THE RIGHT TO HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE

Alberto do Amaral Jr.1

INTRODUCTION
The 21st century has witnessed profound changes in contemporary international relations. Both the
advent of the globalization process and the end of the cold war brought about many transformations leading
to the crisis of Westphalia order. The distribution of power among States, authority relationships between
collective organizations and individuals, and the analytical capacity of citizens have been radically altered,
and result in an entirely new international scenario. Such a vast and complex process of change has
undermined State sovereignty. Domestic and international organizations have increasingly absorbed a
number of State prerogatives. With the sovereignty crisis, human rights deprivations are no longer a matter
of domestic jurisdiction exclusively.
A series of treaties have progressively withdrawn human rights from the internal domain of States.
Criteria for establishing State jurisdiction in that field depends on International Law determinations. In
addition, the revolution in communications quickly spreads information about tortures, massacres and
genocide against ethnic minorities and political opponents. The international public space of human rights
was formed across national borders, and unites human beings around a set of values. It cannot be denied
that, in most cases, particular interests have influenced the policies of great powers towards the protection
of human rights. Despite the remaining selectivity, there is some consensus around essential values previous
to structuring social life in every culture. Initiatives of intercultural dialogue focus on that point. A great
number of organizations have been instituted to protect human rights on an international scale. NGOs are
1

Professor of International Law at the University of So Paulo, Brazil.

VI-1

Panel 6: Fundamental Rights and Punishment

a vivid expression of a new transnational process which exemplify the so-called communities of
responsibility that cross national borders.
The end of the cold war afforded the establishment of the right to humanitarian assistance. On
December 8, 1988, The UN General Assembly approved Resolution 43-131 regulating delivery of
humanitarian assistance to victims of natural disasters and similar situations. Two years later, on December
14, 1990, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 45-100 to make the access to victims of
humanitarian crises easier. Such measures, unthinkable some decades before, gave a new dimension to the
nonintervention principle. Great humanitarian tragedies happened in the early 90s. The civil war in Liberia,
Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda, the persecution to Kurdish rebels and democratic leaders in Haiti motivated
the UN Security Council to adopt Resolution 45-100 to provide humanitarian assistance to victims of
armed conflicts. I argue that the right to humanitarian assistance has a customary nature meaning that neither
the State where a conflict occurs nor neighboring States can prevent access to victims.
In the early 90s, The UN Security Council interpreted massive violations of human rights resulting
from internal conflicts as a threat to international peace and security. In that case, the Security Council
is entitled to resort to force to ensure protection to victims. In doing so, it has recognized a strong bind
between domestic life and international affairs. Most conflicts with destabilizing effects to international order
are rooted domestically and spread to neighboring countries. The ever-increasing flows of refugees may
endanger regional stability. Since its beginnings, International Law has provided rules of coexistence among
States. The activity of the Security Council in recent humanitarian tragedies has pointed out the need to

VI-2

Alberto do Amaral, Jr., The Right to Humanitarian Assistance

establish rules of coexistence among ethnic groups and warring factions within a State. Those conflicts may
become pervasive and jeopardize international peace and stability.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The post-World-War-II period was characterized by a process of multiplication and worldwide
dissemination of human rights. According to Bobbio, this expansion occurred in three different ways. Social
and political rights arose as a consequence of the development of the Welfare State. While the rights of
freedom required that the State only ensure basic social life conditions, social and economic rights
demanded State intervention in order to distribute the wealth generated by economic development.
Secondly, not only a single individual but also other such groups as families, ethnic and religious minorities,
and even Humanity as a whole were entitled to rights, a noticeable fact as to the rights of future generations.
With regard to the third process, man was seen in his specificity, and classified on the basis of multiple
criteria of differentiation, such as sex, age and physical conditions. Each of those aspects shows particular
differences which cannot be dealt with on an equal basis ( 1 ).
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted on December 10, 1948, began a period of
worldwide dissemination of human rights. For the first time in history, most States accepted a fundamental
principle system. Not only citizens of a single State but also all men indiscriminately are entitled to such
rights. Moreover, the establishment of human rights on an international plane indicated that they ought to
be protected against every sort of violation, rather than being merely proclaimed.
Alexy asserts that human rights have five major characteristics:
VI-3

Panel 6: Fundamental Rights and Punishment

1.

