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent.

    Contrary to peremptory norms

    A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.

    Treaties under domestic national law

    Australia

    The constitution of Australia allows the executive government to enter into treaties, but the practice is for treaties to be tabled in both houses of parliament at least 15 days before signing. Treaties are considered a source of Australian law but sometimes require an act of parliament to be passed depending on their nature. Treaties are administered and maintained by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which advised that the “general position under Australian law is that treaties which Australia has joined, apart from those terminating a state of war, are not directly and automatically incorporated into Australian law. Signature and ratification do not, of themselves, make treaties operate domestically. In the absence of legislation, treaties cannot impose obligations on individuals nor create rights in domestic law. Nevertheless, international law, including treaty law, is a legitimate and important influence on the development of the common law and may be used in the interpretation of statutes.” Treaties can be implemented by executive action, and often, existing laws are sufficient to ensure a treaty is honored.

    Australian treaties generally fall under the following categories: extradition, postal agreements and money orders, trade and international conventions.

    Brazil

    The federal constitution of Brazil states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president of Brazil and that such treaties must be approved by the Congress of Brazil (Articles 84, Clause VIII, and 49, Clause I). In practice, that has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty but that its ratification by the president requires the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Supreme Federal Court has ruled that after ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register for it to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.

    The court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or “ordinary laws”, in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Brazil in 2008 has altered that somewhat by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, subject to only the constitution itself. Additionally, the 45th Amendment to the constitution makes human rights treaties approved by Congress by a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether and how the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.

    The constitution does not have an equivalent to the supremacy clause in United States Constitution, which is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and legislation of the states of Brazil.

    India

    In India, subjects are divided into three lists: union, state and concurrent. In the normal legislation process, the subjects on the union list must be legislated by the Parliament of India. For subjects on the state list, only the respective state legislature can legislate. For subjects on the concurrent list, both governments can make laws. However, to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject and even override the general division of subject lists.

    United States

    In the United States, the term “treaty” has a distinct and more restricted legal definition than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes between “treaties”, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, and “executive agreements”, which are either “congressional-executive agreements” or “sole executive agreements”; although all three classes are equally treaties under international law, they are subject to different political and legal requirements and implications in the U.S.

    The distinctions primarily concern the method of approval: Treaties require the “advice and consent” by two-thirds of the Senators present, whereas sole executive agreements are executed by the President acting alone and congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate. The three classifications are not mutually exclusive: A treaty may require a simple majority in Congress before or after it is signed by the President or may grant the President authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols.

    Currently, international agreements are ten times more likely to be executed by executive agreement, due to their relative ease. Nevertheless, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement to gain congressional support on matters that require Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds as well as for agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the U.S. For example, the agreement by the United States, Iran, and other countries is not a treaty under U.S. law, but rather a “political commitment” that does not bind the parties by law.

    The nuances and ambiguity of how international agreements are effectuated or implemented in U.S. law has been subject to multiple legal cases. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases (1884) that “treaties” do not have a privileged position over acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified by legislative action just like any other regular law. In a similar vein, the court’s decision in Reid v. Covert (1957) held that treaty provisions that conflict with the U.S. Constitution are null and void under U.S. law. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has also recognized the “supremacy” of treaties in the U.S. Constitution, such as in Ware v. Hylton (1796) and Missouri v. Holland (1920).

    The relative ease by which certain international agreements could be entered into by the President has often prompted congressional pushback, most notably in the proposed Bricker Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which explicitly sought to reign in executive treatymaking powers.

    Treaties and indigenous peoples

    Treaties formed an important part of European colonization; in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases, these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not comprehend the implications of what they were signing.

    In some rare cases, such as with Ethiopia and Qing China, local governments were able to use the treaties to at least mitigate the impact of European colonization. This involved learning the intricacies of European diplomatic customs and then using the treaties to prevent power from overstepping their agreement or by playing different powers against each other.

    In other cases, such as New Zealand with the Māori and Canada with its First Nations people, treaties allowed native peoples to maintain a minimum amount of autonomy. Such treaties between colonizers and indigenous peoples are an important part of political discourse in the late 20th and early 21st century, the treaties being discussed have international standing as has been stated in a treaty study by the UN.

    Australia

    In the case of Indigenous Australians, no treaty was ever entered into with the Indigenous peoples entitling the Europeans to land ownership, mostly adopting the doctrine of terra nullius (with the exception of South Australia). This concept was later overturned by Mabo v Queensland, which established the concept of native title in Australia well after colonization was already a fait accompli.

    Victoria

    On 10 December 2019, the Victorian First Peoples’ Assembly met for the first time in the Upper House of the Parliament of Victoria in Melbourne. The main aim of the Assembly is to work out the rules by which individual treaties would be negotiated between the Victorian Government and individual Aboriginal Victorian peoples. It will also establish an independent Treaty Authority, which will oversee the negotiations between the Aboriginal groups and the Victorian Government and ensure fairness.

    United States

    Prior to 1871, the government of the United States regularly entered into treaties with Native Americans but the Indian Appropriations Act of 3 March 1871 had a rider attached that effectively ended the President’s treaty-making by providing that no Indian nation or tribe shall be acknowledged as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty. The federal government continued to provide similar contractual relations with the Indian tribes after 1871 by agreements, statutes, and executive orders.

    Canada

    Colonization in Canada saw a number of treaties signed between European settlers and Indigenous First Nations peoples. Historic Canadian treaties tend to fall into three broad categories: commercial, alliance, and territorial. Commercial treaties first emerged in the 17th century and were agreements made between the European fur trading companies and the local First Nations. The Hudson’s Bay Company, a British trading company located in what is now Northern Ontario, signed numerous commercial treaties during this period. Alliance treaties, commonly referred to as “treaties of peace, friendship and alliance” emerged in the late 17th to early 18th century. Finally, territorial treaties dictating land rights were signed between 1760 and 1923. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 accelerated the treaty-making process and provided the Crown with access to large amounts of land occupied by the First Nations. The Crown and 364 First Nations signed 70 treaties that are recognized by the Government of Canada and represent over 600,000 First Nation individuals. The treaties are as follows:

    Treaties of Peace and Neutrality (1701–1760)

    Peace and Friendship Treaties (1725–1779)

    Upper Canada Land Surrenders (including Toronto Purchase(Treaty 13), Johnson-Butler Purchase (Gunshot Treaty)) and the Williams Treaties (1764–1862/1923)

    Robinson Treaties and Douglas Treaties (1850–1854)

    The Numbered Treaties (1871–1921)

    Treaty perceptions

    There is evidence that “although both Indigenous and European Nations engaged in treaty-making before contact with each other, the traditions, beliefs, and worldviews that defined concepts such as “treaties” were extremely different”. The Indigenous understanding of treaties is based on traditional culture and values. Maintaining healthy and equitable relationships with other nations, as well as the environment, is paramount. Gdoo-naaganinaa, a historic treaty between the Nishnaabeg nation and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy is an example of how First Nations approach treaties. Under Gdoo-naaganinaa, also referred-to in English as Our Dish, the neighbouring nations acknowledged that while they were separate nations they shared the same ecosystem or Dish. It was agreed that the nations would respectably share the land, not interfering with the other nation’s sovereignty while also not monopolizing environmental resources. First Nations agreements, such as the Gdoo-naaganigaa, are considered “living treaties” that must be upheld continually and renewed over time. European settlers in Canada had a different perception of treaties. Treaties were not a living, equitable agreement but rather a legal contract over which the future creation of Canadian law would later rely on. As time passed, the settlers did not think it necessary to abide by all treaty agreements. A review of historic treaties reveals that the European settler understanding is the dominant view portrayed in Canadian treaties.

    Treaties today

    Canada today recognizes 25 additional treaties called Modern Treaties. These treaties represent the relationships between 97 Indigenous groups which includes over 89,000 people. The treaties have been instrumental in strengthening Indigenous stronghold in Canada by providing the following (as organized by the Government of Canada) :

    Indigenous ownership over 600,000 km² of land (almost the size of Manitoba)

    capital transfers of over $3.2 billion

    protection of traditional ways of life

    access to resource development opportunities

    participation in land and resources management decisions

    certainty with respect to land rights in round 40% of Canada’s

    land mass associated self-government rights and political recognition

  • Sovereign state

    A sovereign state is a state that has the highest authority over a territory. It is commonly understood that a sovereign state is independent. When referring to a specific polity, the term “country” may also refer to a constituent country, or a dependent territory.

    A sovereign state is usually required to have a permanent population, defined territory, a government not under another, and the capacity to interact with other sovereign states. In actual practice, recognition or non-recognition by other states plays an important role in determining the status of a country. Unrecognized states often have difficulty engaging in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.

    Since the end of the 19th century, almost the entire globe has been divided into sections (countries) with more or less defined borders assigned to different states.Previously, quite large plots of land were either unclaimed or deserted, or inhabited by nomadic peoples that were not organized into states. However, even in modern states, there are large remote areas, such as the Amazon’s tropical forests, that are either uninhabited or inhabited exclusively or mainly by indigenous people (and some of them are still not in constant contact). Additionally, there are states where de facto control is contested or where it is not exercised over their whole area.

    Currently, the international community includes more than 200 sovereign states, most of which are represented in the United Nations. These states exist in a system of international relations, where each state takes into account the policies of other states by making its own calculations. From this point of view, States are integrated into the international system of special internal and external security and legitimization of the dilemma. Recently, the concept of the international community has been formed to refer to a group of States that have established rules, procedures and institutions for the implementation of relations. Thus, the foundation for international law, diplomacy between officially recognized sovereign states, their organizations and formal regimes has been laid.

    Westphalian sovereignty

    Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of nation-state sovereignty based on territoriality and the absence of a role for external agents in domestic structures. It is an international system of states, multinational corporations, and organizations that began with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

    Sovereignty is a term that is frequently misused. Up until the 19th century, the radicalised concept of a “standard of civilization” was routinely deployed to determine that certain people in the world were “uncivilized”, and lacking organised societies. That position was reflected and constituted in the notion that their “sovereignty” was either completely lacking or at least of an inferior character when compared to that of the “civilized” people”. Lassa Oppenheim said, “There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning, which was universally agreed upon.” In the opinion of H. V. Evatt of the High Court of Australia, “sovereignty is neither a question of fact, nor a question of law, but a question that does not arise at all”.

    Sovereignty has taken on a different meaning with the development of the principle of self-determination and the prohibition against the threat or use of force as jus cogens norms of modern international law. The United Nations Charter, the Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, and the charters of regional international organizations express the view that all states are juridically equal and enjoy the same rights and duties based upon the mere fact of their existence as persons under international law. The right of nations to determine their own political status and exercise permanent sovereignty within the limits of their territorial jurisdictions is widely recognized.

    In political science, sovereignty is usually defined as the most essential attribute of the state in the form of its complete self-sufficiency in the frames of a certain territory, that is its supremacy in the domestic policy and independence in the foreign one.

    Named after the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, the Westphalian System of state sovereignty, according to Bryan Turner, “made a more or less clear separation between religion and state, and recognized the right of princes “to confessionalize” the state, that is, to determine the religious affiliation of their kingdoms on the pragmatic principle of cuius regio eius religio [whose realm, his religion].

    Before 1900, sovereign states enjoyed absolute immunity from the judicial process, derived from the concepts of sovereignty and the Westphalian equality of states. First articulated by Jean Bodin, the powers of the state are considered to be suprema potestas within territorial boundaries. Based on this, the jurisprudence has developed along the lines of affording immunity from prosecution to foreign states in domestic courts. In The Schooner Exchange v. M’Faddon, Chief Justice John Marshall of the United States Supreme Court wrote that the “perfect equality and absolute independence of sovereigns” has created a class of cases where “every sovereign is understood to waive the exercise of a part of that complete exclusive territorial jurisdiction, which has been stated to be the attribute of every nation”.

    Absolute sovereign immunity is no longer as widely accepted as it has been in the past, and some countries, including the United States, Canada, Singapore, Australia, Pakistan and South Africa, have introduced restrictive immunity by statute, which explicitly limits jurisdictional immunity to public acts, but not private or commercial ones, though there is no precise definition by which public acts can easily be distinguished from private ones.

    Recognition

    State recognition signifies the decision of a sovereign state to treat another entity as also being a sovereign state. Recognition can be either expressed or implied and is usually retroactive in its effects. It does not necessarily signify a desire to establish or maintain diplomatic relations.

    There are debates over whether states can exist as a fact independent of recognition or whether recognition is one of the facts necessary to bring states into being. No definition is binding on all the members of the community of nations on the criteria for statehood. Some argue that the criteria are mainly political, not legal. L.C. Green cited the recognition of the unborn Polish and Czechoslovak states in World War I and explained that “since recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing State to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or of an established government.” International lawyer Hersch Lauterpacht states that recognition is not merely a formality but an active interpretation in support of any facts. Once made however it cannot be arbitrarily revoked on account of another state’s own discretion or internal politics.

    Constitutive theory

    The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognised as sovereign by at least one other state. This theory of recognition was developed in the 19th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state recognised it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately become part of the international community or be bound by international law, and recognised nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them. In 1815, at the Congress of Vienna, the Final Act recognised only 39 sovereign states in the European diplomatic system, and as a result, it was firmly established that in the future new states would have to be recognised by other states, and that meant in practice recognition by one or more of the great powers.

    One of the major criticisms of this law is the confusion caused when some states recognise a new entity, but other states do not. Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the theory’s main proponents, suggested that a state must grant recognition as a possible solution. However, a state may use any criteria when judging if they should give recognition and they have no obligation to use such criteria. Many states may only recognise another state if it is to their advantage.

    In 1912, L. F. L. Oppenheim said the following, regarding constitutive theory:

    International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it is not recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law.

    Recognition or non-recognition by other states can override declarative theory criteria in cases such as Kosovo and Somaliland.

    Declarative theory

    By contrast, the declarative theory of statehood defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. According to declarative theory, an entity’s statehood is independent of its recognition by other states, as long as the sovereignty was not gained by military force. The declarative model was expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention.

    A “territory” in the international law context consists of land territory, internal waters, territorial sea, and air space above the territory. There is no requirement on strictly delimited borders or minimum size of the land, but artificial installations and uninhabitable territories cannot be considered territories sufficient for statehood. The term “permanent population” defines the community that has the intention to inhabit the territory permanently and is capable of supporting the superstructure of the State, though there is no requirement for a minimum population. The government must be capable of exercising effective control over a territory and population (the requirement known in legal theory as the “effective control test”) and guarantee the protection of basic human rights by legal methods and policies. The “capacity to enter into relations with other states” reflects the entity’s degree of independence.

    Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention declares that political statehood is independent of recognition by other states, and the state is not prohibited from defending itself.

    A similar opinion about “the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state” is expressed by the European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee, which found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states.

    The Montevideo Convention criteria do not automatically create a state because additional requirements must be met. While they play an important role, they do not determine the status of a country in all cases, such as Kosovo, Rhodesia, and Somaliland.

    In practice, international relations take into account the effect of recognition and non-recognition. It is the act of recognition that affirms whether a country meets the requirements for statehood and is now subject to international law in the same way that other sovereign states are.

