Human Rights as a Common Interest of the International Community under the Law of International Responsibility

Human rights are playing an increasingly important role in the functioning and development of society, and the international legal regulation of the sphere of inter-State cooperation on human rights has acquired a number of specific features that have a significant impact on the development of various institutions of international law, including the law of international responsibility. The purpose of the article is to analyze the features and problems of implementation of the methodology of ensuring the common interest of the international community as a whole that includes protection of human rights under the law of international responsibility. The author considers the category “common interests of the international community as a whole,” and explores its importance in the process of intensification of interstate cooperation in the field of human rights. It is noted that such instruments of ensuring the implementation of the common interests of the international community as a whole as norms of jus cogens and obligations erga omnes predetermine the specifics of the content of the secondary rules of the law of international responsibility. These include rules establishing circumstances precluding the wrongfulness of an act, establishing the consequences of serious breaches of obligations arising from peremptory norms of international law governing the invocation of responsibility by a State other than an injured State. The author emphasizes the significance of the instruments under consideration in the process of establishing the features of the content of individual constructions of the law of international responsibility. Attention is drawn to the fact that implementation of the common interest of the international community as a whole ensuring promotion and protection of human rights in the law of international responsibility entails some difficulties arising due to the lack, inter alia, of consensus concerning methodology for classifying international law as jus cogens norms and the existence of different approaches to understanding the content and structure of human rights per se. It is concluded that, despite the existence of these problems, it is impossible to deny the significant influence of norms of jus cogens and obligations erga omnes on the content of international legal regulation of various areas of international cooperation in the context of the growing trend towards the communitarization of international law and humanization of international relations.

1. Anufrieva L. P. Konstitutsiya RF i mezhdunarodnoe pravo: teoreticheskiy vzglyad na ponyatiya «obshchepriznannye printsipy i normy mezhdunarodnogo prava» i jus cogens [The Constitution of the Russian Federation and international law: Theoretical view on the concepts of “universally recognized principles and norms of international law” and jus cogens]. Lex Russica, 2018, No. 12 (145), pp. 37—47. (In Russian).

2. Istolinov A. S. Normy jus cogens v resheniyakh mezhdunarodnykh i natsionalnykh sudov [Norms of jus cogens in decisions of international and national courts]. Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal [Russian Juridical Journal]. 2014. no. 6 (99). рр. 7—14. (In Russian).

3. Krasikov D. V., Lipkina N. N. Мzaimodeystvie mezhdunarodnogo i vnutrigosudarstvennogo prava v sfere prav cheloveka v kontekste printsipa subsidiarnosti : monografiya [Interaction between international and domestic human rights law in the context of the principle of subsidiarity: A monograph]. Saratov, Saratov State Law Academy Publishing House , 2014. 188 p. (In Russian)

4. Krasikov D. V. institut obstoyatelstv, isklyuchayushchikh protivopravnost deyaniya, i normy mezhdunarodnogo prava o pravakh cheloveka: parametry vzaimodeystviya [The institution of circumstances precluding wrongfulness and international human rights law: parameters of interaction]. Vestnik Povolzhskogo instituta upravleniya [Bulletin of the Volga Region Institute of Administration]. 2018, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 115—122. (In Russian).

5. Krasikov D. V. soglasie kak obstoyatelstvo, isklyuchayushchee mezhdunarodnuyu protivopravnost deyaniya: normativnye riski i potentsial dlya obespecheniya prav cheloveka [Consent as a circumstance precluding the international wrongfulness of an act: Normative risks and potential for ensuring human rights]. Bisnes. Obrazovanie. Pravo [Business. Education. Law]. 2018. No. 4 (45). pp. 308—312. (In Russian).

6. Sazonova K. L. Obyazatelstva erga omnes i normy jus cogens v mezhdunarodnom prave: kontseptualnoe oformlenie i pravoprimenitelnaya praktika [Obligations erga omnes and jus cogens norms in international law: Conceptual formalization and law enforcement practice]. Gosudarstvo i pravo [The State and Law]. 2014. No. 11. рр. 72—79. (In Russian).

7. Araujo R. Sovereignty, Human Rights, and Self-Determination: The Meaning of International Law // Fordham International Law Journal. 2001. Vol. 24. Iss. 5. pp. 1477—1535.

8. Besson S. Community Interests in International Law: Whose Interests Are They and How Should We Best Identify Them? Community Interests Across International Law. Ed. by E. Benvenisti and G. Nolte. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. — 560 p.

9. Boed R. State of Necessity as a Justification for Internationally Wrongful Conduct. Yale Human Rights and Development. 2000. Vol. 3 (1). Article 1. P. 1—43.

10. Cardiel J. L. A., Davis A., Macherel L. Modern Self-Defense: The Use of Force Against Non-Military Threats. Columbia Human Rights Law Abstract. 2018. Vol. 49 (3). Pp. 99—182.

11. Christenson G. A. Jus Cogens: Guarding Interests Fundamental to International Society. Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 28, pp. 585—648.

12. Crawford J. R. Responsibility to the International Community as a Whole. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies. 2001. Vol. 8. Iss. 2. Article 2. P. 303—322.

13. De Wet E. Invoking obligations erga omnes in the twenty-first century: Progressive developments since Barcelona Traction. South African Yearbook of International Law. 2013. Vol. 38. Iss. 1. P. 2—19.

14. De Wet E. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 2006, Vol. 55, pp. 51—76.

15. Focarelli C. International Law as Social Construct: The Struggle for Global Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. 632 p.

16. Johnstone I. The plea of “necessity” in international legal discourse: Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 2005, Vol. 43 (2), pp. 337—388.

17. Sicilianos L.-A. The Classification of Obligations and the Multilateral Dimension of the Relations of International Responsibility. European Journal of International Law, 2002, Vol. 13, pp. 1127—1145.

18. Tanaka Y. Protection of Community Interests in International Law: the Case of the Law of the Sea. Max Planck Yearbook of International Law. 2011, Vol. 15, pp. 329—375.

19. Tzevelekos V. P. Revisiting the Humanisation of International Law: Limits and Potential: Obligations Erga Omnes, Hierarchy of Rules and the Principle of Due Diligence as the Basis for Further Humanisation. Erasmus Law Abstract. 2013. No. 6. pp. 62—76.

20. Tzevelekos V. P., Lixinski L. Towards a Humanized International “Constitution”? Leiden Journal of International Law. 2016. No. 29 (2). P. 343—364.

21. Vidmar J. The Use of Force as a Plea of Necessity. American Journal of International Law (Unbound). 2017. Vol. 111. pp. 302—306.

22. Villalpando S. The Legal Dimension of the International Community: How Community Interests Are Protected in International Law. The European Journal of International Law. 2010. Vol. 21. No. 2. P. 387—419.

23. Zemanek K. New Trends in the Enforcement of erga omnes Obligations. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law. 2000. no. 4. pp. 1—52.