Universality. Human rights are universal as regards their subjects. Human beings

are the only subjects who are competent to enjoy them. As opposed to Alexy, I believe
that there are not many plausible reasons for not conferring on groups and communities the
condition of subjects deserving human rights.
2.

Human rights are moral rights. Alexy contends that the moral validity of human

rights is independent of their acknowledgement by a legal norm. Validity of a moral norm

providing them is the only requisite demanded. The moral validity of a norm occurs
when rational justifications for everyone who accepts them may be offered. Human rights
are moral rights when they may be rationally justified to every single person.
3.

Human rights are preferential rights. Moral rights imply a right to be protected by

a legal system. There is, in effect, a moral right claiming the protection of human rights.
The safeguard of human rights gives legitimacy to a particular legal order. That fact shows
the priority that human rights have as compared to other rights.
4.

Human rights are fundamental rights. Human rights encompass both interests and

needs essential to human beings. Such interests and needs must be truly important to
deserve a legal guarantee. Alexy asserts that interests and needs are fundamental because
if they are not fulfilled, death or serious human suffering jeopardizing individual autonomy
ensues. Both classical liberal rights and social rights belong to that category.
5.

Human rights are abstract rights. The abstract nature of human rights demand some

VI-4

Alberto do Amaral, Jr., The Right to Humanitarian Assistance

sort of limitation to be applied in concrete cases. That situation explains the need to weigh
the rights in conflict and demands instituting juridical instances that can make binding legal
decisions. States, in this context, are required not only to make concrete human rights, but
also to fully put them into effect ( 2 ).
International protection of human rights has experienced considerable progress in the last decades.
Firstly, awareness that protection of human rights does not belong to the internal domain of States has
expanded everywhere ( 3 ). In the past, it was believed that States were the only entities in charge of
safeguarding human rights within a domestic jurisdiction ( 4 ). Vagueness and imprecision of the so-called
internal domain of States contributed to greatly increase government freedom in this field. States defined
the reach of their internal domain depending on their intrinsic interests. Due to possible abuse, international
organizations have claimed the right to set the limits of a States internal domain. Human rights over time
have become the object of international interests transcending national jurisdiction.
New legal instruments that prevent conflicts between national and international jurisdiction have
been responsible for such evolution. Thus, international protection of human rights has assumed a subsidiary
function because it takes place only when States fail in their task to guarantee human rights. Use of all
administrative and judiciary means available is a precondition for an international organization to analyze
a case of human rights violation. Treaties on human rights have very often foreseen rules with the objective
of harmonizing same with a domestic legislation that facilitates government ratification and adherence ( 5
). Clauses restricting or limiting some rights in emergency situations are admitted provided they are
VI-5

Panel 6: Fundamental Rights and Punishment

compatible with the purposes of a treaty. Conventions usually include facultative clauses acknowledging
the competence of supervisory international bodies to examine individual or State petitions, especially
clauses recognizing compulsory legal court jurisdiction which apply international human rights treaties (
6 ).
Methods introducing human rights have undergone great development in recent years. Individuals
have acquired the capacity to claim rights on an international plane. Any person may address a complaint
to a competent international body against his own State. Interstate petitions are, in turn, means to afford
the implementation of collective guarantees that benefit certain groups. The attribution to act on the part of
supervisory international bodies has enhanced such a system. Reports prepared by those bodies have
helped to put to an end to a number of human rights violations. It is also important to point out that
international courts have resorted to methods to interpret treaties different from those normally employed
to interpret bilateral treaties. Public interest considerations are a guideline for judges to interpret the meaning
of clauses concerning human rights treaties.

The United Nations promoted the Second International Conference on Human Rights in June,1993.
On that occasion, two diverging opinions dominated debates among various delegations. Whilst the US and
other western nations stated the universal scope of human rights, which should be above national
sovereignty, most developing countries, led by China, asserted the relativism of human rights. In this sense,
nations with different levels both of economic development and cultural traditions would have distinct