    State recognition

    State practice relating to the recognition of states typically falls somewhere between the declaratory and constitutive approaches. International law does not require a state to recognise other states. Recognition is often withheld when a new state is seen as illegitimate or has come about in breach of international law. Almost universal non-recognition by the international community of Rhodesia and Northern Cyprus are good examples of this, the former only having been recognized by South Africa, and the latter only recognized by Turkey. In the case of Rhodesia, recognition was widely withheld when the white minority seized power and attempted to form a state along the lines of Apartheid South Africa, a move that the United Nations Security Council described as the creation of an “illegal racist minority régime”.

    In the case of Northern Cyprus, recognition was withheld from a state created in Northern Cyprus. International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence, and the recognition of a country is a political issue. On 2 July 2013, The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided that “notwithstanding the lack of international recognition of the regime in the northern area, a de facto recognition of its acts may be rendered necessary for practical purposes. Thus the adoption by the authorities of the “TRNC” of civil, administrative or criminal law measures, and their application or enforcement within that territory, may be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention”. On 9 October 2014, the US’s Federal Court stated that “the TRNC purportedly operates as a democratic republic with a president, prime minister, legislature and judiciary”. On 2 September 2015, ECtHR decided that “…the court system set up in the “TRNC” was to be considered to have been “established by law” with reference to the “constitutional and legal basis” on which it operated, and it has not accepted the allegation that the “TRNC” courts as a whole lacked independence and/or impartiality”. On 3 February 2017, The United Kingdom’s High Court stated “There was no duty in the United Kingdom law upon the Government to refrain from recognizing Northern Cyprus. The United Nations itself works with Northern Cyprus law enforcement agencies and facilitates co-operation between the two parts of the island”. and revealed that the co-operation between the United Kingdom police and law agencies in Northern Cyprus is legal. Turkish Cypriots gained “observer status” in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), and their representatives are elected in the Assembly of Northern Cyprus. As a country, Northern Cyprus became an observer member in various international organizations (the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), the Organization of Turkic States (OTS), the Parliamentary Assembly of Turkic States (TURKPA), etc.).

    De facto and de jure states

    Most sovereign states are both de jure and de facto (i.e., they exist both according to law and in practice). However, states which are only de jure are sometimes recognised as being the legitimate government of a territory over which they have no actual control. For example, during the Second World War, governments-in-exile of several states continued to enjoy diplomatic relations with the Allies, notwithstanding that their countries were under occupation by Axis powers. Other entities may have de facto control over a territory but lack international recognition; these may be considered by the international community to be only de facto states. They are considered de jure states only according to their own law and by states that recognise them. For example, Somaliland is commonly considered to be such a state.

    Outlining the concept of a de facto state for EurasiaNet in early 2024, Laurence Broers wrote:

    De facto states can be understood as a product of the very system that excludes the possibility of their existence: the post-Second World War and post-colonial system of sovereign and equal states covering every centimeter of the globe.

    The hegemony of this system, at least until recent years, is what created the possibility of a de facto state as an anomaly existing outside of it – or in Alexander Iskandaryan’s memorable phrase, as “temporary technical errors within the system of international law.” The Soviet and Yugoslav collapses resulted in the emergence of numerous such entities, several of which, including Abkhazia, Transdniester, South Ossetia and the NKR, survived in the margins of international relations for decades despite non-recognition.

    Semi-sovereign states

    Sovereignty is most commonly conceptualised as something categorical, which is either present or absent, and the coherence of any intermediate position in that binary has been questioned, especially in the context of international law. In spite of this, some authors admit the concept of a semi-sovereign state, a state which is officially acknowledged as sovereign but whose theoretical sovereignty is significantly impaired in practice, such as by being de facto subjected to a more powerful neighbour; Belarus, in its relationship with Russia, has been proposed as a contemporary example of a semi-sovereign state. In a somewhat different sense, the term semi-sovereign was famously applied to West Germany by political scientist Peter Katzenstein in his 1987 book Policy and Politics in West Germany: The Growth of a Semi-sovereign State, due to having a political system in which the sovereignty of the state was subject to limitations both internal (West Germany’s federal system and the role of civil society) and external (membership in the European Community and reliance on its alliance with the United States and NATO for its national security).

    Relationship between state and government

    Although the terms “state” and “government” are often used interchangeably, international law distinguishes between a non-physical state and its government; and in fact, the concept of “government-in-exile” is predicated upon that distinction. States are non-physical juridical entities, not organisations of any kind. However, ordinarily, only the government of a state can obligate or bind the state, for example by treaty.

    State extinction

    Generally speaking, states are durable entities, though they can become extinguished, either through voluntary means or outside forces, such as military conquest. Violent state abolition has virtually ceased since the end of World War II. Because states are non-physical juridical entities, it has been argued that their extinction cannot be due to physical force alone. Instead, the physical actions of the military must be associated with the correct social or judiciary actions for a state to be abolished.

    Ontological status of the state

    The ontological status of the state has been a subject of debate, especially, whether or not the state, is an object that no one can see, taste, touch, or otherwise detect, actually exists.

    The state as “quasi-abstract”

    It has been argued that one potential reason why the existence of states has been controversial is that states do not have a place in the traditional Platonist duality of the concrete and the abstract. Characteristically, concrete objects are those that have a position in time and space, which states do not have (though their territories have a spatial position, states are distinct from their territories), and abstract objects have a position in neither time nor space, which does not fit the supposed characteristics of states either, since states do have a temporal position (they can be created at certain times and then become extinct at a future time). Therefore, it has been argued that states belong to a third category, the quasi-abstract, that has recently begun to garner philosophical attention, especially in the area of Documentality, an ontological theory that seeks to understand the role of documents in understanding all of social reality. Quasi-abstract objects, such as states, can be brought into being through document acts, and can also be used to manipulate them, such as by binding them by treaty or surrendering them as the result of a war.

    Scholars in international relations can be broken up into two different practices, realists and pluralists, of what they believe the ontological state of the state is. Realists believe that the world is one of only states and interstate relations and the identity of the state is defined before any international relations with other states. On the other hand, pluralists believe that the state is not the only actor in international relations and interactions between states and the state is competing against many other actors.

    The state as “spiritual entity”

    Another theory of the ontology of the state is that the state is a spiritual, or “mystical entity” with its own being, distinct from the members of the state. The German Idealist philosopher Georg Hegel (1770–1831) was perhaps the greatest proponent of this theory. The Hegelian definition of the state is “the Divine Idea as it exists on Earth”.

    Trends in the number of states

    Since the end of World War II, the number of sovereign states in the international system has surged. Some research suggests that the existence of international and regional organisations, the greater availability of economic aid, and greater acceptance of the norm of self-determination have increased the desire of political units to secede and can be credited for the increase in the number of states in the international system. Harvard economist Alberto Alesina and Tufts economist Enrico Spolaore argue in their book, Size of Nations, that the increase in the number of states can partly be credited to a more peaceful world, greater free trade and international economic integration, democratisation, and the presence of international organisations that co-ordinate economic and political policies.

  • Consent

    Consent occurs when one person voluntarily agrees to the proposal or desires of another. It is a term of common speech, with specific definitions used in such fields as the law, medicine, research, and sexual consent. Consent as understood in specific contexts may differ from its everyday meaning. For example, a person with a mental disorder, a low mental age, or under the legal age of sexual consent may willingly engage in a sexual act that still fails to meet the legal threshold for consent as defined by applicable law.

    United Nations agencies and initiatives in sex education programs believe that teaching the topic of consent as part of a comprehensive sexuality education is beneficial. Types of consent include implied consent, express consent, informed consent and unanimous consent.

    Types

    An expression of consent is one that is unmistakably stated, rather than implied. It may be given in writing, e.g. contract, by speech (orally), or non-verbally, e.g. by a clear gesture such as a nod. Non-written express consent not evidenced by witnesses or an audio or video recording may be disputed if a party denies that it was given.
    Implied consent is consent inferred from a person’s actions and the facts and circumstances of a particular situation (or in some cases, by a person’s silence or inaction). Examples include unambiguously soliciting or initiating sexual activity or the implied consent to physical contact by participants in a hockey game or being assaulted in a boxing match.
    Informed consent in medicine is consent given by a person who has a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications, and future consequences of an action. The term is also used in other contexts, such as in social scientific research, when participants are asked to affirm that they understand the research procedure and consent to it, or in sex, where informed consent means each person engaging in sexual activity is aware of any positive statuses (for sexually transmitted infections and/or diseases) they might expose themselves to.

    Unanimous consent, or general consent, by a group of several parties (e.g., an association) is consent given by all parties.

    Substituted consent, or the substituted judgment doctrine, allows a decision maker to attempt to establish the decision an incompetent person would have made if they were competent.

    Advance consent, where consent is given in advance, is generally considered not valid with certain exceptions depending on jurisdiction for advance healthcare directives, commercial contracts, and other.

    Consent can be defined according to substantive equality.
    In international law, consent involves states, not individuals. Consent is a crucial principle of international law that necessitates the agreement of all relevant parties for any changes in rules to be legally binding. However, some legal scholars propose that a consensus among states, rather than the explicit consent of each state, may be the standard by which a rule is considered obligatory and enforceable.

    Internet and digital services

    The concept of end-user given consent plays an important role in digital regulations such as the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The GDPR (Article 6) defines a set of different legal bases for lawful processing of personal data. End-users’ consent is only one of these possible bases. However, as a result of the GDPR enforcement (in 2018) and other legal obligations, data controllers (online service providers) have widely developed consent-obtaining mechanisms in recent years. According to the GDPR, end-users’ consent should be valid, freely given, specific, informed and active. But the lack of enforceability regarding obtaining lawful consents has been a challenge in the digital world. As an example, a 2020 study, showed that the Big Tech, i.e. Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft (GAFAM), use dark patterns in their consent obtaining mechanisms, which raises doubts regarding the lawfulness of the obtained consent.

    Tort

    Consent can be either expressed or implied. For example, participation in a contact sport usually implies consent to a degree of contact with other participants, implicitly agreed and often defined by the rules of the sport. Another specific example is where a boxer cannot complain of being punched on the nose by an opponent; implied consent will be valid where the violence is ordinarily and reasonably to be contemplated as incidental to the sport in question. Express consent exists when there is oral or written agreement, particularly in a contract. For example, businesses may require that persons sign a waiver (called a liability waiver) acknowledging and accepting the hazards of an activity. This proves express consent, and prevents the person from filing a tort lawsuit for unauthorised actions.

    In English law, the principle of volenti non fit injuria (Latin: “to a willing person, injury is not done”) applies not only to participants in sport, but also to spectators and to any others who willingly engage in activities where there is a risk of injury. Consent has also been used as a defense in cases involving accidental deaths during sex, which occur during sexual bondage. Time (May 23, 1988) referred to this latter example, as the “rough-sex defense”. It is not effective in English law in cases of serious injury or death.

    As a term of jurisprudence prior provision of consent signifies a possible defence (an excuse or justification) against civil or criminal liability. Defendants who use this defense are arguing that they should not be held liable for a tort or a crime, since the actions in question took place with the plaintiff or “victim’s” prior consent and permission.

    Medicine

    In medical law, consent is important to protect a medical practitioner from liability for harm to a patient arising from a procedure. There are exemptions, such as when the patient is unable to give consent.

    Also, a medical practitioner must explain the significant risks of a procedure or medication (those that might change the patient’s mind about whether or not to proceed with the treatment) before the patient can give a binding consent. This was explored in Australia in Rogers v Whitaker. If a practitioner does not explain a material risk that subsequently eventuates, then that is considered negligent. These material risks include the loss of chance of a better result if a more experienced surgeon had performed the procedure. In the UK, a Supreme Court judgment modernized the law on consent and introduced a patient-focused test to UK law: allowing the patient rather than the medical professionals to decide upon the level of risk they wish to take in terms of a particular course of action, given all the information available. This change reflects the Guidance of the General Medical Council on the requirement to consent patients, and removes the rule of medical paternalism.

    Social science research

    Social scientists are generally required to obtain informed consent from research participants before asking interview questions or conducting an experiment. Federal law governs social science research that involves human subjects, and tasks institutional review boards (IRBs) at universities, federal or state agencies, and tribal organizations to oversee social science research that involves human subjects and to make decisions about whether or not informed consent is necessary for a social scientific study to go forward. Informed consent in this context generally means explaining the study’s purpose to research participants and obtaining a signed or verbal affirmation that the study participants understand the procedures to be used and to consent to participate in the study.

    Some types of social scientific research, such as psychological experiments, may use deception as part of the study; in these cases, researchers may not fully describe the procedures to participants, and thus participants are not fully informed. However, researchers are required to debrief participants immediately after the experiment is concluded. Certain populations are considered to be vulnerable, and in addition to informed consent, special protections must be made available to them. These include persons who are incarcerated, pregnant women, persons with disabilities, and persons who have a mental disability. Children are considered unable to provide informed consent.

    Planning law

    Some countries, such as New Zealand with its Resource Management Act and its Building Act, use the term “consent” for the legal process that provide planning permission for developments like subdivisions, bridges or buildings. Achieving permission results in getting “Resource consent” or “Building consent”.

    Sexual activity

    In Canada, “consent means […] the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in sexual activity” without abuse or exploitation of “trust, power or authority”, coercion or threats. Consent can also be revoked at any moment. The Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled that badgering alone, followed by an agreement, does not meet the threshold of coercion to vitiate consent.

    Sexual consent plays an important role in defining what sexual assault is, since sexual activity without consent by all parties is rape. In the late 1980s, academic Lois Pineau argued that we must move towards a more communicative model of sexuality so that consent becomes more explicit and clear, objective and layered, with a more comprehensive model than “no means no” or “yes means yes”. Many universities have instituted campaigns about consent. Creative campaigns with attention-grabbing slogans and images that market consent can be effective tools to raise awareness of campus sexual assault and related issues.

    Since the late 1990s, new models of sexual consent have been proposed. Specifically, the development of “yes means yes” and affirmative models, such as Hall’s definition: “the voluntary approval of what is done or proposed by another; permission; agreement in opinion or sentiment.” Hickman and Muehlenhard state that consent should be “free verbal or nonverbal communication of a feeling of willingness’ to engage in sexual activity.” Affirmative consent may still be limited since the underlying, individual circumstances surrounding the consent cannot always be acknowledged in the “yes means yes”, or in the “no means no”, model.

    Some individuals are unable to give consent. Minors below a certain age, the age of sexual consent in that jurisdiction, are deemed not able to give valid consent by law to sexual acts. Likewise, persons with Alzheimer’s disease or similar disabilities may be unable to give legal consent to sexual relations even with their spouse.

    Within literature,[vague] definitions surrounding consent and how it should be communicated have been contradictory, limited or without consensus. Roffee argued that legal definition needs to be universal, so as to avoid confusion in legal decisions. He also demonstrated how the moral notion of consent does not always align with the legal concept. For example, some adult siblings or other family members may voluntarily enter into a relationship, however the legal system still deems this as incestual, and therefore a crime. Roffee argues that the use of particular language in the legislation regarding these familial sexual activities manipulates the reader to view it as immoral and criminal, even if all parties are consenting. Similarly, some children under the legal age of consent may knowingly and willingly choose to be in a sexual relationship. However the law does not view this as legitimate. Whilst there is a necessity for an age of consent, it does not allow for varying levels of awareness and maturity. Here it can be seen how a moral and a legal understanding do not always align.

