National Institute of Business Management

Chennai - 020

SECOND SEMESTER EMBA/MBA

Subject : International Law

Attend any 4 questions. Each question carries 25 marks

(Each answer should be of minimum 2 pages / of 300 words)

3. Explain common law and equity systems of law.

Common Law
Common law often refers to laws that are based on the
customs and principles of society, which are used in court case
decisions in situations not covered by civil law statutes. These
decisions set a precedent that must be applied to future cases on the
same subject.
While the term common law is used to refer to principles
applied to court decisions, a common law system refers to a legal
system that places great weight on judicial decisions made in prior
similar cases. In the United States, common law, or precedent, is
used to help ensure similar results in similar cases. Courts are bound
by the decisions of higher courts on similar matters, by a principle of
“stare decisis.” If the court determines a case to be fundamentally
different from prior cases heard by other courts, its decision is likely
to create precedent for future cases on that subject.
History of Common Law
Common law is a term that was originally used in the 12th
century, during the reign of Henry II of England. The ruler
established secular tribunals, with the goal of establishing a unified
system of deciding legal matters. The King’s judges in these
tribunals respected the decisions of one another, such decisions
creating a unified “common” law throughout England. The
precedent set by the courts through the 12th and 13th centuries were
often based on tradition and custom, and became known as a
“common law” system.
 Common law in the United States dates back to the arrival of
the colonists, who brought with them the system of law with which
they were most familiar. Following the American Revolution, the
newly formed states adopted their own forms of common law,
separate from the federal law.
Systems of Common Law vs. Civil Statutory Law
Systems of common law and civil statutory law differ in many
ways. Rulings in a common law system rely heavily on prior
decisions made in similar cases. Rulings in a statutory law system
are based primarily statutory laws. This makes the method by which
laws are developed and enacted. While common laws develop over
time as judicial decisions are made, and used in future decisions,
they generally do not become statutory laws enforceable by law
enforcement or enforcement agencies. It takes time for the influence
of common laws to spread and become common knowledge.
Statutory laws, on the other hand, rely on the legislative
process, in which laws and ordinances are developed and voted on
by representatives of the people. Once these new laws go into effect,
they are enforceable by law enforcement or governmental agencies,
and the letter of the law is usually applied in court. Because common
law is based on judicial opinion, parties to a civil lawsuit may draw
comparisons between precedent-setting cases. Statutory law does not
allow for comparisons. For example, civil statutory laws govern such
things as deadlines and statutes of limitations, allowed monetary
damages, and sentencing.
Many countries rely on either the common law system, or a
civil statutory law system. In the United States, the judicial system is
a combination of the two, with statutory laws being applied where
appropriate, while requiring the courts to adhere to precedent in
determining cases not governed by statute.
Federal Common Law
The use of common law by federal courts is limited to
deciding federal cases. While, in certain circumstances, federal court
may have jurisdiction to hear a case under state law (known as
“diversity jurisdiction”), it cannot create or apply federal common
law or precedent to deciding a state law case. Rather, a federal judge
hearing such a case must turn to state law precedent.
Equity System of Law
When looking for a general understanding of the word equity,
the Oxford dictionary describes it as ‘the quality of being fair and
impartial’. This arguably is too vague a definition for legal purposes
and gives a personal characteristic explanation, making equity seem
as a way to be, not something society wants to achieve.