VI-6

Alberto do Amaral, Jr., The Right to Humanitarian Assistance

conceptions of human rights ( 7 ). The final document of the Conference attempted to take both positions
into account highlighting the universal, indivisible and interdependent nature of human rights. The main points
emphasized in the document were the following:
a) universality of political and civil rights;
b) universality of human rights;
c) the role of nongovernmental organizations in supervising human
rights implementation;
d) mutual responsibility in promoting human rights
e) development is a requirement to preserve democracy.
The process of multiplication and worldwide dissemination of human rights has frequently been
challenged by State power politics which indicates the contrast between the abstract world of rules and the
concrete world of facts. In the post-War II period, the bipolar order that organized international relations
for almost fifty years converted human rights into a conflict between western and eastern blocks. While the
US accused the Soviet Union of disrespecting political and civil freedom, the Soviet leaders pointed out
the relevance of economic and social rights to build a just and humane society. The ideological dispute
prevented the punishment of governments for violations of human rights on the part of the international
community. Economic sanctions imposed on Rhodesia and South Africa were exceptional cases which
occurred only by virtue of a peripheral position of those countries in the international scenario.
Human rights used to be subordinated, in most cases, to the economic and strategic interests of
VI-7

Panel 6: Fundamental Rights and Punishment

great powers. Disparity of treatment in relation to violations of human rights around the world demonstrated
the existence of selective policies that either mobilize efforts to put an end to murders and massacres of
ethnic minorities or exhibit the most profound indifference towards such events. Passiveness of western
countries with regard to selectivity in those matters is explained by an attempt to combine a State
commitment to norms protecting human rights with governmental policies that only give priority to particular
interests. Governments sometimes seek to subordinate concerns with human rights to the cynicism of realist
diplomacy. Diplomatic realism is aimed at increasing State power rather than accomplishing general
interests. Another factor also explains government inaction towards violations of human rights. Some States
are reluctant to take appropriate measures because they fear that such a precedent could be used against
themselves in the future.
Nevertheless, the last decades have witnessed the formation of international space in which human
rights are the object of general interests. Both the cold war and the progress in information technologies
have given birth to the international public space of human rights scrutinizing what occurs within national
borders. Information on violence against civil leaderships, the killing of government opponents, and the
attempt to eliminate ethnic groups circulate instantaneously all over the world. State intimacy is completely
trespassed blurring the distinction between domestic life and international reality ( 8 ). Internationalization
of domestic life is unprecedented in previous historical periods. States are not the only agents of the new
international space of human rights. Nongovernmental organizations, for example, are important actors of
international relations.

VI-8

Alberto do Amaral, Jr., The Right to Humanitarian Assistance

The pressure of nongovernmental organizations has compelled governments to carry out human
right defense policies. Awareness that to safeguard human rights involves sharing responsibilities among
public and private institutions has grown everywhere. Sovereignty is no more a cloak protecting
governments from egregious violations of human rights. The use of nonintervention principles is challenged
to the extent that the right to look on the planet founds the notion of responsibility without borders. In
international life as well in as in domestic life there is an indissoluble bound between human rights,
democracy and peace. With no guarantee of human rights, democracy does not exist, and without
democracy, conditions for settling disputes peacefully are absent. International protection of human rights
may be a valuable instrument to build democracy in a cosmopolitan dimension ( 9 ).
THE SECURITY COUNCIL AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The last decades have shown substantial growth of the UN Security Council. The reason lies not
in the formal modification of the UN Charter, but rather in the lack of clarity as to what international peace
and security refers to. The UN Security Council has discretionary power to appreciate the circumstances
affecting international peace and security, and can establish adequate measures to be applied in specific
situations ( 10 ). As a consequence, over time the Security Council has also assumed the task of defending
human rights in some cases.
The travaux prparatoires of Article 3, VII of the UN Charter indicates that the function of the
Security Council is to solve conflicts that can threaten international peace and security. The Philippines
initially wanted to restrict the reach of Article 39 to war against another nation, and the Greek proposal
VI-9

Panel 6: Fundamental Rights and Punishment

made reference to disputes between two or more countries ( 11 ). Broader suggestions, however, have
been presented in discussions. Norway, appalled by the violence of the civil war in Spain, wished to grant
the Security Council competence to intervene in domestic conflicts ( 12 ). The approval of the Australian
proposal, recognizing as legitimate the clause of internal domain of States, did not invalidate premises
underlying the Norwegian initiative. In some instances, domestic conflicts are in accordance with Article
39, leading the UN to act in such cases.
The French proposal stressed that violation of fundamental human rights and freedom may
constitute a threat to international peace and security. The Australian representative, expressing the
opinion of most States, declared that: if the members of the Organization really desire to give the
Organization the power to protect minorities, their proper course is ... to declare that they recognize the
protection of minorities as a matter of legitimate international and not merely of domestic concern or to
make a formal international convention providing for the proper treatment of minorities ...If such a
declaration were made, or such a convention were drawn up, it would be plain that nothing in the paragraph
proposed by the sponsoring governments would limit the right of the Organization to intervene ( 13 ). This
fact demonstrates that since the UN were originated, peace is conceived in a wider sense encompassing
not only interstate conflicts.
The relationship between violation of human rights and threat to international peace and security
was put into effect to fight against the apartheid policy of the South African government. The General
Assembly regarded that the apartheid policy jeopardized international peace and security. In 1977, the