    Initiatives in sex education programs are working towards including and foregrounding topics of and discussions of sexual consent, in primary, high school and college Sex Ed curricula. In the UK, the Personal Social Health and Economic Education Association (PSHEA) is working to produce and introduce Sex Ed lesson plans in British schools that include lessons on “consensual sexual relationships,” “the meaning and importance of consent” as well as “rape myths”. In U.S., California-Berkeley University has implemented affirmative and continual consent in education and in the school’s policies. In Canada, the Ontario government has introduced a revised Sex Ed curriculum to Toronto schools, including new discussions of sex and affirmative consent, healthy relationships and communication.

    Affirmative consent

    Affirmative consent (enthusiastic yes) is when both parties agree to sexual conduct, either through clear, verbal communication or nonverbal cues or gestures. It involves communication and the active participation of people involved. This is the approach endorsed by colleges and universities in the U.S., which describe consent as an “affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity.” According to Yoon-Hendricks, a staff writer for Sex, Etc., “Instead of saying ‘no means no,’ ‘yes means yes’ looks at sex as a positive thing.” Ongoing consent is sought at all levels of sexual intimacy regardless of the parties’ relationship, prior sexual history or current activity (“Grinding on the dance floor is not consent for further sexual activity,” a university policy reads). By definition, affirmative consent cannot be given if a person is intoxicated, unconscious or asleep.

    There are 3 pillars often included in the description of sexual consent, or “the way we let others know what we’re up for, be it a good-night kiss or the moments leading up to sex.”

    They are:

    Knowing exactly what and how much I’m agreeing to
    Expressing my intent to participate
    Deciding freely and voluntarily to participate

    To obtain affirmative consent, rather than waiting to say or for a partner to say “no”, one gives and seeks an explicit “yes”. This can come in the form of a smile, a nod or a verbal yes, as long as it is unambiguous, enthusiastic and ongoing. “There’s varying language, but the language gets to the core of people having to communicate their affirmation to participate in sexual behavior,” said Denice Labertew of the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault. “It requires a fundamental shift in how we think about sexual assault. It’s requiring us to say women and men should be mutually agreeing and actively participating in sexual behavior.”

    Critiques of affirmative consent

    The above concept of affirmative consent has become more mainstream and promoted in public discourse, institutions and the workplace, especially following the ”MeToo” scandals. However, feminists from varying political backgrounds have voiced concerns and critiques of affirmative consent as a solution to both sexual assault and creating sexual equality and autonomy between all genders. If women, queer people and other marginalized groups are not free to say no, why would they be free to say yes? Feminists have been seeking for more transformative alternatives that go beyond a (verbal) agreement between sexual partners, examining the issue as a political question related to power structures, the influence of neoliberal perceptions of the self and the complexity of human desire.

    Neoliberal contractualism and rationalism

    The common form of affirmative consent assumes that humans act as rational and independent beings who, at any point in any interaction, are fully aware of what they are (not) consenting to, whether they want to and are able to make a conscious, valid decision. Consent, as it is practiced now, thus requires us to rationalize desires and prioritizes thinking over feeling, and reason over emotions. The resulting consent is shaped in a neoliberal form of contractualism which makes a withdrawal of consent or a change in the conditions of the activity at stake rather challenging. This form of consent as a contract is assuming consent to happen between two (or more) individual and rational actors and it does not give room to forms of discomfort, vulnerability or discussion within the practice consented to. Additionally, this contractualism mostly relies on verbal, affirmative consent and overlooks non-verbal or alternative ways of consenting. The latter is rather essentializing signs of affirmation and, due to its reliance on verbal consent in form of understandable words, can be ableist by invalidating non-verbal consent. Furthermore, contractualism assumes consent to be rational by nature and implies that we always know rationally whether or not we want to consent to something. However, especially in the sphere of interpersonal sexual and non-sexual activities, our own needs or desires are not always rational but can rather be ambiguous, contradicting or unclear. Consent in the form of neoliberal contractualism is unable to include and reflect this ambiguity and the lack of rationality.

    Socio-cultural vs legal debate

    Arguably, there is a distinction that is rarely made in the debate around consent: the socio-cultural and the legal. While talking about consent, arguments are often informed and talked about in a legal framework: What do we need to be protected in the current legal framework? Which formulations give the best protection to victims of sexual violence? However, when talking about this particular protection there is also a need for protection through prevention, a protection by society rather than the law.

    While it is not necessarily a given that affirmative consent provides the best legal protection for victims without taking away their agency, there is another danger in linking the legal debate and our overall understanding of consent. Relying on the legal framework and presenting these as the question of consent takes away the need for change and discussion on the socio-cultural level that has the potential to offer even more complexity, flexibility and room to rethink our sexual and overall encounters beyond the protection against violence. A socio-cultural debate would be one around our needs, attitudes and behaviors and the changes needed, which arguably is a more complex debate to hold and handle. With a certain level of protection this complexity is needed though to rethink our encounters beyond the mantras of ‘no means no’ and ‘only yes means yes’, something that is not reductionist to be applied in a legal setting and that gives the possibility to imagine interactions beyond the current status quo.

  • National legal systems

    The contemporary national legal systems are generally based on one of four major legal traditions: civil law, common law, customary law, religious law or combinations of these. However, the legal system of each country is shaped by its unique history and so incorporates individual variations. The science that studies law at the level of legal systems is called comparative law.

    Both civil (also known as Roman) and common law systems can be considered the most widespread in the world: civil law because it is the most widespread by landmass and by population overall, and common law because it is employed by the greatest number of people compared to any single civil law system.

    Civil law

    The source of law that is recognized as authoritative is codifications in a constitution or statute passed by legislature, to amend a code. While the concept of codification dates back to the Code of Hammurabi in Babylon ca. 1790 BC, civil law systems derive from the Roman Empire and, more particularly, the Corpus Juris Civilis issued by the Emperor Justinian ca. AD 529. This was an extensive reform of the law in the Byzantine Empire, bringing it together into codified documents. Civil law was also partly influenced by religious laws such as Canon law and Islamic law. Civil law today, in theory, is interpreted rather than developed or made by judges. Only legislative enactments (rather than legal precedents, as in common law) are considered legally binding.

    Scholars of comparative law and economists promoting the legal origins theory usually subdivide civil law into distinct groups:

    French civil law: in France, the Benelux countries, Italy, Romania, Spain and former colonies of those countries, mainly in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East;
    German civil law: in Germany, Austria, Russia, Switzerland, Estonia, Latvia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo*, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Serbia, Greece, Portugal and its former colonies, Turkey, and East Asian countries including Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan (Republic of China);
    Scandinavian civil law: in Northern Europe such as Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland and Sweden. As historically integrated into the Scandinavian cultural sphere, Finland and Iceland also inherited the system, although especially Iceland has its own legal roots. Scandinavian or Nordic civil law exhibit least similar traits with other civil law systems and is sometimes considered a legal system in its own right, despite reception from mainly German civil law.
    However, some of these legal systems are often and more correctly said to be of hybrid nature:

    Napoleonic to Germanistic influence (Italian civil law)
    The Italian civil code of 1942 replaced the original one of 1865, introducing germanistic elements due to the geopolitical alliances of the time. The Italian approach has been imitated by other countries including Portugal (1966), the Netherlands (1992), Lithuania (2000), Brazil (2002) and Argentina (2014). Most of them have innovations introduced by the Italian legislation, including the unification of the civil and commercial codes

    Germanistic to Napoleonic influence (Swiss civil law)
    The Swiss civil code is considered mainly influenced by the German civil code and partly influenced by the French civil code. The civil code of the Republic of Turkey is a slightly modified version of the Swiss code, adopted in 1926 during Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s presidency as part of the government’s progressive reforms and secularization.

     AlbaniaBased on Napoleonic civil law.
     AngolaBased on Portuguese civil law.
     ArgentinaThe Spanish legal tradition had a great influence on the Civil Code of Argentina, basically a work of the Argentine jurist Dalmacio Vélez Sársfield, who dedicated five years of his life to this task. The Civil Code came into effect on 1 January 1871. Beyond the influence of the Spanish legal tradition, the Argentine Civil Code was also inspired by the Draft of the Brazilian Civil Code, the Draft of the Spanish Civil Code of 1851, the Napoleonic code and the Chilean Civil Code. The sources of this Civil Code also include various theoretical legal works, mainly of the great French jurists of the 19th century. It was the first Civil Law that consciously adopted as its cornerstone the distinction between i. rights from obligations and ii. real property rights, thus distancing itself from the French model.The Argentine Civil Code was also in effect in Paraguay, as per a Paraguayan law of 1880, until the new Civil Code went into force in 1987.In Argentina, this 1871 Civil Code remained in force until August 2015, when it was replaced by the new Código Civil y Comercial de la Nación. During the second half of the 20th century, the German legal theory became increasingly influential in Argentina.
     AndorraCourts apply the customary laws of Andorra, supplemented with Roman law and customary Catalan law.
     ArmeniaBased on Napoleonic Civil law and traditional Armenian law.
     ArubaBased on Dutch civil law
     AustriaBased on Roman and Germanic Civil law. The Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (ABGB) of 1811. The ABGB is influenced both by Roman and Austrian law traditions. Comparable to the Napoleonic code, it is based on the ideals of freedom and equality before the law.
     AzerbaijanBased on German, French, Russian, and traditional Azerbaijani Law
     BelarusBased on Germanic Civil law (administrative, criminal codes)
     BelgiumThe Napoleonic Code is still in use, although it is heavily modified (especially concerning family law)
     BeninBased on Napoleonic Civil law.
     BoliviaInfluenced by the Napoleonic Code
     Bosnia and HerzegovinaInfluenced by Austrian law. The Swiss civil law (Zivilgesetzbuch) was a model for the Law on Obligations of 1978.
     BrazilBased on German, Italian, French and Portuguese law. However, in 2004 the Federal Constitution was amended to grant the Supreme Federal Court authority to issue binding precedents (súmulas vinculantes) to settle controversies involving constitutional law – a mechanism that echoes the stare decisis principle typically found in common law systems.
     BulgariaCivil Law system influenced by Germanic and Roman law systems
     Burkina FasoBased on the French civil law
     BurundiBased on the French civil law
     ChadBased on the French civil law
     People’s Republic of ChinaBased on Germanic Civil law and France Civil law, also with influences from the Soviet Socialist law from Soviet Union
     Republic of the CongoBased on the Napoleonic Civil law.
     Democratic Republic of the CongoBased on Belgian civil law
     Cambodia
     Cape VerdeBased on Portuguese civil law
     Central African RepublicBased on the French civil law system
     ChileBased on the Chilean Civil Law inspired by the Napoleonic Civil Law. The Spanish legal tradition exercised an especially great influence on the civil code of Chile. On its turn, the Chilean civil code influenced to a large degree the drafting of the civil codes of other Latin-American states. For instance, the codes of Ecuador (1861) and Colombia (1873) constituted faithful reproductions of the Chilean code, but for very few exceptions. The compiler of the Civil Code of Chile, Venezuelan Andrés Bello, worked for its completion for almost 30 years, using elements, of the Spanish law on the one hand, and of other Western laws, especially of the French one, on the other. It is noted that he consulted and used all of the codes that had been issued till then, starting from the era of Justinian.The Civil Code came into effect on 1 January 1857. The influence of the Napoleonic code and the Law of Castile of the Spanish colonial period (especially the Siete Partidas), is great; it is observed however that e.g. in many provisions of property or contract law, the solutions of the French code civil were put aside in favor of pure Roman law or Castilian law.
     ColombiaBased on the Chilean Civil Law. Civil code introduced in 1873. Nearly faithful reproduction of the Chilean civil code
     Costa RicaBased on the Napoleonic Civil Law. First Civil Code (a part of the General Code or Carrillo Code) came into effect in 1841; its text was inspired by the South Peruvian Civil Code of Marshal Andres de Santa Cruz. The present Civil Code went into effect 1 January 1888 and was influenced by the Napoleonic Code and the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 (from its 1851 draft version).
     CroatiaBased on the Germanic Civil Law. The Croatian Law system is largely influenced by German and Austrian law systems. It is significantly influenced by the Civil Code of the Austrian Empire from 1811, known in Croatia as “General Civil Law” (“Opći građanski zakon”). OGZ was in force from 1853 to 1946. After the World War II, Croatia becomes a member of the Yugoslav Federation which enacted in 1946 the “Law on immediate voiding of regulations passed before April 6, 1941, and during the enemy occupation” (“Zakon o nevaženju pravnih proposal donesenih prije 6. travnja 1941. i za vrijeme neprijateljske okupacije”). By this law, OGZ was declared invalid as a whole, but the implementation of some of its legal rules was approved. During the post-War era, the Croatian legal system become influenced by elements of the socialist law. Croatian civil law was pushed aside, and it took norms of public law and legal regulation of the social ownership. After Croatia declared independence from Yugoslavia on 25 June 1991, the previous legal system was used as a base for writing new laws. “The Law on Obligations” (“Zakon o obveznim odnosima”) was enacted in 2005. Today, Croatia as a European Union member state implements elements of the EU acquis into its legal system.
     CubaInfluenced by Spanish and American law with large elements of Communist legal theory.
     CuraçaoBased on Dutch Civil Law.
     Czech RepublicBased on Germanic civil law. Descended from the Civil Code of the Austrian Empire (1811), influenced by German (1939–45) and Soviet (1947/68–89) legal codes during occupation periods, substantially reformed to remove Soviet influence and elements of socialist law after the Velvet Revolution (1989). The new Civil Code of the Czech Republic was introduced in 2014, reestablishing the norms of the ABGB, an reintroducing terms and concepts from it.
     DenmarkBased on North Germanic law. Scandinavian-North Germanic civil law.
     Dominican RepublicBased on the Napoleonic Code
     EcuadorBased on the Chilean civil law. Civil code introduced in 1861.
     El SalvadorBased on law.
     EstoniaBased on German civil law.
     FinlandBased on Nordic law.
     FranceBased on Napoleonic code (code civil of 1804)
     EgyptBased on Napoleonic civil law and Islamic law.
     Equatorial Guinea
     Ethiopia
     GabonBased on the French civil law system
     GuineaBased on French civil law system, customary law, and decree
     Guinea-BissauBased on Portuguese civil law
     GeorgiaBased on Napoleonic civil law
     GermanyBased on Germanic civil law. The Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch of 1900 (“BGB”). The BGB is influenced both by Roman and German law traditions.
     GreeceBased on Germanic civil law. The Greek civil code of 1946, highly influenced by traditional Roman law and the German civil code of 1900 (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch); the Greek civil code replaced the Byzantine–Roman civil law in effect in Greece since its independence (Νομική Διάταξη της Ανατολικής Χέρσου Ελλάδος, Legal Provision of Eastern Mainland Greece, November 1821: ‘Οι Κοινωνικοί Νόμοι των Αειμνήστων Χριστιανών Αυτοκρατόρων της Ελλάδος μόνοι ισχύουσι κατά το παρόν εις την Ανατολικήν Χέρσον Ελλάδα’, ‘The Social [i.e. Civil] Laws of the Dear Departed Christian Emperors of Greece [referring to the Byzantine Emperors] alone are in effect at present in Eastern Mainland Greece’)
     GuatemalaBased on Napoleonic civil law. Guatemala has had three Civil Codes: the first one from 1877, a new one introduced in 1933, and the one currently in force, which was passed in 1963. This Civil Code has suffered some reforms throughout the years, as well as a few derogations relating to areas that have subsequently been regulated by newer laws, such as the Code of Commerce and the Law of the National Registry of Persons. In general, it follows the tradition of the Roman-French system of civil codification.Regarding the theory of ‘sources of law’ in the Guatemalan legal system, the ‘Ley del Organismo Judicial’ recognizes ‘the law’ as the main legal source (in the sense of legislative texts), although it also establishes ‘jurisprudence’ as a complementary source. Although jurisprudence technically refers to judicial decisions in general, in practice it tends to be confused and identified with the concept of ‘legal doctrine’, which is a qualified series of identical resolutions in similar cases pronounced by higher courts (the Constitutional Court acting as a ‘Tribunal de Amparo’, and the Supreme Court acting as a ‘Tribunal de Casación’) whose theses become binding for lower courts.
     HaitiBased on Napoleonic civil law.
     Honduras
     HungaryBased on Germanic, codified Roman law with elements from Napoleonic civil law.
     IcelandBased on North Germanic law. Germanic traditional laws and influenced by Medieval Norwegian and Danish laws.
     India (former French and Portuguese colonies)Based on Portuguese civil law (Goa, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu), and French civil law (Puducherry).Vedic Hindu legal traditions also influenced the legal system in India.
     ItalyBased on Napoleonic code and older ones with German law influence; civil code of 1942 replaced the original one of 1865.
     Ivory CoastBased on French civil law system
     JapanBased on Germanic civil law. Japanese civil code of 1895.
     LatviaBased on Napoleonic and German civil law, as it was historically before the Soviet occupation. While general principles of law are prerequisites in making and interpreting the law, case law is also regularly applied to present legal arguments in courts and explain the application of law in similar cases. Civil law largely modeled after the Napoleonic code mixed with strong elements of German civil law. Criminal law retains Russian and German legal traditions, while criminal procedure law has been fully modeled after practice accepted in Western Europe. The civil law of Latvia enacted in 1937.
     LebanonBased on Napoleonic civil law.
     LithuaniaModeled after Dutch civil law
     Louisiana
    ( U.S.)    		Law in the state of Louisiana is based on French and Spanish civil law.Federal courts and 49 states use the legal system based on English common law (see below), which has diverged somewhat since the mid-nineteenth century in that they look to each other’s cases for guidance on issues of the first impression and rarely look at contemporary cases on the same issue in the UK or the Commonwealth.
     LuxembourgBased on Napoleonic civil law.
     Macau (P.R.China)Principally based on Portuguese civil law, also influenced by PRC law.
     MexicoBased on Napoleonic civil law.”The origins of Mexico’s legal system are both ancient and classical, based on the Roman and French legal systems, and the Mexican system shares more in common with other legal systems throughout the world (especially those in Latin America and most of continental Europe) …”
     MongoliaBased on Germanic civil law.
     MontenegroBased on Napoleonic and German civil law. First: the General Property Code for the Principality of Montenegro of 1888, written by Valtazar Bogišić. Present: the Law on Obligations of 2008.
     MozambiqueBased on Portuguese civil law
     NetherlandsBased on Napoleonic code with German law influence
     NepalBased on Civil Code, however, the principle of stare decisis is widely practised. The legal system of Nepal has been influenced by British Legal System
     NorwayScandinavian-North Germanic civil law, based on North Germanic law. King Magnus VI the Lawmender unified the regional laws into a single code of law for the whole kingdom in 1274. This was replaced by Christian V’s Norwegian Code of 1687.
     Panama
     ParaguayThe Paraguayan Civil Code in force since 1987 is largely influenced by the Napoleonic Code and the Argentine Code
     PeruBased on civil law system. accepts compulsory International Court of Justice ICJ jurisdiction with despotic and corrupting reservations.
     PolandThe Polish Civil Code in force since 1965
     PortugalInfluenced by the Napoleonic Code and later by the German civil law
     RomaniaCivil Code came into force in 2011. Based on the Civil Code of Quebec, but also influenced by the Napoleonic Code and other French-inspired codes (such as those of Italy, Spain and Switzerland)
     RussiaCivil Law system descendant from Roman Law through Byzantine tradition. Heavily influenced by German and Dutch norms in the 1700s. Socialism-style modifications from 1920s on, and Continental European Civil Law influences since the 1990s.
     RwandaMixture of Belgian civil law and English common law
     São Tomé e PríncipeBased on Portuguese civil law
     SerbiaFirst: the Civil Code of Principality of Serbia of 1844, written by Jovan Hadžić, was influenced by the Austrian Civil Code (Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch). Present: The Swiss civil law (Zivilgesetzbuch) was a model for the Law on Obligations of 1978.
     SlovakiaDescended from the Civil Code of the Austrian Empire (1811), influenced by German (1939–45) and Soviet (1947/68–89) legal codes during occupation periods, substantially reformed to remove Soviet influence and elements of socialist law after the Velvet Revolution (1989).
     SloveniaA Civil Law system influenced mostly by Germanic and Austro-Hungarian law systems
     South KoreaBased on the German civil law system. Also largely influenced by Japanese civil law which itself modeled after the German one. Korean Civil Code was introduced 1958 and fully enacted by 1960.
     SpainInfluenced by the Napoleonic Code, it also has some elements of Spain’s legal tradition, starting with the Siete Partidas, major legislative achievement from the Middle Ages. That body of law remained more or less unchanged until the 19th century when the first civil codes were drafted, merging both the Napoleonic style with the Castilian traditions.
     SurinameBased on Dutch civil law
     SwedenScandinavian-North Germanic civil law. Like all Scandinavian legal systems, it is distinguished by its traditional character and for the fact that it did not adopt elements of Roman law. It assimilated very few elements of foreign laws whatsoever. The Napoleonic Code had no influence in the codification of law in Scandinavia. The historical basis of the law of Sweden, just as for all Nordic countries, is North Germanic law. Codification of the law started in Sweden during the 18th century, preceding the codifications of most other European countries. However, neither Sweden nor any other Nordic state created a civil code of the kind of the Code Civil or the BGB.
     SwitzerlandThe Swiss Civil Code of 1908 and 1912 (obligations; fifth book)
     SyriaBased on Napoleonic civil law.
     Taiwan (Republic of China)Influenced by German Civil Code and Japanese Six Codes. Enacted in 1931.
     Timor-LesteBased on Portuguese civil law
     TurkeyModeled after the Swiss civil law (Zivilgesetzbuch) of 1907.
     UkraineBased on German civil law and was accepted in 2004.
     UruguayThe basis for its public law is the 1967 Constitution, amended in 1989, 1994, 1996, and 2004. There is a clear separation of functions between the three administrative powers. Private relationships are governed by the Uruguayan Civil Code.
     UzbekistanRepresents an evolution of Soviet civil law. The overwhelmingly strong impact of the Communist legal theory is traceable.
     VietnamBased on Communist legal theory, influenced by French civil law.
     VenezuelaBased on Napoleonic civil law. Spanish legal traditions also influenced the civil law system in Venezuela.