A legal definition from the Oxford dictionary describes equity

as ‘a branch of law that developed alongside common law and is
concerned with fairness and justice, formerly administered in special
courts’. Arguably this definition is clearer, it explains equity as
something legal but again is comparing equity to something else,
justice and fairness. This definition is unable to show equity as its
own entity. An additional definition which was found from a
political dictionary is that ‘equity is a sub-system of English and
related legal systems, derived partly from principles of natural
justice, and partly from the peculiar historical circumstances which
had led to the adoption of those and related principles by the court of
chancery in England’. This quote again has links to justice, but is
unclear with reference to ‘principles’.
After looking at the different types of definition, the issue that
they all possess is that they all have very close ties to justice, making
the definition of equity itself very confusing. It should not be
forgotten that this is only a legal definition and that equity relates to
many other issues, such as health, and not just the law. However, for
legal reasoning these definitions have too many or too little
meanings. How can definitions based on ‘principles’ be sufficient,
when someone reading them may not be aware of what the
‘principles of natural justice’ actually are? This would not allow for
a clear understanding, causing inaccuracies. If equity is something
that is meant to be universally understood because it can be used by
society, the definition needs to make sure that individuals can
understand it.
Another example of how hard equity is to define can be seen
from the Fordham Law Review of 1951. Oleck and his views on
equity’s definition are central to this argument. He starts by saying
that ‘the general view is that the term has too many shades of
meaning to be described as definitively one’. This quote supports the
above argument that there are too many definitions and, if the
definitions used so far are generally found to be insufficient, how
would one ever find the answer to what is equity and be suitable for
all understandings. However, there have been suggestions as to how
to move away from the confusion with definition. Oleck expressed
another point that ‘it is intended that such a definition be suggestive
rather than precise and invite inquiry rather than answer it’. After
seeing that current definitions are not sufficient to explain equity,
Oleck’s explanation of keeping the definition open is one way of
avoiding this. It can be argued to go even further to support the ever
changing legal structure and understanding of today’s society. In
contrast, all the above evidence can be argued to suggest that equity
is not something that is going to be able to be defined due to its close
ties to the other principles, meaning the answer to what is equity lies
in one of its principles.
Equity is understood by others as a better form of justice due
to giving a specific judgement. Equity can be understood generally
as justice and fairness. Arguably this can only be achieved if there is
certainty within the law, as without the strict rules of law there
would not be universal justice and fairness. However, it was and still
is evitable that the law will in some cases give ‘unfair’ outcomes and
this is where the concept of conscience would be enforced.
When assessing what is equity, all readings and materials
around the subject demonstrate that equity has a direct link to
conscience, justice, and fairness. It was suggested as far back as
1452 ‘that we are to argue conscience here not the law’. Therefore it
is important to see if equity is conscience and what the difference is
between the three principles. Conscience has been found to mean ‘a
person’s awareness or right or wrong with regard to his or her own
thoughts and actions’, making conscience the action which allows
judges to deal with the issue, whereby justice and fairness may be
seen as the end result and aim of the law and more so equity as a
whole.
 However, the issues with the idea of conscience and equity are
found in the definition and application. Various arguments have
been fought on how it can be defined when arguably everyone has a
different conscience. This issue can be first seen when looking at the
historical use of conscience in the equity courts. The early
chancellors only had to use their conscience to make decisions,
meaning all judges were not subject to any law and could use their
conscience. Yet arguably as all the men held the same views and
were of the same religion, there was a sense of consistency among
the decisions. Although when men with a more legal background