VI-10

Alberto do Amaral, Jr., The Right to Humanitarian Assistance

Security Council passed Resolution 418 imposing an economic embargo on South Africa ( 14
). That measure was not enough to eliminate the racial discrimination policy of the South African
government. Nonetheless, Resolution 418 clearly showed that domestic issues may threaten international
peace and security. From this point of view it is related to Resolution 232 of December 16, 1966, that
raised an embargo on the sale of weapons to South Rhodesia.
The end of the cold war coincided with a broader role of the Security Council to protect human
rights. From 1988 to 1992, The United Nations organized more peace operations than in the last forty
years. In Namibia, Cambodia and Somalia, the United Nations envisioned to keep and restore peace, and
even to rebuild legal and economic institutions ( 15 ). In the United Nations Charter, peace has both a
structural dimension demanding cooperation among the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Social
and Economic Council and the Secretary General and a conjunctural dimension in which the Security
Council plays a role to maintain international order. The first dimension occurs in the long run through
cooperation among States and international organizations; the second, in turn, presupposes the capacity
of the Security Council to quickly eliminate possible threats to international order ( 16 ).
The recent practice of the Security Council has combined both dimensions of peace. In contrast
with its role in past decades, the Security Council has simultaneously sought to ensure peace and provide
social, economic and political conditions to reestablish domestic order. The legal scope of action of the
Security Council lies in a wide conception of legitimacy of its initiative to execute essential obligations that
States have imposed on them. The novelty in this case is that the Security Council has introduced a wide
VI-11

Panel 6: Fundamental Rights and Punishment

conception of peace in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. A connection was established between
peacekeeping

in a coercive sense and peace-building by promoting human rights and humanitarian

international law ( 16 ).
Besides organizing missions of humanitarian assistance, the Security Council has reacted to massive
violation of human rights calling upon State members to fulfill their international obligations. Initially, the
Security Council urged the States to fulfill obligations deriving from humanitarian international law, and a
number of conventions on human rights. The explicit condemnation of abuse with reference to international
treaties on that matter was the following step. Information gathered by humanitarian international
organizations is now to be sent to the UN Secretary General. Finally, a special committee is in charge of
investigating such facts ( 17 ).
Another innovation in recent years has been the institution of legal instruments to punish abuse of
an individual person in humanitarian crises. Paragraph 10 of Resolution 764 of July 13, 1992, approved
during the Bosnian crisis, referred both to individual responsibility and to massive violations of humanitarian
international law. Resolutions 808 and 827 of 1993 created a special court to judge violations of
humanitarian international law in former Yugoslavia. Resolution 955 of November 8, 1994 instituted a
Special Court for Rwanda with the function of judging war crimes and violations of humanitarian
international law. Both the Tribunal for ex Yugoslavia and the Tribunal for Rwanda are subsidiary bodies
of the Security Council with a judicial nature.
The Security Council centralized competence to punish a number of crimes of a universal nature

VI-12

Alberto do Amaral, Jr., The Right to Humanitarian Assistance

that formerly belonged to national States. The United Nations Charter did not confer direct competence
on the Security Council to protect human rights. That fact explains why measures adopted should be based
on Chapter VII on international peace and security matters. As a representative of the international
community, the Security Council ought to act in the event of risk for international peace and security due
to human rights deprivation. The intervention of the Security Council may be useful to cater to basic needs
of the civil population, to restore domestic order, and to restructure State institutions. This would be an
extreme remedy for egregious violations against human rights. However, the intervention of the Security
Council depends on a few conditions. First of all, violations of human rights must be interpreted as a threat
to international peace and security. Secondly, the international community intervenes only when a State fails
to face the effects of a humanitarian crisis.