    Common law

    Common law and equity are systems of law whose sources are the decisions in cases by judges. In addition, every system will have a legislature that passes new laws and statutes. The relationships between statutes and judicial decisions can be complex. In some jurisdictions, such statutes may overrule judicial decisions or codify the topic covered by several contradictory or ambiguous decisions. In some jurisdictions, judicial decisions may decide whether the jurisdiction’s constitution allowed a particular statute or statutory provision to be made or what meaning is contained within the statutory provisions. The common law developed in England, influenced by Anglo-Saxon law and to a much lesser extent by the Norman conquest of England, which introduced legal concepts from Norman law, which, in turn, had its origins in Salic law. Common law was later inherited by the Commonwealth of Nations, and almost every former colony of the British Empire has adopted it (Malta being an exception). The doctrine of stare decisis, also known as case law or precedent by courts, is the major difference to codified civil law systems.

    Common law is practiced in Canada (excluding Quebec), Australia, New Zealand, most of the United Kingdom (England, Wales, and Northern Ireland), South Africa, Ireland, India (excluding Goa and Puducherry), Pakistan, Hong Kong, the United States (on state and territorial levels excluding Louisiana and Puerto Rico), Bangladesh, and many other places. Several others have adapted the common law system into a mixed system; For example, Nigeria operates largely on a common law system in the southern states and at the federal level, but also incorporates religious law in the northern states.

    In the European Union, the Court of Justice takes an approach mixing civil law (based on the treaties) with an attachment to the importance of case law. One of the most fundamental documents to shape common law is the English Magna Carta, which placed limits on the power of the English Kings. It served as a kind of medieval bill of rights for the aristocracy and the judiciary who developed the law.

    CountryDescription
     American SamoaBased on law of the United States.
     Antigua and BarbudaBased on English common law.
     AustraliaBased on English common law.
     BahamasBased on English common law.
     BangladeshBased on English common law, with the Muslim family law heavily based on Islamic law (Sharia).
     BarbadosBased on English common law.
     BelizeBased on English common law.
     BhutanBased on English common law, with an Indian influence. Religious law influences personal law.
     British Virgin IslandsBased on English common law.
     CanadaBased on English common law, except in  Quebec, where a civil law system based on French law prevails in most matters of a civil nature, such as obligations (contract and delict), property law, family law, and private matters. Federal statutes take into account the juridical nature of Canada and use both common law and civil law terms where appropriate.
     Cayman IslandsBased on English common law.
     CyprusBased on English common law, as inherited from British colonization, with civil law influences, particularly in administrational law.
     DominicaBased on English common law.
      England and WalesPrimarily common law, with early Roman and some modern continental European influences.
     FijiBased on English common law.
     GibraltarBased on English common law.
     GhanaBased on English common law.
     GrenadaBased on English common law.
     Hong Kong (P.R.China)Principally based on English common law, also influenced by PRC law.
     IndiaBased on English common law, except intermingled laws in Goa, DNHDD and Puducherry.Vedic Hindu legal traditions also influenced the legal system in India.
     IrelandBased on Irish law before 1922, which was itself based on English common law.
     IsraelBased on English common law, arising from the period of the British Mandate (which includes laws arising from previous Ottoman rule), also incorporating civil law and fragments of Halakha and Sharia for family law cases
     JamaicaBased on English common law.
     KiribatiBased on English common law.
     LiberiaBased on Anglo-American and customary law
     Marshall IslandsBased on law of the United States.
     MyanmarBased on English common law.
     NauruBased on English common law.
     NepalBased on English common law.
     New ZealandBased on English common law with some aspects of tikanga Māori.
    Northern IrelandBased on Irish law before 1921, in turn, based on English common law.
     PalauBased on law of the United States.
     PakistanBased on English common law, with some provisions of Islamic law.
     Papua New GuineaBased on English common law and customary laws of its more than 750 different cultural and language groups.
     Saint Kitts and NevisBased on English common law.
     Saint Vincent and the GrenadinesBased on English common law.
     SingaporeBased on English common law, but Muslims are subject to the Administration of Muslim Law Act, which gives the Sharia Court jurisdiction over Muslim personal law, e.g., marriage, inheritance and divorce.
     TongaBased on English common law.
     Trinidad and TobagoBased on English common law.
     TuvaluBased on English common law.
     UgandaBased on English common law.
     United StatesFederal courts and 49 states use the legal system based on English common law, which has diverged somewhat since the mid-nineteenth century in that they look to each other’s cases for guidance on issues of the first impression and rarely, if ever, look at contemporary cases on the same issue in the UK or the Commonwealth.Louisiana is based on French and Spanish civil law, and Puerto Rico is based on Spanish civil law.

    Religious law

    Religious law refers to the notion of a religious system or document being used as a legal source, though the methodology used varies. For example, the use of Judaism and halakha for public law has a static and unalterable quality, precluding amendment through legislative acts of government or development through judicial precedent; Christian canon law is more similar to civil law in its use of codes; and Islamic sharia law (and fiqh jurisprudence) is based on legal precedent and reasoning by analogy (qiyas), and is thus considered similar to common law.

    The main kinds of religious law are sharia in Islam, halakha in Judaism, and canon law in some Christian groups. In some cases these are intended purely as individual moral guidance, whereas in other cases they are intended and may be used as the basis for a country’s legal system; the latter was particularly common during the Middle Ages.

    Halakha is followed by Orthodox and Conservative Jews in both ecclesiastical and civil relations. No country is fully governed by halakha, but two Jewish people may decide, because of personal belief, to have a dispute heard by a Jewish court, and be bound by its rulings.

    Canon law is the internal ecclesiastical law, or operational policy, governing the Catholic Church (both the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches), the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, and the individual national churches within the Anglican Communion. Canon law of the Catholic Church (Latin: jus canonicum) is the system of laws and legal principles made and enforced by the hierarchical authorities of the Catholic Church to regulate its external organisation and government and to order and direct the activities of Catholics toward the mission of the church. The canon law of the Catholic Church has all the ordinary elements of a mature legal system: laws, courts, lawyers, judges. The canon law of the Latin Church was the first modern Western legal system, and is the oldest continuously functioning legal system in the West. while the distinctive traditions of Eastern Catholic canon law govern the 23 Eastern Catholic particular churches sui iuris.

    The Islamic legal system, consisting of sharia (Islamic law) and fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), is the most widely used religious law system, and one of the three most common legal systems in the world alongside common law and civil law. It is based on both divine law, derived from the hadith of the Quran and Sunnah, and the rulings of ulema (jurists), who use the methods of ijma (consensus), qiyas (analogical deduction), ijtihad (research), and urf (common practice) to derive fatwā (legal opinions). An ulema was required to qualify for an ijazah (legal doctorate) at a madrasa (law school or college) before they could issue fatwā. During the Islamic Golden Age, classical Islamic law may have had an influence on the development of common law and several civil law institutions. Sharia law governs a number of Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia and Iran, though most countries use Sharia law only as a supplement to national law. It can relate to all aspects of civil law, including property rights, contracts, and public law.

    CountryDescription
     AfghanistanIslamic law, based on Sunni Hanafi jurisprudence.
     IranIslamic law, based on Shia Jaʽfari jurisprudence.
     NigeriaSharia in the northern states, common law in the south and at the federal level.
     Saudi ArabiaIslamic law, based on Sunni Hanbali jurisprudence.
     YemenIslamic law.

    Pluralistic systems

    Civil law and canon law

    Canon law is not divine law, properly speaking, because it is not found in revelation. Instead, it is seen as human law inspired by the word of God and applying the demands of that revelation to the actual situation of the church. Canon law regulates the internal ordering of the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Anglican Communion. Canon law is amended and adopted by the legislative authority of the church, such as councils of bishops, individual bishops for their respective sees, the Pope for the entire Catholic Church, and the British Parliament for the Church of England.

    CountryDescription
     Vatican CityBased on Roman & Italian civil law and Catholic canon law.