were to take over it was argued that ‘one judges perception of right
or wrong deferred from another’ and this was where issues started to
occur with the distribution of equity.
The historical changes in chancellors, principles, and
understanding have somewhat changed the understanding of
conscience. Nevertheless there is argument which shows how ‘there
would be hardly any consistency of value judgements between
various religions’, an argument which goes against the judges using
their own views as conscience because of the current complex and
modern society we find ourselves in.
It has also been argued that because equity and conscience are
there to stop unconscionable results, equity could also have a moral
basis. And to soften and mollify extremity of the law’. The moral
basis here is that equity’s aim is to stop people doing wrong and
taking an unfair advantage of situations; this moral basis is now
shown through equitable maxims such as ‘equity acts in personam’.
Moreover from Lord Ellesmere’s quote it can be argued that equity
is more concerned with society’s actions. This means that equity is
more concerned with what societies do as being morally incorrect,
rather than the thought process, their conscience, which follows.
Equity focuses on what is morally right from wrong within the eyes
of the law, whereas the law states what is legally right from wrong.
One may feel it can be seen that the answer to what is equity is, in
fact, conscience. The eyes of the law are human eyes. The law is
made, interpreted and put into action by the legislature, so arguably
what society sees or understands as wrong, whatever conscience the
judiciary holds or uses through the maxims, would be would equity
is. Equity would not suffice without the recognition of someone’s
wrongful thoughts or actions, therefore making conscience the
defining principle of equity.
The Relationship Between Common Law and Equity
Common law was originally based on the customs and
traditions that governed England, and the royal courts were in charge
of ensuring the proper administration of these laws. Other countries
such as United States, Australia and New Zealand adopted common
law in their country’s legal system after gaining their independence
from England. The law of equity is a set of rules created by the
courts of Chancery in order to mitigate the harshness that the
common law system provided to the country. There is a certain
relationship between the common law and equity.
Emergence of Equity
The Courts of Chancery introduced the law of equity in order
to fill in the gaps of law that common law failed to address. In
addition, equity sought to avail a kind of flexibility in the law
because the common law presented a rigid system where writs
governed the system of judgment. Equity is fair and just rule and
looked into availing fair judgment to individuals based on the rules
that governed equity and the particular circumstances of the case.
Differences in Remedies
The common law availed only monetary remedies when
addressing grievances brought forward by the parties of a case in
order to determine which party can claim victory of a case. This
limited the ability of the courts of law to address other issues that fell
outside the scope of monetary compensation.
The law of equity brought about a system where the judges
weighed the particulars of the case to determine whether to avail a
remedy in terms of damages or provide a remedy that did not border
on financial grounds, such as an injunction, thus boosting the
remedies available to parties.
Development of Precedent
The judges in the common law system declared the substance
of the law when they made decisions regarding the different cases of
law. The judges in the Chancery Courts who administered the rules
of equity brought about the system of judge-made law, which is
based on precedents. The judges look into previous judgments made
in order to direct the presentation of justice in another case with
similar facts. The system of judge-made law developed over the
years even after the merger of common law and equity to form the
common law that stands today.
Merger of Common Law and Equity
The Judicature Acts led to a merger of both common law and
equity in the 19th century. This conflict between common law courts
and Chancery courts boosted this move because the judgments given
in the two courts would at times conflict. In addition, the law of
equity in itself was not a fully established system of law because it
only acted as a remedy when the common law failed to address
certain legal issues. The merger incorporated the principles of both
common law and equity in order to avail a more wholesome system
of judgment.

4. The philosophy of law is known as jurisprudence. Explain.

Philosophy of law, also called jurisprudence, is a branch

of philosophy that investigates the nature of law, especially in its
relation to human values, attitudes, practices, and
political communities. Traditionally, philosophy of law proceeds
by articulating and defending propositions about law that are general
and abstract—i.e., that are true not of a specific legal system at a
particular time (e.g., the United Kingdom in 1900) but of all legal
systems in the present or perhaps of all laws at all times. Philosophy
of law often aims to distinguish law from other systems of norms,
such as morality (see ethics) or other social conventions. Views
about the nature of law often depend upon, and occasionally have
contributed to, answers to some of the most-fundamental
philosophical questions—for example, regarding the foundations of
morality, justice, and rights; the nature of
human action and intention; the relations between social practices
and values; the nature of knowledge and truth; and the justification
of political rule (see political philosophy). The philosophy of law is
therefore an integral part of philosophy more generally.

General Considerations
Whereas law as a means of governance of human communities
dates back to at least 3000 BCE in ancient Egypt, sustained and
systematic philosophical reflection on its nature for which there is
surviving evidence began only in the late 5th century BCE in ancient
Greeceand nearby areas of the Mediterranean, not long after the birth
of Western philosophy itself. From that point onward, a more or less
continuous history of such reflection can be traced up to the present
day. As is true with the history of philosophy more generally, one
can observe over the centuries changes not only in the theories set
forth but also in the central questions about law that such theories
were meant to answer.
Although every philosophical theory is in part a product of the
time, place, and culture in which it is developed, the philosophy of
law is parochial in an additional sense. Philosophical speculation
about the nature of law not only is very often shaped by the politics
of the time and place of a given theorist but is also carried on with a
specific sort of legal system and legal culture in view. The latter fact
is important, as the kinds of legal systems in Europe and the
Anglophone world have varied widely through the last several
millennia. Although the shape and structure of those systems cannot
be discussed in any detail here, it should nonetheless be noted that
a robust understanding of each of the major theories and texts in the
history of philosophy of law requires some acquaintance with the
legal systems of the cities and states in which a given theory was
developed. For example, the centrepiece of the legal system of
Aristotle’s Athens was a representative legislative body,
the Ecclesia, in which a wide variety of political disputes were
debated and addressed by statute, while its court system was, though
important, very rudimentary by modern standards (it was governed
by largely customary procedural rules and administered by ordinary
citizens, as there were no judges, lawyers, or other legal
professionals during that period). As a result, Aristotle theorized
about law primarily on the model of general rules of action enacted
by legislation and revisable by direct vote or other plebiscitary
means. To take a different example, starting in the 17th century
many British (and later other Anglophone) philosophers of law
argued for the central importance of judicial institutions for the very
existence of a legal system and debated the idea of legal reasoning as
a distinct sort of deliberative activity. More recently, increasing
attention has been paid to the related question of how the language
of the law is to be correctly interpreted. Some theorists, beginning in
the early 20th century, even found it fruitful to think about the nature
of law primarily from the point of view of legal professionals such
as judges or lawyers. That development is surely to be at least partly
explained by the fact that those theorists reflected on law almost
exclusively within advanced common law systems—i.e., those legal
systems found throughout the Anglophone world (and now beyond)
in which specially trained lawyers argue on behalf of the interests of
clients in court and elsewhere and in which judges often play a
quasi-legislative role in fashioning legal rules in the form of
precedents, which are binding on later courts for the purposes of
deciding future cases.
Ancient Greece
The abstract concept of law is acknowledged, though not
discussed, in the poems of Homer and Hesiod in the 8th–7th
century BCE. In the Greek histories and literature of the 6th and 5th
centuries BCE, however, one finds the first articulation of ideas
about law that have had enduring influence in the West: that law is a
kind of command or prohibition with regard to what its subjects
ought to do and that law is often accompanied by at least the threat
of punishment or coercion by the state. Herodotus (born about
484 BCE), in his History of the Greco-Persian Wars, records
a Spartan king remarking to the king of Persiathat the Greeks “are
free, yet not wholly free; law is their master, whom they fear much
more than your men fear you. They do whatever it bids.” The
historian Xenophon (c. 430–c.350 BCE) relates in his Memorabilia a
likely apocryphal conversation between a young Alcibiades and his
guardian, the great Athenian statesman Pericles, in which the latter
declares that “whatever the sovereign power of the state, having
deliberated, enacts and directs to be done is known as law” and
denies that mere compulsion exerted by a tyrant is sufficient to
qualify as law. The great dramatist Sophocles, in his
tragedy Antigone, first made salient the important idea that the
requirements of law and morality may conflict. In the play, King
Creon orders the body of Antigone’s brother to remain unburied as a
posthumous punishment for treason. Out of familial duty, Antigone
flouts the order and buries the body, thereby herself risking
punishment by death. She rejects the king’s legal authority, saying
that even he “could not override the unwritten and unfailing laws
given us by the gods.”
But it is Plato (428/427–348/347 BCE), writing during the
decline of the Athenian empire, who was the first to advance
philosophical claims about the nature of law. The relevant Greek