    Civil law and common law

    CountryDescription
     BotswanaBased on South African law. An 1891 proclamation by the High Commissioner for Southern Africa applied the law of the Cape Colony (now part of South Africa) to the Bechuanaland Protectorate (now Botswana).
     CameroonMixture of French civil law system and English common law (After World War I, Cameroon was ruled by France and the United Kingdom as a League of Nations mandate then a United Nations trust territory from 1916 to 1961)
     CyprusBased on English common law (Cyprus was a British colony 1878–1960), with admixtures of French and Greek civil and public law, Italian civil law, Indian contract law, Greek Orthodox canon law and Muslim religious law.
     EswatiniBased on South African law. A 1907 proclamation by the High Commissioner for Southern Africa applied the Roman-Dutch common law of the Transvaal Colony (now part of South Africa) to the Swaziland Protectorate (now Eswatini).
     GuyanaGuyana follows a mixed legal system, a combination of civil law & common law.
     IndiaIn post-independence India, the Uniform Penal Code throughout India and civil code to residents of Goa. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Act, 2023 amendment bills with minor changes. While Hindu personal law based on customary laws of Indian religions and Muslim personal law based on hanafi school are currently used,the Indian government is promoting a Uniform Civil Code that applies to all citizens.
     KenyaBased on English Common Law and Civil law as well as the country’s customary law.
     LesothoBased on South African law. An 1884 proclamation by the High Commissioner for Southern Africa applied the law of the Cape Colony (now part of South Africa) to Basutoland (now Lesotho).
     Louisiana
    ( U.S.)    		Based on French and Spanish civil law, but federal laws (based on common law) are also in effect in Louisiana because of the federal constitution’s Supremacy Clause. However, Louisiana’s criminal law, procedural law and administrative law is predominantly based on the common law tradition.
     MaltaInitially based on Roman Law and eventually progressed to the Code de Rohan, the Napoleonic Code with influences from Italian Civil Law. English common law however is also a source of Maltese Law, most notably in public law.
     MauritiusLaws governing the Mauritian penal system are derived partly from French civil law and British common law.
     NamibiaBased on South African law. South Africa conquered South-West Africa (now Namibia) in 1915, and a 1919 proclamation by the Governor-General applied the law of the Cape Province of South Africa to the territory.
     PhilippinesBased on Spanish law; influenced by U.S. common law after 1898 Spanish– and Philippine–American Wars, personal law based on sharia law applies to Muslims.
     Puerto Rico
    ( U.S.)    		Based on Spanish law; influenced by U.S. common law after 1898 (victory of the U.S. over Spain in the Spanish–American War of 1898 and cession of Puerto Rico to the U.S.); federal laws (based on common law) are in effect because of federal Supremacy Clause.
     Quebec
    ( Canada)    		After the 1763 Treaty of Paris awarded French Canada to Great Britain, the British initially attempted to impose English Common Law. In 1774, as a result of a ruling by the British courts in Campbell v Hall about the status of legal systems found in acquired territories, the British Parliament passed the Quebec Act, which preserved French civil law for private law while keeping and reserving English common law for public law including criminal prosecution. Codification occurred in 1866 with the enactment of the Civil Code of Lower Canada (French: Code civil du Bas-Canada), which continued in force when the modern Province of Quebec was created at Confederation in 1867. Subsequently, the Civil Code of Quebec (French: Code civil du Québec) came into effect on 1 January 1994, and is the civil code currently in force. Canadian (federal) criminal law in force in Quebec is based on common law, but federal statutes of or relating to private law take into account the bijuridical nature of Canada and use both common law and civil law terms where appropriate.
     
     ScotlandBased on Roman and continental law, with common law elements dating back to the High Middle Ages.
     SeychellesThe substantive civil law is based on the French Civil Code. Otherwise, the criminal law and court procedure are based on the English common law. See Seychelles Legal Environment.
     South AfricaAn amalgam of Roman-Dutch civil law and English common law, as well as Customary Law.
     Sri LankaAn amalgam of English common law, Roman-Dutch civil law and Customary Law
     ThailandThe Thai legal system became an amalgam of German, Swiss, French, English, Japanese, Italian, Indian and American laws and practices. Even today, Islamic laws and practices exist in four southern provinces. Over the years, Thai law has naturally taken on its own Thai identity.
     VanuatuConsists of a mixed system combining the legacy of English common law, French civil law and indigenous customary law.
     ZimbabweBased on South African law. An 1891 proclamation by the High Commissioner for Southern Africa applied the law of the Cape Colony (now part of South Africa) to Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe).

    Civil law and sharia law

    CountryDescription
     
     EgyptFamily Law (personal Statute) for Muslims based on Islamic Jurisprudence, Separate Personal Statute for non-Muslims, and all other branches of Law are based on French civil law system
     EritreaOnly applies to Muslims for personal matters
     IndonesiaBased on Napoleonic-Dutch civil law, mixed with Islamic sharia law (personal matters only), and Customary Law.
     JordanMainly based on French Civil Code and Ottoman Majalla, Islamic law applicable to family law
     MauritaniaMix of Islamic law and French Civil Codes, Islamic law largely applicable to both criminal, family law, and other forms of personal laws such as disputes.
     MauritiusCivil law and sharia personal law for Muslims.
     MoroccoBased on Islamic law and French and Spanish civil law system. Islamic law is mainly for personal matters and Jews use Halakha.
     Oman
     QatarBased on Islamic law and the Egyptian civil law system (after the French civil law system)
     SyriaMainly based on French Civil Code. Islamic law is applicable to family law. Non-Muslims follow their own family laws.
     United Arab EmiratesMixed legal system, based on Islamic law and the Egyptian civil law system (after the French civil law system). The UAE adopts a dual legal system of civil and Sharia.

    Common law and sharia law

    CountryDescription
     BangladeshBased on English common law, personal law based on sharia law applies to Muslims.
     
     
     MalaysiaBased on English common law, personal law based on sharia law applies to Muslims (Not used on non-Muslims).
     NigeriaCommon law is used at the federal level and in most states, Sharia is applied in some northern states.
     PakistanBased on English common law, some Islamic law (sharia) applications in inheritance. Formerly Tribal Law in the FATA.

  • Human rights

    Human rights are universally recognized moral principles or norms that establish standards of human behavior and are often protected by both national and international laws. These rights are considered inherent and inalienable, meaning they belong to every individual simply by virtue of being human, regardless of characteristics like nationality, ethnicity, religion, or socio-economic status. They encompass a broad range of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, such as the right to life, freedom of expression, protection against enslavement, and right to education.

    The modern concept of human rights gained significant prominence after World War II, particularly in response to the atrocities of the Holocaust, leading to the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. This document outlined a comprehensive framework of rights that countries are encouraged to protect, setting a global standard for human dignity, freedom, and justice. The UDHR has since inspired numerous international treaties and national laws designed to promote and safeguard these rights globally.

    While the principle of universal human rights is widely accepted, debates persist regarding which rights should take precedence, how they should be implemented, and their applicability in different cultural contexts. Criticisms often arise from perspectives like cultural relativism, which argue that individual human rights are inappropriate for societies that prioritise a communal or collectivist identity, and may conflict with certain cultural or traditional practices.

    Nonetheless, human rights remain a central focus in international relations and legal frameworks, supported by institutions such as the United Nations, various non-governmental organizations, and national bodies dedicated to monitoring and enforcing human rights standards worldwide.

    Many of the basic ideas that animated the human rights movement developed in the aftermath of the Second World War and the events of the Holocaust, culminating in the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948.

    Ancient peoples did not have the same modern-day conception of universal human rights. However, the concept has in some sense existed for centuries, although not in the same way as today.

    The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the concept of natural rights, which first appeared as part of the medieval natural law tradition. It developed in new directions during the European Enlightenment with such philosophers as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, and featured prominently in the political discourse of the American Revolution and the French Revolution. From this foundation, the modern human rights arguments emerged over the latter half of the 20th century, possibly as a reaction to slavery, torture, genocide, and war crimes.

    The medieval natural law tradition was heavily influenced by the writings of St Paul’s early Christian thinkers such as St Hilary of Poitiers, St Ambrose, and St Augustine. Augustine was among the earliest to examine the legitimacy of the laws of man, and attempt to define the boundaries of what laws and rights occur naturally based on wisdom and conscience, instead of being arbitrarily imposed by mortals, and if people are obligated to obey laws that are unjust.

    The Kouroukan Fouga was the constitution of the Mali Empire in West Africa. It was composed in the 13th century, and was one of the very first charters on human rights. It included the “right to life and to the preservation of physical integrity” and significant protections for women.

    Spanish scholasticism insisted on a subjective vision of law during the 16th and 17th centuries: Luis de Molina, Domingo de Soto and Francisco Vitoria, members of the School of Salamanca, defined law as a moral power over one’s own. Although they maintained at the same time, the idea of law as an objective order, they stated that there are certain natural rights, mentioning both rights related to the body (right to life, to property) and to the spirit (right to freedom of thought, dignity). The jurist Vázquez de Menchaca, starting from an individualist philosophy, was decisive in the dissemination of the term iura naturalia. This natural law thinking was supported by contact with American civilizations and the debate that took place in Castile about the just titles of the conquest and, in particular, the nature of the indigenous people. In the Castilian colonization of America, it is often stated, measures were applied in which the germs of the idea of Human Rights are present, debated in the well-known Valladolid Debate that took place in 1550 and 1551. The thought of the School of Salamanca, especially through Francisco Vitoria, also contributed to the promotion of European natural law.

    From this foundation, the modern human rights arguments emerged over the latter half of the 20th century. Magna Carta is an English charter originally issued in 1215 which influenced the development of the common law and many later constitutional documents related to human rights, such as the 1689 English Bill of Rights, the 1789 United States Constitution, and the 1791 United States Bill of Rights.

    17th century English philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, identifying them as being “life, liberty, and estate (property)”, and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. In Britain in 1689, the English Bill of Rights and the Scottish Claim of Right each made a range of oppressive governmental actions, illegal. Two major revolutions occurred during the 18th century, in the United States (1776) and in France (1789), leading to the United States Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen respectively, both of which articulated certain human rights. Additionally, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 encoded into law a number of fundamental civil rights and civil freedoms.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    — United States Declaration of Independence, 1776

    Philosophers such as Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, and Hegel expanded on the theme of universality during the 18th and 19th centuries. In 1831, William Lloyd Garrison wrote in a newspaper called The Liberator that he was trying to enlist his readers in “the great cause of human rights”, so the term human rights probably came into use sometime between Paine’s The Rights of Man and Garrison’s publication. In 1849 a contemporary, Henry David Thoreau, wrote about human rights in his treatise On the Duty of Civil Disobedience which was later influential on human rights and civil rights thinkers. United States Supreme Court Justice David Davis, in his 1867 opinion for Ex Parte Milligan, wrote “By the protection of the law, human rights are secured; withdraw that protection and they are at the mercy of wicked rulers or the clamor of an excited people.”

    Many groups and movements have managed to achieve profound social changes over the course of the 20th century in the name of human rights. In Western Europe and North America, labour unions brought about laws granting workers the right to strike, establishing minimum work conditions and forbidding or regulating child labour. The women’s rights movement succeeded in gaining for many women the right to vote. National liberation movements in many countries succeeded in driving out colonial powers. One of the most influential was Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership of the Indian independence movement. Movements by long-oppressed racial and religious minorities succeeded in many parts of the world, among them the civil rights movement, and more recent diverse identity politics movements, on behalf of women and minorities in the United States.

    The foundation of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the 1864 Lieber Code and the first of the Geneva Conventions in 1864 laid the foundations of International humanitarian law, to be further developed following the two World Wars.

    The League of Nations was established in 1919 at the negotiations over the Treaty of Versailles following the end of World War I. The League’s goals included disarmament, preventing war through collective security, settling disputes between countries through negotiation, diplomacy and improving global welfare. Enshrined in its Charter was a mandate to promote many of the rights which were later included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The League of Nations had mandates to support many of the former colonies of the Western European colonial powers during their transition from colony to independent state. Established as an agency of the League of Nations, and now part of United Nations, the International Labour Organization also had a mandate to promote and safeguard certain of the rights later included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):

    the primary goal of the ILO today is to promote opportunities for women and men to obtain decent and productive work, in conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity.

    —Report by the Director General for the International Labour Conference 87th Session

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a non-binding declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, partly in response to the events of World War II. The UDHR urges member states to promote a number of human, civil, economic and social rights, asserting these rights are part of the “foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”. The declaration was the first international legal effort to limit the behavior of states and make sure they did their duties to their citizens following the model of the rights-duty duality.

    … recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world

    —Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
    The UDHR was framed by members of the Human Rights Commission, with Eleanor Roosevelt as chair, who began to discuss an International Bill of Rights in 1947. The members of the Commission did not immediately agree on the form of such a bill of rights, and whether, or how, it should be enforced. The Commission proceeded to frame the UDHR and accompanying treaties, but the UDHR quickly became the priority.Canadian law professor John Humphrey and French lawyer René Cassin were responsible for much of the cross-national research and the structure of the document respectively, where the articles of the declaration were interpretative of the general principle of the preamble. The document was structured by Cassin to include the basic principles of dignity, liberty, equality and brotherhood in the first two articles, followed successively by rights pertaining to individuals; rights of individuals in relation to each other and to groups; spiritual, public and political rights; and economic, social and cultural rights. The final three articles place, according to Cassin, rights in the context of limits, duties and the social and political order in which they are to be realized. Humphrey and Cassin intended the rights in the UDHR to be legally enforceable through some means, as is reflected in the third clause of the preamble:

    Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.

    —Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
    Some of the UDHR was researched and written by a committee of international experts on human rights, including representatives from all continents and all major religions, and drawing on consultation with leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi. The inclusion of both civil and political rights and economic, social, and cultural rights was predicated on the assumption that basic human rights are indivisible and that the different types of rights listed are inextricably linked. Although this principle was not opposed by any member states at the time of adoption (the declaration was adopted unanimously, with the abstention of the Soviet bloc, apartheid South Africa, and Saudi Arabia), this principle was later subject to significant challenges. On the issue of the term universal, the declarations did not apply to domestic discrimination or racism. Henry J. Richardson III argued:

    All major governments at the time of drafting the U.N. charter and the Universal declaration did their best to ensure, by all means known to domestic and international law, that these principles had only international application and carried no legal obligation on those governments to be implemented domestically. All tacitly realized that for their own discriminated-against minorities to acquire leverage on the basis of legally being able to claim enforcement of these wide-reaching rights would create pressures that would be political dynamite.

    The onset of the Cold War soon after the UDHR was conceived brought to the fore divisions over the inclusion of both economic and social rights and civil and political rights in the declaration. Capitalist states tended to place strong emphasis on civil and political rights (such as freedom of association and expression), and were reluctant to include economic and social rights (such as the right to work and the right to join a union). Socialist states placed much greater importance on economic and social rights and argued strongly for their inclusion. Because of the divisions over which rights to include and because some states declined to ratify any treaties including certain specific interpretations of human rights, and despite the Soviet bloc and a number of developing countries arguing strongly for the inclusion of all rights in a Unity Resolution, the rights enshrined in the UDHR were split into two separate covenants, allowing states to adopt some rights and derogate others. Although this allowed the covenants to be created, it denied the proposed principle that all rights are linked, which was central to some interpretations of the UDHR. Although the UDHR is a non-binding resolution, it is now considered to be a central component of international customary law which may be invoked under appropriate circumstances by state judiciaries and other judiciaries.

    In 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) were adopted by the United Nations, between them making the rights contained in the UDHR binding on all states. They came into force only in 1976, when they were ratified by a sufficient number of countries (despite achieving the ICCPR, a covenant including no economic or social rights, the US only ratified the ICCPR in 1992). The ICESCR commits 155 state parties to work toward the granting of economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR) to individuals.

    Numerous other treaties (pieces of legislation) have been offered at the international level. They are generally known as human rights instruments. Some of the most significant are:

    Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (adopted 1948, entry into force: 1951) unhchr.ch
    Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) (adopted 1966, entry into force: 1969) unhchr.ch

    Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (entry into force: 1981) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
    United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) (adopted 1984, entry into force: 1984)

    Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (adopted 1989, entry into force: 1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child | UNICEF Archived 26 April 2019 at the Wayback Machine
    International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (ICRMW) (adopted 1990)

    Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) (entry into force: 2002)

    In 2021 the United Nations Human Rights Council officially recognized “having a clean, healthy and sustainable environment” as a human right. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled, for the first time in history, that the Swiss government had violated human rights by not acting strongly enough to stop climate change.