term, nomos, varied widely in meaning across contexts, often
referring simply to convention or practice. But by Plato’s time it had
acquired the more-specific sense of a statute or a proclaimed or
written directive that established a standard for human action. In
his dialogue Crito, Plato fictionally cast his teacher, Socrates,
imprisoned and sentenced to death (for impiety and corrupting the
young), as faced with a choice between accepting the death
penalty and escaping, thereby disobeying the law. In the dialogue
Socrates makes the provocative argument, on behalf of the laws of
Athens, that since he has received the benefits and protections of
living under law for his entire life and has never left the city out of
protest, he is obligated either to obey its laws or to persuade the state
that they should not be enforced against him. Since he has failed (at
his trial) in the latter task, he must respect the laws by obeying their
commands, regardless of their content.
Aristotle was also the first to articulate what has come to be
known as the ideal of the rule of law. He shared the common Greek
view that, as a general principle, law had a share in eternal divine
wisdom. As such, it was an instrument by which to constrain the
exercise of political power, particularly that of tyrants, whose
policies represented only their own interests and not the good of the
community. On the (even by then) age-old debate as to whether the
best law or the best person should rule a city, Aristotle’s position
was clear: “He who asks law to rule is asking God and intelligence
and no others to rule, while he who asks for the rule of a human
being is importing a wild beast too.…Law is intelligence without
appetite.”
Rome And The Middle Ages
Although many aspects of ancient Greek culture had
continuing influence throughout the Roman Empire from the 1st
century BCE onward, law was not one of them. The Romans
established new legal forms and institutions as well as the first legal
professionals and administrators. Roman jurists developed the
first form of what would later be called “legal science,” and a
new genre of legal writing was invented in service of this discipline,
in which jurists would collect and organize Roman law according to
complex taxonomies. This practice culminated in the Digest
(Digesta), assembled by the Byzantine emperor Justinian I (reigned
527–565 CE), a work that eventually served as the basis of many
modern legal systems of western Europe. But whereas Greek
law faded in influence, the Greek legacy in the philosophy of law
was to endure for several centuries, extending through the Middle
Ages, during which there were many refinements and extensions of
Greek themes and ideas, particularly within the Christian tradition.
The Roman jurist and philosopher Cicero (106–
43 BCE) articulated the first, and some would say
definitive, conception of what is called “natural law.” Although
Cicero was a legal practitioner and was versed in the positive
(human-enacted) law of the Roman state, he sought to situate it in
relation to what he considered objective moral truths, which he also
called “laws” (thus the tendency of many writers up to the present
day to refer to timeless moral truths as “natural law”).
The Early Modern Period (1600–1800) Command and common-
law theories of law
From the late European Renaissance to the end of the 18th
century, philosophical debates about the nature of law grew and
diversified considerably, involving theorists from England and
across continental Europe. There were two major thematic
developments during that period. First was the development of the
view, first articulated in ancient Greece and developed to some
extent by Aquinas, that law should be understood on the model of a
command, given by a superior to an inferior, the issuance of which
made certain actions obligatory for the rational addressee
(and putative subject). Second, starting in the 1620s, there emerged
in England an increasingly sophisticated defense of the idea that at
the foundation of law was custom, exemplified by the common
law of England. These “common law theorists” have had an
enduring impact on Western philosophy of law up to the present day.
The 19th Century
Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) is one of the great philosophers
of law in the Western tradition, but his legacy is unusual and is in
fact still developing. He remains one of the most analytically
rigorous and insightful philosophers ever to write about the nature of
law, but much of his writing was, upon his death, unpublished—and
indeed unread until the mid-20th century. A much-simplified version
of his philosophy of law was presented by the English jurist John
Austin (1790–1859), which in turn helped set the agenda for
important work in the 20th century.
Philosophy Of Law From The Early 20th Century
The 20th century was very much the century of legal
positivism: the two preeminent figures in the philosophy of law, the
Austrian-born jurist Hans Kelsen (1881–1973) and the English legal
theorist H.L.A. Hart (1907–92), both developed influential versions
of a positivist theory of the nature of law. Defenders of antipositivist
views, such as the American constitutional lawyer Ronald
Dworkin (1931–2013) and the Australian Thomist John Finnis,
developed their views by way of response, in particular to Hart. At
the same time, Hart’s most-prominent student and the most-
influential figure in late 20th-century philosophy of law, Joseph Raz,
worked within the positivist framework, developing distinctive
positions growing out of both Kelsen and Hart. During the same
period, there also emerged “realist” schools of legal philosophy—
one in Scandinavia and one in the United States—that were basically
positivist in orientation but were concerned with very different
philosophical (in the case of the Scandinavians) and practical (in the
case of the Americans) questions from those considered by Kelsen
and Hart.
Conclusion
Law, as a central feature of most developed human societies,
has been an object of philosophical reflection since the beginning
of Western philosophy in ancient Greece. In the 21st century, its
concerns continued to be shaped by the major figures of the modern
era—especially Hobbes, Bentham, Hart, and Kelsen—and the
schools of realist jurisprudence. Whether new paradigms in
legal philosophy will emerge, marking a break from the themes of
the modern era, will ultimately depend on how law and legal
institutions evolve in the future.