    Charles Beitz proposes a typology of six paradigms of action that agents, such as human rights agencies, international organizations, individual states, and NGOs, could use to enforce human rights: (1) accountability, (2) inducement, (3) assistance, (4) domestic contestation and engagement, (5) compulsion, and (6) external adaptation.

    Accountability refers to the process of examining and evaluating reports to ensure that states adhering to treaties are meeting their obligations. Inducement consists of the use of incentive systems, including the threat of sanctions, to deter violations and promote adherence to human rights standards. Assistance means providing support to societies that lack the resources or capabilities to meet human rights commitments. Domestic contestation and engagement refers to the notion that external actors can impact a state’s behavior by participating in its internal political and social processes. Compulsion is the most extreme method of enforcing human rights through external action involves the use of coercive measures. External adaptation as a paradigm of implementation recognizes that human rights compliance may require not only domestic efforts but also reforming external factors like trade policies or international laws that hinder a government’s ability to uphold rights.

    Responsibility to protect refers to a doctrine for United Nations member states to intervene to protect populations from atrocities. It has been cited as justification in the use of recent military interventions. An example of an intervention that is often criticized is the 2011 military intervention in the First Libyan Civil War by NATO and Qatar where the goal of preventing atrocities is alleged to have taken upon itself the broader mandate of removing the target government.

    Economic sanctions are often levied upon individuals or states who commit human rights violations. Sanctions are often criticized for its feature of collective punishment in hurting a country’s population economically in order dampen that population’s view of its government. It is also argued that, counterproductively, sanctions on offending authoritarian governments strengthen that government’s position domestically as governments would still have more mechanisms to find funding than their critics and opposition, who become further weakened.

    The risk of human rights violations increases with the increase in financially vulnerable populations. Girls from poor families in non-industrialized economies are often viewed as a financial burden on the family and marriage of young girls is often driven in the hope that daughters will be fed and protected by wealthier families. Female genital mutilation and force-feeding of daughters is argued to be similarly driven in large part to increase their marriage prospects and thus their financial security by achieving certain idealized standards of beauty. In certain areas, girls requiring the experience of sexual initiation rites with men and passing sex training tests on girls are designed to make them more appealing as marriage prospects. Measures to help the economic status of vulnerable groups in order to reduce human rights violations include girls’ education and guaranteed minimum incomes and conditional cash transfers, such as Bolsa familia which subsidize parents who keep children in school rather than contributing to family income, has successfully reduced child labor.

    Human rights abuses are monitored by United Nations committees, national institutions and governments and by many independent non-governmental organizations, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, World Organisation Against Torture, Freedom House, International Freedom of Expression Exchange and Anti-Slavery International. These organisations collect evidence and documentation of human rights abuses and apply pressure to promote human rights. Educating people on the concept of human rights has been argued as a strategy to prevent human rights abuses.

    Many examples of legal instruments at the international, regional and national level described below are designed to enforce laws securing human rights.

    The United Nations (UN) is the only multilateral governmental agency with universally accepted international jurisdiction for universal human rights legislation. All UN organs have advisory roles to the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations Human Rights Council, and there are numerous committees within the UN with responsibilities for safeguarding different human rights treaties. The most senior body of the UN with regard to human rights is the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The United Nations has an international mandate to:

    … achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

    —Article 1–3 of the Charter of the United Nations

    The UN Human Rights Council, created in 2005, has a mandate to investigate alleged human rights violations. 47 of the 193 UN member states sit on the council, elected by simple majority in a secret ballot of the United Nations General Assembly. Members serve a maximum of six years and may have their membership suspended for gross human rights abuses. The council is based in Geneva, and meets three times a year; with additional meetings to respond to urgent situations. Independent experts (rapporteurs) are retained by the council to investigate alleged human rights abuses and to report to the council. The Human Rights Council may request that the Security Council refer cases to the International Criminal Court (ICC) even if the issue being referred is outside the normal jurisdiction of the ICC.

    In addition to the political bodies whose mandate flows from the UN charter, the UN has set up a number of treaty-based bodies, comprising committees of independent experts who monitor compliance with human rights standards and norms flowing from the core international human rights treaties. They are supported by and are created by the treaty that they monitor, With the exception of the CESCR, which was established under a resolution of the Economic and Social Council to carry out the monitoring functions originally assigned to that body under the Covenant, they are technically autonomous bodies, established by the treaties that they monitor and accountable to the state parties of those treaties – rather than subsidiary to the United Nations, though in practice they are closely intertwined with the United Nations system and are supported by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) and the UN Centre for Human Rights.

    The Human Rights Committee promotes participation with the standards of the ICCPR. The members of the committee express opinions on member countries and make judgments on individual complaints against countries which have ratified an Optional Protocol to the treaty. The judgments, termed “views”, are not legally binding. The member of the committee meets around three times a year to hold sessions.


    The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights monitors the ICESCR and makes general comments on ratifying countries performance. It will have the power to receive complaints against the countries that opted into the Optional Protocol once it has come into force. Unlike the other treaty bodies, the economic committee is not an autonomous body responsible to the treaty parties, but directly responsible to the Economic and Social Council and ultimately to the General Assembly. This means that the Economic Committee faces particular difficulties at its disposal only relatively “weak” means of implementation in comparison to other treaty bodies. Particular difficulties noted by commentators include: perceived vagueness of the principles of the treaty, relative lack of legal texts and decisions, ambivalence of many states in addressing economic, social and cultural rights, comparatively few non-governmental organisations focused on the area and problems with obtaining relevant and precise information.

    The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination monitors the CERD and conducts regular reviews of countries’ performance. It can make judgments on complaints against member states allowing it, but these are not legally binding. It issues warnings to attempt to prevent serious contraventions of the convention.

    The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women monitors the CEDAW. It receives states’ reports on their performance and comments on them, and can make judgments on complaints against countries which have opted into the 1999 Optional Protocol.

    The Committee Against Torture monitors the CAT and receives states’ reports on their performance every four years and comments on them. Its subcommittee may visit and inspect countries which have opted into the Optional Protocol.


    The Committee on the Rights of the Child monitors the CRC and makes comments on reports submitted by states every five years. It does not have the power to receive complaints.


    The Committee on Migrant Workers was established in 2004 and monitors the ICRMW and makes comments on reports submitted by states every five years. It will have the power to receive complaints of specific violations only once ten member states allow it.

    The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was established in 2008 to monitor the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It has the power to receive complaints against the countries which have opted into the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

    The Committee on Enforced Disappearances monitors the ICPPED. All States parties are obliged to submit reports to the committee on how the rights are being implemented. The Committee examines each report and addresses its concerns and recommendations to the State party in the form of “concluding observations”.

    Each treaty body receives secretariat support from the Human Rights Council and Treaties Division of Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva except CEDAW, which is supported by the Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW). CEDAW formerly held all its sessions at United Nations headquarters in New York but now frequently meets at the United Nations Office in Geneva; the other treaty bodies meet in Geneva. The Human Rights Committee usually holds its March session in New York City. The human rights enshrined in the UDHR, the Geneva Conventions and the various enforced treaties of the United Nations are enforceable in law. In practice, many rights are very difficult to legally enforce due to the absence of consensus on the application of certain rights, the lack of relevant national legislation or of bodies empowered to take legal action to enforce them.

    There exist a number of internationally recognized organisations with worldwide mandate or jurisdiction over certain aspects of human rights:

    The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the United Nations’ primary judiciary body. It has worldwide jurisdiction. It is directed by the Security Council. The ICJ settles disputes between nations. The ICJ does not have jurisdiction over individuals.

    The International Criminal Court (ICC) is the body responsible for investigating and punishing war crimes, and crimes against humanity when such occur within its jurisdiction, with a mandate to bring to justice perpetrators of such crimes that occurred after its creation in 2002. A number of UN members have not joined the court and the ICC does not have jurisdiction over their citizens, and others have signed but not yet ratified the Rome Statute, which established the court.

    The ICC and other international courts (see Regional human rights below) exist to take action where the national legal system of a state is unable to try the case itself. If national law is able to safeguard human rights and punish those who breach human rights legislation, it has primary jurisdiction by complementarity. Only when all local remedies have been exhausted does international law take effect.

    In over 110 countries, national human rights institutions (NHRIs) have been set up to protect, promote or monitor human rights with jurisdiction in a given country. Although not all NHRIs are compliant with the Paris Principles, the number and effect of these institutions is increasing. The Paris Principles were defined at the first International Workshop on National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in Paris on 7–9 October 1991, and adopted by United Nations Human Rights Commission Resolution 1992/54 of 1992 and the General Assembly Resolution 48/134 of 1993. The Paris Principles list a number of responsibilities for national institutions.

    The African Union (AU) is a continental union consisting of fifty-five African states. Established in 2001, the AU’s purpose is to help secure Africa’s democracy, human rights, and a sustainable economy, especially by bringing an end to intra-African conflict and creating an effective common market. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) is a quasi-judicial organ of the African Union tasked with promoting and protecting human rights and collective (peoples’) rights throughout the African continent as well as interpreting the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and considering individual complaints of violations of the Charter. The commission has three broad areas of responsibility:

    Promoting human and peoples’ rights


    Protecting human and peoples’ rights

    Interpreting the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
    In pursuit of these goals, the commission is mandated to “collect documents, undertake studies and researches on African problems in the field of human and peoples, rights, organise seminars, symposia and conferences, disseminate information, encourage national and local institutions concerned with human and peoples’ rights and, should the case arise, give its views or make recommendations to governments” (Charter, Art. 45).

    With the creation of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (under a protocol to the Charter which was adopted in 1998 and entered into force in January 2004), the commission will have the additional task of preparing cases for submission to the Court’s jurisdiction. In a July 2004 decision, the AU Assembly resolved that the future Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights would be integrated with the African Court of Justice. The Court of Justice of the African Union is intended to be the “principal judicial organ of the Union” (Protocol of the Court of Justice of the African Union, Article 2.2). Although it has not yet been established, it is intended to take over the duties of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, as well as act as the supreme court of the African Union, interpreting all necessary laws and treaties. The Protocol establishing the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights entered into force in January 2004, but its merging with the Court of Justice has delayed its establishment. The Protocol establishing the Court of Justice will come into force when ratified by 15 countries.

    There are many countries in Africa accused of human rights violations by the international community and NGOs.

    The Organization of American States (OAS) is an international organization, headquartered in Washington, D.C., United States. Its members are the thirty-five independent states of the Americas. Over the course of the 1990s, with the end of the Cold War, the return to democracy in Latin America, and the thrust toward globalization, the OAS made major efforts to reinvent itself to fit the new context. Its stated priorities now include the following:

    Strengthening democracy
    Working for peace
    Protecting human rights
    Combating corruption
    The rights of Indigenous Peoples
    Promoting sustainable development

    The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the IACHR) is an autonomous organ of the Organization of American States, also based in Washington, D.C. Along with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, based in San José, Costa Rica, it is one of the bodies that comprise the inter-American system for the promotion and protection of human rights. The IACHR is a permanent body which meets in regular and special sessions several times a year to examine allegations of human rights violations in the hemisphere. Its human rights duties stem from three documents:

    the American Convention on Human Rights

    the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man


    the Charter of the Organization of American States


    The Inter-American Court of Human Rights was established in 1979 with the purpose of enforcing and interpreting the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights. Its two main functions are thus adjudicatory and advisory. Under the former, it hears and rules on the specific cases of human rights violations referred to it. Under the latter, it issues opinions on matters of legal interpretation brought to its attention by other OAS bodies or member states.

    There are no Asia-wide organisations or conventions to promote or protect human rights. Countries vary widely in their approach to human rights and their record of human rights protection. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is a geo-political and economic organization of 10 countries located in Southeast Asia, which was formed in 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. The organisation now also includes Brunei Darussalam, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia. In October 2009, the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights was inaugurated, and subsequently, the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration was adopted unanimously by ASEAN members on 18 November 2012.

    The Arab Charter on Human Rights (ACHR) was adopted by the Council of the League of Arab States on 22 May 2004.

    The Council of Europe, founded in 1949, is the oldest organisation working for European integration. It is an international organisation with legal personality recognised under public international law and has observer status with the United Nations. The seat of the Council of Europe is in Strasbourg in France. The Council of Europe is responsible for both the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. These institutions bind the council’s members to a code of human rights which, though strict, are more lenient than those of the United Nations charter on human rights. The council also promotes the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the European Social Charter. Membership is open to all European states which seek European integration, accept the principle of the rule of law and are able and willing to guarantee democracy, fundamental human rights and freedoms.

    The Council of Europe is an organisation that is not part of the European Union, but the latter is expected to accede to the European Convention and potentially the Council itself. The EU has its own human rights document; the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The European Convention on Human Rights defines and guarantees since 1950 human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. All 47 member states of the Council of Europe have signed this convention and are therefore under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. In order to prevent torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 of the convention), the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture was established.

    Several theoretical approaches have been advanced to explain how and why human rights become part of social expectations. One of the oldest Western philosophies on human rights is that they are a product of a natural law, stemming from different philosophical or religious grounds. Other theories hold that human rights codify moral behavior which is a human social product developed by a process of biological and social evolution (associated with David Hume). Human rights are also described as a sociological pattern of rule setting (as in the sociological theory of law and the work of Max Weber). These approaches include the notion that individuals in a society accept rules from legitimate authority in exchange for security and economic advantage (as in John Rawls) – a social contract.

    Natural law theories base human rights on a “natural” moral, religious or even biological order which is independent of transitory human laws or traditions. Socrates and his philosophic heirs, Plato and Aristotle, posited the existence of natural justice or natural right (dikaion physikon, δικαιον φυσικον, Latin ius naturale). Of these, Aristotle is often said to be the father of natural law, although evidence for this is due largely to the interpretations of his work by Thomas Aquinas. The development of this tradition of natural justice into one of natural law is usually attributed to the Stoics.

    Some of the early Church fathers sought to incorporate the until then pagan concept of natural law into Christianity. Natural law theories have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, and John Locke. In the 17th century, Thomas Hobbes founded a contractualist theory of legal positivism on what all men could agree upon: what they sought (happiness) was subject to contention, but a broad consensus could form around what they feared (violent death at the hands of another). The natural law was how a rational human being, seeking to survive and prosper, would act. It was discovered by considering humankind’s natural rights, whereas previously it could be said that natural rights were discovered by considering the natural law. In Hobbes’ opinion, the only way natural law could prevail was for men to submit to the commands of the sovereign. In this lay the foundations of the theory of a social contract between the governed and the governor.

    Hugo Grotius based his philosophy of international law on natural law. He wrote that “even the will of an omnipotent being cannot change or abrogate” natural law, which “would maintain its objective validity even if we should assume the impossible, that there is no God or that he does not care for human affairs.” (De iure belli ac pacis, Prolegomeni XI). This is the famous argument etiamsi daremus (non-esse Deum), that made natural law no longer dependent on theology. John Locke incorporated natural law into many of his theories and philosophy, especially in Two Treatises of Government. Locke turned Hobbes’ prescription around, saying that if the ruler went against natural law and failed to protect “life, liberty, and property,” people could justifiably overthrow the existing state and create a new one.