5. What are Environmental right? Explains.

Environmental rights means any proclamation of a human
right to environmental conditions of a specified quality.
Human rights and the environment are intertwined; human
rights cannot be enjoyed without a safe, clean and healthy
environment; and sustainable environmental governance cannot exist
without the establishment of and respect for human rights. This
relationship is increasingly recognised yet paradoxically
environmental rights are increasingly violated.
Environmental rights are composed of substantive rights
(fundamental rights) and procedural rights (tools used to achieve
substantial rights).
Substantive Rights
Substantive are those in which the environment has a direct
effect on the existence or the enjoyment of the right itself.
Substantive rights comprise of: civil and political rights, such as the
rights to life, freedom of association and freedom from
discrimination; economic and social rights such as rights to
health, food and an adequate standard of living; cultural rightssuch
as rights to access religious sites; and collective rights affected by
environmental degradation, such as the rights of indigenous peoples.
Procedural Rights
Procedural rights prescribe formal steps to be taken in
enforcing legal rights. Procedural rights include rights to
access information, participate in decision-making, and access
justice.
These rights are found in both environmental and human rights
instruments and have been interpreted under both regimes to provide
broad protections for environmental interests. UN Environment
seeks to highlight the importance of the human rights obligations
related to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, sustainable and healthy
environment. 
Concerning human rights law, there are numerous human
rights treaties, bodies and declarations. Within this, there are human
rights, and their laws, that relate to the environment. A basic
compilation of these environmental rights is listed below
Substantive Rights
• To a safe,clean, healthy and sustainable environment.
• To protection against discrimination and have equal protection
of the law, in relation to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy
and sustainable environment.
• To freedom from threats, harassment, intimidation and
violence whilst working on human rights and the environment.
• To freedom of expression and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers.
• To freedom of association and peaceful assembly in relation to
environmental matters.
• To self-determination; to freely determine your political status
and freely pursue your economic, social and cultural
development.
• To, for your own ends, freely dispose of your natural wealth
and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out
 of international economic co-operation, based upon the
principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case
may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
• To not be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
• To not be subjected to arbitrary interference with your privacy,
family or home.
Procedural Rights
• To seek, receive, and impart environmental information.
• To participate in public decision-making about environmental
matters.
• To equal access to public service in his country
• To effective legal remedies for violations of these rights.   
• To be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for arrest
and shall be promptly informed of any charges against one.
• To be brought promptly before a judge or other officer
authorized by law to exercise judicial power, after arrest, and
shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release.
It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall
be detained in custody, but release may be subject to
guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial
proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the
judgement.
• To compensation after unlawful arrest or detention

State Obligations
States have an obligation to protect environmental rights. This
involves ensuring the provision of the above rights as well as
the obligations:
• To require the prior assessment of the possible environmental
and human rights impacts of policies and projects.
• To ensure that they comply with their obligations to
indigenous peoples and members of traditional communities.
• To ensure the effective enforcement of their environmental
standards against public and private actors.
Private Sector Obligations
Business have a responsibility to respect environmental
rights. This means that they should avoid infringing on the human
rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts
with which they are involved. This includes the obligations:
• To develop policies that respect environmental rights
• To undertake due dilligence processes to identify, prevent,
mitigate and account for how they address their impacts on
human rights
• To create processes to enable the remediation of any adverse
human rights impacts that they cause or to which they
contribute
Children's Rights and the Environment
No group is more vulnerable to environmental harm than
children. Air pollution, water pollution and exposure to toxic
substances, together with other types of environmental harm, cause
1.5 million deaths of children under the age of 5 every year, and
contribute to disease, disability and early mortality throughout their
life. In addition, climate change and the loss of biodiversity threaten
to cause long-term effects that will blight children’s lives for years to
come. Making matters worse, children are often not able to exercise
their rights, including their rights to information, participation and
access to effective remedies. States must do more to respect, protect
and fulfil the rights of children in relation to environmental harm.
To that end, the Special Rapporteur with the assistance of UN
Environment, Queen’s University Belfast, and Terre des Hommes,
have produced this child-friendly resource in all UN languages
which describes the effects of environmental harm on the rights of
children as well as human rights obligations relating to the
protection of children and future generations from environmental
harm.