    The Belgian philosopher of law Frank van Dun is one among those who are elaborating a secular conception of natural law in the liberal tradition. There are also emerging and secular forms of natural law theory that define human rights as derivative of the notion of universal human dignity. The term “human rights” has replaced the term “natural rights” in popularity, because the rights are less and less frequently seen as requiring natural law for their existence.

    The philosopher John Finnis argues that human rights are justifiable on the grounds of their instrumental value in creating the necessary conditions for human well-being. Interest theories highlight the duty to respect the rights of other individuals on grounds of self-interest:

    Human rights law, applied to a State’s own citizens serves the interest of states, by, for example, minimizing the risk of violent resistance and protest and by keeping the level of dissatisfaction with the government manageable.

    —Niraj Nathwani, Rethinking Refugee Law


    The biological theory considers the comparative reproductive advantage of human social behavior based on empathy and altruism in the context of natural selection. The philosopher Zhao Tingyang argues that the traditional human rights framework fails to be universal, because it arose from contingent aspects of Western culture, and that the concept of inalienable and unconditional human rights is in tension with the principle of justice. He proposes an alternative framework called “credit human rights”, in which rights are tied to responsibilities.

    The most common categorization of human rights is to split them into civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights. Civil and political rights are enshrined in articles 3 to 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the ICCPR. Economic, social and cultural rights are enshrined in articles 22 to 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the ICESCR. The UDHR included both economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights because it was based on the principle that the different rights could only successfully exist in combination:

    The ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his social, economic and cultural rights

    —International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, 1966

    This is held to be true because without civil and political rights the public cannot assert their economic, social and cultural rights. The freedom from fear and the freedom of want is essential to this by allowing a communities population to pursue endeavors without international or state interference. Similarly, without livelihoods and a working society, the public cannot assert or make use of civil or political rights (known as the full belly thesis).

    Although accepted by the signatories to the UDHR, most of them do not in practice give equal weight to the different types of rights. Western cultures have often given priority to civil and political rights, sometimes at the expense of economic and social rights such as the right to work, to education, health and housing. For example, in the United States there is no universal access to healthcare free at the point of use. That is not to say that Western cultures have overlooked these rights entirely (the welfare states that exist in Western Europe are evidence of this). Similarly, the ex Soviet bloc countries and Asian countries have tended to give priority to economic, social and cultural rights, but have often failed to provide civil and political rights.

    Another categorization, offered by Karel Vasak, is that there are three generations of human rights: first-generation civil and political rights (right to life and political participation), second-generation economic, social and cultural rights (right to subsistence) and third-generation solidarity rights (right to peace, right to clean environment). Out of these generations, the third generation is the most debated and lacks both legal and political recognition. This categorization is at odds with the indivisibility of rights, as it implicitly states that some rights can exist without others. Prioritization of rights for pragmatic reasons is however a widely accepted necessity. Human rights expert Philip Alston argues:

    If every possible human rights element is deemed to be essential or necessary, then nothing will be treated as though it is truly important.

    —Philip Alston
    He, and others, urge caution with prioritisation of rights:

    … the call for prioritizing is not to suggest that any obvious violations of rights can be ignored.

    —Philip Alston

    Priorities, where necessary, should adhere to core concepts (such as reasonable attempts at progressive realization) and principles (such as non-discrimination, equality and participation.

    —Olivia Ball, Paul Gready

    Some human rights are said to be “inalienable rights”. The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to “a set of human rights that are fundamental, are not awarded by human power, and cannot be surrendered”.

    The adherence to the principle of indivisibility by the international community was reaffirmed in 1995:

    All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and related. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis.

    — Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, World Conference on Human Rights, 1995

    This statement was again endorsed at the 2005 World Summit in New York (paragraph 121).

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines, by definition, rights that apply to all humans equally, whichever geographical location, state, race or culture they belong to. Proponents of cultural relativism suggest that human rights are not all universal, and indeed conflict with some cultures and threaten their survival. Rights which are most often contested with relativistic arguments are the rights of women. For example, female genital mutilation occurs in different cultures in Africa, Asia and South America. It is not mandated by any religion, but has become a tradition in many cultures. It is considered a violation of women’s and girl’s rights by much of the international community, and is outlawed in some countries.

    Universalism has been described by some as cultural, economic or political imperialism. In particular, the concept of human rights is often claimed to be fundamentally rooted in a politically liberal outlook which, although generally accepted in Europe, Japan or North America, is not necessarily taken as standard elsewhere. For example, in 1981, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the UDHR by saying that the UDHR was “a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition”, which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law. The former Prime Ministers of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, and of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad both claimed in the 1990s that Asian values were significantly different from western values and included a sense of loyalty and foregoing personal freedoms for the sake of social stability and prosperity, and therefore authoritarian government is more appropriate in Asia than democracy. This view is countered by Mahathir’s former deputy:

    To say that freedom is Western or unAsian is to offend our traditions as well as our forefathers, who gave their lives in the struggle against tyranny and injustices.

    —Anwar Ibrahim, in his keynote speech to the Asian Press

    Forum title Media and Society in Asia, 2 December 1994
    Singapore’s opposition leader Chee Soon Juan also states that it is racist to assert that Asians do not want human rights. An appeal is often made to the fact that influential human rights thinkers, such as John Locke and John Stuart Mill, have all been Western and indeed that some were involved in the running of Empires themselves. Relativistic arguments tend to neglect the fact that modern human rights are new to all cultures, dating back no further than the UDHR in 1948. They also do not account for the fact that the UDHR was drafted by people from many different cultures and traditions, including a US Roman Catholic, a Chinese Confucian philosopher, a French Zionist and a representative from the Arab League, amongst others, and drew upon advice from thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi.

    Michael Ignatieff has argued that cultural relativism is almost exclusively an argument used by those who wield power in cultures which commit human rights abuses, and that those whose human rights are compromised are the powerless. This reflects the fact that the difficulty in judging universalism versus relativism lies in who is claiming to represent a particular culture. Although the argument between universalism and relativism is far from complete, it is an academic discussion in that all international human rights instruments adhere to the principle that human rights are universally applicable. The 2005 World Summit reaffirmed the international community’s adherence to this principle:

    The universal nature of human rights and freedoms is beyond question.

    —2005 World Summit, paragraph 120

    Human rights that depend on an individualist orientation have been criticised as unsuited to communally orientated societies, which critics say makes individual human rights non-universal.

    Universal jurisdiction is a controversial principle in international law whereby states claim criminal jurisdiction over persons whose alleged crimes were committed outside the boundaries of the prosecuting state, regardless of nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting country. The state backs its claim on the grounds that the crime committed is considered a crime against all, which any state is authorized to punish. The concept of universal jurisdiction is therefore closely linked to the idea that certain international norms are erga omnes, or owed to the entire world community, as well as the concept of jus cogens. In 1993, Belgium passed a law of universal jurisdiction to give its court’s jurisdiction over crimes against humanity in other countries, and in 1998 Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London following an indictment by Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón under the universal jurisdiction principle. The principle is supported by Amnesty International and other human rights organisations as they believe certain crimes pose a threat to the international community as a whole and the community has a moral duty to act, but others, including Henry Kissinger, argue that state sovereignty is paramount, because breaches of rights committed in other countries are outside states’ sovereign interest and because states could use the principle for political reasons.

    Companies, NGOs, political parties, informal groups, and individuals are known as non-State actors. Non-State actors can also commit human rights abuses, but are not subject to human rights law other than International Humanitarian Law, which applies to individuals. Multinational companies play an increasingly large role in the world, and are responsible for a large number of human rights abuses. Although the legal and moral environment surrounding the actions of governments is reasonably well developed, that surrounding multinational companies is both controversial and ill-defined. Multinational companies often view their primary responsibility as being to their shareholders, not to those affected by their actions. Such companies are often larger than the economies of the states in which they operate, and can wield significant economic and political power. No international treaties exist to specifically cover the behavior of companies with regard to human rights, and national legislation is very variable. Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on the right to food stated in a report in 2003:

    the growing power of transnational corporations and their extension of power through privatization, deregulation and the rolling back of the State also mean that it is now time to develop binding legal norms that hold corporations to human rights standards and circumscribe potential abuses of their position of power.

    —Jean Ziegler

    In August 2003, the Human Rights Commission’s Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights produced draft Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights. These were considered by the Human Rights Commission in 2004, but have no binding status on corporations and are not monitored. Additionally, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 10 aims to substantially reduce inequality by 2030 through the promotion of appropriate legislation.

    With the exception of non-derogable human rights (international conventions class the right to life, the right to be free from slavery, the right to be free from torture and the right to be free from retroactive application of penal laws as non-derogable), the UN recognises that human rights can be limited or even pushed aside during times of national emergency, although it clarifies:

    the emergency must be actual, affect the whole population and the threat must be to the very existence of the nation. The declaration of emergency must also be a last resort and a temporary measure.

    —United Nations, The Resource

    Rights that cannot be derogated for reasons of national security in any circumstances are known as peremptory norms or jus cogens. Such International law obligations are binding on all states and cannot be modified by treaty.

    Critics of the view that human rights are universal argue that human rights are a Western concept that “emanate from a European, Judeo-Christian, and/or Enlightenment heritage (typically labeled Western) and cannot be enjoyed by other cultures that don’t emulate the conditions and values of ‘Western’ societies.” Right-wing critics of human rights argue that they are “unrealistic and unenforceable norms and inappropriate intrusions on state sovereignty”, while left-wing critics of human rights argue that they fail “to achieve – or prevents better approaches to achieving – progressive goals”.

  • Trade

    Trade involves the transfer of goods and services from one person or entity to another, often in exchange for money. Economists refer to a system or network that allows trade as a market.

    Traders generally negotiate through a medium of credit or exchange, such as money. Though some economists characterize barter (i.e. trading things without the use of money) as an early form of trade, money was invented before written history began. Consequently, any story of how money first developed is mostly based on conjecture and logical inference. Letters of credit, paper money, and non-physical money have greatly simplified and promoted trade as buying can be separated from selling, or earning. Trade between two traders is called bilateral trade, while trade involving more than two traders is called multilateral trade.

    In one modern view, trade exists due to specialization and the division of labor, a predominant form of economic activity in which individuals and groups concentrate on a small aspect of production, but use their output in trade for other products and needs. Trade exists between regions because different regions may have a comparative advantage (perceived or real) in the production of some trade-able goods – including the production of scarce or limited natural resources elsewhere. For example, different regions’ sizes may encourage mass production. In such circumstances, trading at market price between locations can benefit both locations. Different types of traders may specialize in trading different kinds of goods; for example, the spice trade and grain trade have both historically been important in the development of a global, international economy.

    A picture of a busy market in Mile 12. Lagos – Nigeria
    A busy market in Mile 12, Lagos, Nigeria
    Retail trade consists of the sale of goods or merchandise from a very fixed location (such as a department store, boutique, or kiosk), online or by mail, in small or individual lots for direct consumption or use by the purchaser. Wholesale trade is the traffic in goods that are sold as merchandise to retailers, industrial, commercial, institutional, or other professional business users, or to other wholesalers and related subordinated services.

    Historically, openness to free trade substantially increased in some areas from 1815 until the outbreak of World War I in 1914. Trade openness increased again during the 1920s but collapsed (in particular in Europe and North America) during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Trade openness increased substantially again from the 1950s onward (albeit with a slowdown during the oil crisis of the 1970s). Economists and economic historians contend that current levels of trade openness are the highest they have ever been.

    Trade is from Middle English trade (“path, course of conduct”), introduced into English by Hanseatic merchants, from Middle Low German trade (“track, course”), from Old Saxon trada (“spoor, track”), from Proto-Germanic *tradō (“track, way”), and cognate with Old English tredan (“to tread”).

    Commerce is derived from the Latin commercium, from cum “together” and merx, “merchandise.”

    Trade originated from human communication in prehistoric times. Prehistoric peoples exchanged goods and services with each other in a gift economy before the innovation of modern-day currency. Peter Watson dates the history of long-distance commerce to c.b. 150,000 years ago.

    In the Mediterranean region, the earliest contact between cultures involved members of the species Homo sapiens, principally using the Danube river, at a time beginning 35,000–30,000 BP.

    There is evidence of the exchange of obsidian and flint during the Stone Age. Trade in obsidian is believed to have taken place in New Guinea from 17,000 BCE.

    The earliest use of obsidian in the Near East dates to the Lower and Middle paleolithic.

    — Prince Mikasa no Miya Takahito
    Robert Carr Bosanquet investigated trade in the Stone Age by excavations in 1901. The first clear archaeological evidence of trade in manufactured goods is found in south west Asia.

    Archaeological evidence of obsidian use provides data on how this material was increasingly the preferred choice rather than chert from the late Mesolithic to Neolithic, requiring exchange as deposits of obsidian are rare in the Mediterranean region.

    Obsidian provided the material to make cutting utensils or tools, although since other more easily obtainable materials were available, use was exclusive to the higher status of the tribe using “the rich man’s flint”. Obsidian has held its value relative to flint.

    Early traders traded Obsidian at distances of 900 kilometres within the Mediterranean region.

    Trade in the Mediterranean during the Neolithic of Europe was greatest in this material. Networks were in existence at around 12,000 BCE Anatolia was the source primarily for trade with the Levant, Iran and Egypt according to Zarins study of 1990. Melos and Lipari sources produced among the most widespread trading in the Mediterranean region as known to archaeology.

    The Sari-i-Sang mine in the mountains of Afghanistan was the largest source for trade of lapis lazuli. The material was most largely traded during the Kassite period of Babylonia beginning 1595 BCE.

    Adam Smith traces the origins of commerce to the very start of transactions in prehistoric times. Apart from traditional self-sufficiency, trading became a principal faculty for prehistoric people, who bartered what they had for goods and services from each other. Anthropologists have found no evidence of barter systems that did not exist alongside systems of credit.

    The earliest evidence of writing is deeply bound up in trade, as a system of clay tokens used for accounting – found in Upper Euphrates valley in Syria dated to the 10th millennium BCE – is one of the earliest versions of writing.

    Ebla was a prominent trading center during the third millennia BCE, with a network reaching into Anatolia and north Mesopotamia.

    Materials used for creating jewelry were traded with Egypt since 3000 BCE. Long-range trade routes first appeared in the 3rd millennium BCE, when Sumerians in Mesopotamia traded with the Harappan civilization of the Indus Valley. The Phoenicians were noted sea traders, traveling across the Mediterranean Sea, and as far north as Britain for sources of tin to manufacture bronze. For this purpose they established trade colonies the Greeks called emporia. Along the coast of the Mediterranean, researchers have found a positive relationship between how well-connected a coastal location was and the local prevalence of archaeological sites from the Iron Age. This suggests that a location’s trade potential was an important determinant of human settlements.

    The complaint tablet to Ea-nāṣir, dated 1750 BCE, documents the tribulations of a copper merchant at the time.

    From the beginning of Greek civilization until the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century, a financially lucrative trade brought valuable spice to Europe from the far east, including India and China. Roman commerce allowed its empire to flourish and endure. The latter Roman Republic and the Pax Romana of the Roman empire produced a stable and secure transportation network that enabled the shipment of trade goods without fear of significant piracy, as Rome had become the sole effective sea power in the Mediterranean with the conquest of Egypt and the near east.

    In ancient Greece Hermes was the god of trade (commerce) and weights and measures. In ancient Rome, Mercurius was the god of merchants, whose festival was celebrated by traders on the 25th day of the fifth month. The concept of free trade was an antithesis to the will and economic direction of the sovereigns of the ancient Greek states. Free trade between states was stifled by the need for strict internal controls (via taxation) to maintain security within the treasury of the sovereign, which nevertheless enabled the maintenance of a modicum of civility within the structures of functional community life.

    The fall of the Roman empire and the succeeding Dark Ages brought instability to Western Europe and a near-collapse of the trade network in the western world. Trade, however, continued to flourish among the kingdoms of Africa, the Middle East, India, China, and Southeast Asia. Some trade did occur in the west. For instance, Radhanites were a medieval guild or group (the precise meaning of the word is lost to history) of Jewish merchants who traded between the Christians in Europe and the Muslims of the Near East.

    The first true maritime trade network in the Indian Ocean was by the Austronesian peoples of Island Southeast Asia. Initiated by the indigenous peoples of Taiwan and the Philippines, the Maritime Jade Road was an extensive trading network connecting multiple areas in Southeast and East Asia. Its primary products were made of jade mined from Taiwan by Taiwanese indigenous peoples and processed mostly in the Philippines by indigenous Filipinos, especially in Batanes, Luzon, and Palawan. Some were also processed in Vietnam, while the peoples of Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, and Cambodia also participated in the massive trading network. The maritime road is one of the most extensive sea-based trade networks of a single geological material in the prehistoric world. It was in existence for at least 3,000 years, where its peak production was from 2000 BCE to 500 CE, older than the Silk Road in mainland Eurasia and the later Maritime Silk Road. The Maritime Jade Road began to wane during its final centuries from 500 CE until 1000 CE. The entire period of the network was a golden age for the diverse societies of the region.

    Sea-faring Southeast Asians also established trade routes with Southern India and Sri Lanka as early as 1500 BC, ushering an exchange of material culture (like catamarans, outrigger boats, sewn-plank boats, and paan) and cultigens (like coconuts, sandalwood, bananas, and sugarcane); as well as connecting the material cultures of India and China. Indonesians, in particular were trading in spices (mainly cinnamon and cassia) with East Africa using catamaran and outrigger boats and sailing with the help of the Westerlies in the Indian Ocean. This trade network expanded to reach as far as Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, resulting in the Austronesian colonization of Madagascar by the first half of the first millennium AD. It continued up to historic times, later becoming the Maritime Silk Road.

    The emergence of exchange networks in the Pre-Columbian societies of and near to Mexico are known to have occurred within recent years before and after 1500 BCE.

    Trade networks reached north to Oasisamerica. There is evidence of established maritime trade with the cultures of northwestern South America and the Caribbean.

    During the Middle Ages, commerce developed in Europe by trading luxury goods at trade fairs. Wealth became converted into movable wealth or capital. Banking systems developed where money on account was transferred across national boundaries. Hand-to-hand markets became a feature of town life and were regulated by town authorities.

    Western Europe established a complex and expansive trade network with cargo ships being the main carrier of goods; cogs and hulks are two examples of such cargo ships. Many ports would develop their own extensive trade networks. The English port city of Bristol traded with peoples from Iceland, all along the western coast of France, and south to present-day Spain.

    During the Middle Ages, Central Asia was the economic center of the world. The Sogdians dominated the east–west trade-route known as the Silk Road from after the 4th century CE until the 8th century CE, with Suyab and Talas ranking among their main centers in the north. Sogdians functioned as the main caravan merchants of Central Asia.

    From the Middle Ages, the maritime republics, in particular Venice, Pisa and Genoa, played a key role in trade in the Mediterranean. From the 11th to the late-15th centuries, the Venetian Republic and the Republic of Genoa were major trade-centers. They dominated trade in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, maintaining a trading monopoly between Europe and the Near East for centuries.

    From the 8th to the 11th centuries, the Vikings and Varangians traded as they sailed from and to Scandinavia. Vikings sailed to Western Europe, while Varangians travelled to Kyivan Rus’ and to the Black and Caspian Seas. The Hanseatic League, an alliance of trading cities, maintained a trade monopoly over most of Northern Europe and the Baltic between the 13th and 17th centuries.

    Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama pioneered the European spice trade in 1498 when he reached Calicut after sailing around the Cape of Good Hope at the southern tip of the African continent. Prior to this, the flow of spice into Europe from India was controlled by Islamic powers, especially Egypt. The spice trade was of major economic importance and helped spur the Age of Discovery in Europe. Spices brought to Europe from the Eastern world were some of the most valuable commodities for their weight, sometimes rivaling gold.

    From 1070 onward, kingdoms in West Africa became significant members of global trade. This came initially through the movement of gold and other resources sent out by Muslim traders on the Trans-Saharan trading network. Beginning in the 16th century, European merchants would purchase gold, spices, cloth, timber and slaves from West African states as part of the triangular trade. This was often in exchange for cloth, iron, or cowrie shells which were used locally as currency.

    Founded in 1352, the Bengal Sultanate was a major trading nation in the world and often referred to by Europeans as the wealthiest country with which to trade.

    In the 16th and 17th centuries, the Portuguese gained an economic advantage in the Kingdom of Kongo due to different philosophies of trade. Whereas Portuguese traders concentrated on the accumulation of capital, in Kongo spiritual meaning was attached to many objects of trade. According to economic historian Toby Green, in Kongo “giving more than receiving was a symbol of spiritual and political power and privilege.”

    In the 16th century, the Seventeen Provinces were the center of free trade, imposing no exchange controls, and advocating the free movement of goods. Trade in the East Indies was dominated by Portugal in the 16th century, the Dutch Republic in the 17th century, and the British in the 18th century. The Spanish Empire developed regular trade links across both the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans.

    In 1776, Adam Smith published the paper An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. It criticized Mercantilism, and argued that economic specialization could benefit nations just as much as firms. Since the division of labour was restricted by the size of the market, he said that countries having access to larger markets would be able to divide labour more efficiently and thereby become more productive. Smith said that he considered all rationalizations of import and export controls “dupery”, which hurt the trading nation as a whole for the benefit of specific industries.

    In 1799, the Dutch East India Company, formerly the world’s largest company, became bankrupt, partly due to the rise of competitive free trade.

    In 1817, David Ricardo, James Mill and Robert Torrens showed that free trade would benefit the industrially weak as well as the strong, in the famous theory of comparative advantage. In Principles of Political Economy and Taxation Ricardo advanced the doctrine still considered the most counterintuitive in economics:

    When an inefficient producer sends the merchandise it produces best to a country able to produce it more efficiently, both countries benefit.

    The ascendancy of free trade was primarily based on national advantage in the mid 19th century. That is, the calculation made was whether it was in any particular country’s self-interest to open its borders to imports.

    John Stuart Mill proved that a country with monopoly pricing power on the international market could manipulate the terms of trade through maintaining tariffs, and that the response to this might be reciprocity in trade policy. Ricardo and others had suggested this earlier. This was taken as evidence against the universal doctrine of free trade, as it was believed that more of the economic surplus of trade would accrue to a country following reciprocal, rather than completely free, trade policies. This was followed within a few years by the infant industry scenario developed by Mill promoting the theory that the government had the duty to protect young industries, although only for a time necessary for them to develop full capacity. This became the policy in many countries attempting to industrialize and out-compete English exporters. Milton Friedman later continued this vein of thought, showing that in a few circumstances tariffs might be beneficial to the host country; but never for the world at large.

    The lack of free trade was considered by many as a principal cause of the depression causing stagnation and inflation. Only during World War II did the recession end in the United States. Also during the war, in 1944, 44 countries signed the Bretton Woods Agreement, intended to prevent national trade barriers, to avoid depressions. It set up rules and institutions to regulate the international political economy: the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (later divided into the World Bank $ Bank for International Settlements). These organizations became operational in 1946 after enough countries ratified the agreement. In 1947, 23 countries agreed to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to promote free trade.

    The European Union became the world’s largest exporter of manufactured goods and services, the biggest export market for around 80 countries.

    The Great Depression was a major economic recession that ran from 1929 to the late 1930s. During this period, there was a great drop in trade and other economic indicators.

    Today, trade is merely a subset within a complex system of companies which try to maximize their profits by offering products and services to the market (which consists both of individuals and other companies) at the lowest production cost. A system of international trade has helped to develop the world economy but, in combination with bilateral or multilateral agreements to lower tariffs or to achieve free trade, has sometimes harmed third-world markets for local products.

    Free trade is a policy by which a government does not discriminate against imports or exports by applying tariffs or subsidies. This policy is also known as laissez-faire policy. This kind of policy does not necessarily imply a country will then abandon all control and taxation of imports and exports.

    Free trade advanced further in the late 20th century and early 2000s:

    1992 European Union lifted barriers to internal trade in goods and labour.


    January 1, 1994 the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect.


    1994 The GATT Marrakech Agreement specified formation of the WTO.


    January 1, 1995 World Trade Organization was created to facilitate free trade, by mandating mutual most favored nation trading status between all signatories.


    EC was transformed into the European Union, which accomplished the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) in 2002, through introducing the Euro, and creating this way a real single market between 13 member states as of January 1, 2007.

    2005, the Central American Free Trade Agreement was signed; It includes the United States and the Dominican Republic.

    Protectionism is the policy of restraining and discouraging trade between states and contrasts with the policy of free trade. This policy often takes the form of tariffs and restrictive quotas. Protectionist policies were particularly prevalent in the 1930s, between the Great Depression and the onset of World War II.

    Islamic teachings encourage trading (and condemn usury or interest).

    Judeao-Christian teachings do not prohibit trade. They do prohibit fraud and dishonest measures. Historically they forbade charging interest on loans.

    The first instances of money were objects with intrinsic value. This is called commodity money and includes any commonly available commodity that has intrinsic value; historical examples include pigs, rare seashells, whale’s teeth, and (often) cattle. In medieval Iraq, bread was used as an early form of money. In the Aztec Empire, under the rule of Montezuma cocoa beans became legitimate currency.

    Currency was introduced as standardised money to facilitate a wider exchange of goods and services. This first stage of currency, where metals were used to represent stored value, and symbols to represent commodities, formed the basis of trade in the Fertile Crescent for over 1500 years.

    Numismatists have examples of coins from the earliest large-scale societies, although these were initially unmarked lumps of precious metal.

    The Doha round of World Trade Organization negotiations aimed to lower barriers to trade around the world, with a focus on making trade more fair for developing countries. Talks have been hung over a divide between the rich developed countries, represented by the G20, and the major developing countries. Agricultural subsidies are the most significant issue upon which agreement has been the hardest to negotiate. By contrast, there was much agreement on trade facilitation and capacity building. The Doha round began in Doha, Qatar, and negotiations were continued in: Cancún, Mexico; Geneva, Switzerland; and Paris, France, and Hong Kong.

    Beginning around 1978, the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) began an experiment in economic reform. In contrast to the previous Soviet-style centrally planned economy, the new measures progressively relaxed restrictions on farming, agricultural distribution and, several years later, urban enterprises and labor. The more market-oriented approach reduced inefficiencies and stimulated private investment, particularly by farmers, which led to increased productivity and output. One feature was the establishment of four (later five) Special Economic Zones located along the South-east coast.

    The reforms proved spectacularly successful in terms of increased output, variety, quality, price and demand. In real terms, the economy doubled in size between 1978 and 1986, doubled again by 1994, and again by 2003. On a real per capita basis, doubling from the 1978 base took place in 1987, 1996 and 2006. By 2008, the economy was 16.7 times the size it was in 1978, and 12.1 times its previous per capita levels. International trade progressed even more rapidly, doubling on average every 4.5 years. Total two-way trade in January 1998 exceeded that for all of 1978; in the first quarter of 2009, trade exceeded the full-year 1998 level. In 2008, China’s two-way trade totaled US$2.56 trillion.

    In 1991 China joined the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation group, a trade-promotion forum. In 2001, it also joined the World Trade Organization.

    International trade is the exchange of goods and services across national borders. In most countries, it represents a significant part of GDP. While international trade has been present throughout much of history (see Silk Road, Amber Road), its economic, social, and political importance have increased in recent centuries, mainly because of Industrialization, advanced transportation, globalization, multinational corporations, and outsourcing.

    Empirical evidence for the success of trade can be seen in the contrast between countries such as South Korea, which adopted a policy of export-oriented industrialization, and India, which historically had a more closed policy. South Korea has done much better by economic criteria than India over the past fifty years, though its success also has to do with effective state institutions.

    Trade sanctions against a specific country are sometimes imposed, in order to punish that country for some action. An embargo, a severe form of externally imposed isolation, is a blockade of all trade by one country on another. For example, the United States has had an embargo against Cuba for over 60 years. Embargoes are usually on a temporary basis. For example, Armenia put a temporary embargo on Turkish products and bans any imports from Turkey on December 31, 2020. The situation is prompted by food security concerns given Turkey’s hostile attitude towards Armenia.

    The “fair trade” movement, also known as the “trade justice” movement, promotes the use of labour, environmental and social standards for the production of goods, particularly those exported from the Third and Second Worlds to the First World. Such ideas have also sparked a debate on whether trade itself should be codified as a human right.

    Importing firms voluntarily adhere to fair trade standards or governments may enforce them through a combination of employment and commercial law. Proposed and practiced fair trade policies vary widely, ranging from the common prohibition of goods made using slave labour to minimum price support schemes such as those for coffee in the 1980s. Non-governmental organizations also play a role in promoting fair trade standards by serving as independent monitors of compliance with labeling requirements. As such, it is a form of Protectionism.

  • Down Bad

    Song by Taylor Swift ‧ 2024

    Did you really beam me up?
    In a cloud of sparkling dust
    Just to do experiments on
    Tell me I was the chosen one
    Show me that this world is bigger than us
    Then sent me back where I came from
    For a moment I knew cosmic love

    Now I’m down bad crying at the gym
    Everything comes out teenage petulance
    “What if I can’t have him”
    “I might just die, it would make no difference.”
    Down bad, waking up in blood
    Staring at the sky, come back and pick me up
    What if I can’t have us.
    I might just not get up
    I might stay down bad

    What if I can’t have him
    Down bad
    What if I can’t have him

    Did you take all my old clothes?
    Just to leave me here naked and alone
    In a field in my same old town
    That somehow seems so hollow now
    They’ll say I’m nuts if I talk about the existence of you
    For a moment I was heaven struck

    Now I’m down bad crying at the gym
    Everything comes out teenage petulance
    “What if I can’t have him”
    “I might just die, it would make no difference.”
    Down bad, waking up in blood
    Staring at the sky, come back and pick me up
    What if I can’t have us.
    I might just not get up
    I might stay down bad

    Like I lost my twin
    What if I can’t have him
    Down bad
    Down bad
    Waving at the ship
    What if I can’t have him

    I loved your hostile takeovers
    Encounters closer and closer
    All your indecent exposures
    How dare you say that it’s –
    I’ll build you a fort on some planet
    Where they can all understand it
    How dare you think it’s romantic
    Leaving me safe and stranded
    Cause what if I was in love
    What if I can’t have us.
    Cause what if I was in love

    Now I’m down bad crying at the gym
    Everything comes out teenage petulance
    “What if I can’t have him”
    “I might just die, it would make no difference.”
    Down bad, waking up in blood
    Staring at the sky, come back and pick me up
    What if I can’t have us.
    I might just not get up
    I might stay down bad

    Like I lost my twin
    What if I can’t have him
    Down bad
    Down bad
    Waving at the ship
    What if I can’t have him

    Like I lost my twin
    What if I can’t have him
    Down bad
    Waving at the ship
    What if I can’t have him