6. Explain International Human Rights Law and organizations.

International Human Rights Law
International human rights law, which applies at all times
including during situations of emergency and conflict, sets out the
basic protections that all individuals are entitled to. It is the duty of
states to respect, ensure and fulfill these rights.
 International human rights law is the body of international law
intended to promote and protect human rights at the international
and domestic levels.
As a form of international law, international human rights law
is primarily made up of treaty law - legally binding agreements
between State parties - and customary international law - rules of
law derived from the consistent practice of States. While
international treaties and customary law form the mainstay of
international human rights law, other instruments, such as
declarations, guidelines and principles adopted at the international
level contribute to its understanding, implementation and
development.
Enforcement
Enforcement of international human rights law can occur at
either a domestic or an international level. States that ratify human
rights treaties commit to respecting, protecting and fulfilling those
rights, and ensuring that their domestic law is compatible with
international standards. When domestic law fails to provide a
remedy for human rights abuses, injured parties may be able to
resort to international mechanisms for remedy.
International human rights law and international humanitarian
law. International human rights law is closely related to, but distinct
from international humanitarian law. They are complimentary since
the substantive norms they contain are often similar or related.
However, international human rights law applies at all times,
including during situations of emergency and conflict. International
humanitarian law is a legal regime that only applies to armed
conflicts, including occupation, when both legal regimes apply in
tandem.
Modern development of human rights
Modern international human rights law has developed since
the drafting of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR), in December 1948. Drafted as ‘a common standard
of achievement for all peoples and nations', the Declaration spells
out civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights that all
human beings are entitled to. It has been widely accepted as
providing the fundamental norms of human rights that everyone
should respect and protect.
The UDHR, together with the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its two Optional Protocols, and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR), form the International Bill of Human Rights.
Since 1945, a series of international human rights treaties and
other instruments have been adopted, conferring legal form on
inherent human rights and further developing the body of
international human rights. These include:
• The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide (CPCG);
• The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (CSR);
• The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (CERD);
• The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW);
• The United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT);
• The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC);
• The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights
of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families
(ICRMW);
• The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(CRPD);
• The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons
from Enforced Disappearance (ICCPED).
In addition to the International Bill of Rights and the core
human rights treaties listed above, there are many other universal
instruments relating to human rights. A non-exhaustive selection can
be found here.
State obligations and procedure
International human rights law prescribes obligations which
states are bound to respect. Through ratification of international
human rights treaties, governments undertake to put into place
domestic measures and legislation compatible with their treaty
obligations. By becoming parties to international treaties, states
assume obligations and duties under international law to respect,
protect and fulfill human rights. 
The obligation to respect means that states must refrain from
interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human rights. The
obligation to protect requires states to protect individuals and groups
against human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfill means that
states must take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic
human rights.
Monitoring mechanisms
In order to monitor the compliance of states with their
obligations, the United Nations system has created mechanisms that
examine state parties' compliance with the specific treaty
obligations. These mechanisms include the Human Rights
Council and bodies created under the international human rights
treaties that consist of independent experts. The majority of these
bodies receive secretariat support from the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Similar mechanisms do
not exisit for the monitoring of compliance with international
humanitarian law.
Human rights council 
The Human Rights Council is composed of 47 elected United
Nations Member States, empowered to prevent abuses, inequity and
discrimination, protect the most vulnerable, and expose the
perpetrators of human rights violations. The Council established
Special Procedures (or mechanisms) to address either specific
country situations or thematic issues across the globe. Special
Procedures are either an individual –a special rapporteur or
representative, or independent expert—or a working group. They are
prominent, independent experts working on a voluntary basis and are
appointed by the Human Rights Council. There are currently 30
thematic mandates and eight country mandates. All report to the
Human Rights Council on their findings and recommendations.
Human rights treaty bodies
There are currently ten human rights treaty
bodies - committees of independent experts - created in accordance
with the provisions of the treaty that they monitor. Nine of these
treaty bodies monitor implementation of the core international
human rights treaties while the tenth treaty body, the Subcommittee
on Prevention of Torture, established under the Optional Protocol to
the Convention against Torture, monitors places of detention in state
parties to the Optional Protocol.
Additionally, there are several other United Nations bodies
which are concerned with the promotion and protection of human
rights.
Regional monitoring and enforcement mechanisms
Beyond the UN system, there are regional systems of
international human rights law that complement national and
international human rights law by protecting and promoting human
rights in specific areas of the world. There are three key regional
human rights instruments: the African Charter on Human and
Peoples' Rights; The American Convention on Human Rights; and
the European Convention on Human Rights.