THE RIGHT TO HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE

The right to humanitarian assistance, as a product of custom, derived from various Security Council
resolutions in the early 90s. During the 80s, however, political and religious leaders claimed for its
institution. In 1987, French President Franois Mitterrand stated that the right to assist destitute people in
humanitarian crises is a moral duty above any other State right ( 18 ). In 1981, the Jordanian ambassador
at the United Nations sent a proposal to the UN Secretary General establishing a new humanitarian
international order on the basis of principles formulated by Prince Hassin Bin Talal. The Jordanian proposal
criticized humanitarian international law on the grounds that it is applied only to armed conflicts and not to
VI-13

Panel 6: Fundamental Rights and Punishment

natural and industrial humanitarian catastrophes.

A new humanitarian international order needs to be expressed in a code of conduct that
international institutions would apply. Resolution 37/201 of UN General Assembly instituted

an

Independent Commission on Humanitarian International Issues in 1983. Such Commission concluded that
humanitarian international law had some gaps because it required government assent to be applied to
internal conflicts. Furthermore, the final report recommended delivery of humanitarian relief independently
of social conditions and of the political position of victims. The Institute of International Law noted that
delivery of humanitarian assistance by a State, group of States or international organizations to an
endangered population is not an illegal intervention.
On January 8,1988, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 43/131 on delivery of
humanitarian relief to social groups affected by natural and industrial disasters. That Resolution is founded
on the assumption that natural catastrophes and situations of the same sort have profound social and
economic consequences for all the countries involved. In fact, the lack of assistance to the victims is an
attempt against human life and dignity ( 19 ). The assistance to people in need is a logical consequence of
the right to health foreseen in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, in the Civil and Political
Covenant and in the Economic, Social and Cultural Covenant of 1966.
The principle of free access to the victims regulated in Paragraph 9 of the Preamble of Resolution
43/131 is actually new. It means that neither State whose population will be benefited by external aid, nor
neighboring States can prevent the access to the victims. Everybody is called on to take part in international

VI-14

Alberto do Amaral, Jr., The Right to Humanitarian Assistance

cooperation to assist to victims. The intention was to avoid that governments blockade the implementation
of necessary measures to that end. The precedent of Resolution 43/131 was reiterated in a great number
of Security Council Resolutions in the early 90s ( 20 ).
In order to alleviate pressure on the Kurdish population, the Security Council determined that Iraq
should allow immediate access by humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in all parts
of Iraq, and made all necessary facilities for their operations available. In Somalia, the United Nations
undertook great efforts to deliver humanitarian aid. In Bosnia, the UN forces permitted the distribution of
food and medicine to people in Sarajevo and other regions. Similar attitudes took place in Liberia in 1993,
where warring factions were refrained from hampering humanitarian assistance.

Thus, the principle of free access to victims became part of international law as a customary
practice. Customs play a much more significant role in international affairs than in domestic life. Certainly
the absence of a world government with a centralized power is the origin of this fact. The sovereignty
principle led to primacy of custom over any other legal source within States. Conversely, in the international
sphere, custom is not only a legal source but also, for a long while, customary norms were the main way
of regulating government behavior. In the aftermath of colonialism, many newly independent countries
denied validity to international customs. They argued both the lack of consent by most developing countries
and that custom reflected interests of developed countries. At present, on the contrary, the role of custom
has increasingly gained importance.
VI-15

Panel 6: Fundamental Rights and Punishment

With changes in international law techniques, international organizations became means of creating
regional and universal customary rules. In some circumstances, reduction in weight of developed countries
favor an increase in the legitimacy of customary rules. In addition, the quicker the historical process the
shorter the period for custom development. Not many centuries or

decades are necessary to originate

a custom. In a few decades or years, a custom acquires a binding force. Such is the case of the notion of
continental platform that President Truman presented for the first time in 1945. It soon became a
generalized practice before its formal regulation in The Law of the Sea Convention of 1958. An analogue
situation occurred with the concept of an exclusive economic zone in the early 70s. Immediate acceptance
by various governments provided the status of a customary rule. Later, the Third Convention on The Law
of the Sea rendered it a written norm ( 21 ). Custom, therefore, has a binding force, and may be used to
settle international disputes. It is important to point out which requirements are necessary for the existence
of a custom.
A custom only exists when two elements are present:
- a material element expressed in an uniform and constant repetition of certain acts
throughout time;
- a psychological element, that is, the conviction that such acts correspond to a juridical
norm. A practice of isolated acts is not enough to institute a legal norm. Some frequency
is demanded for its creation. On an international plane, mere use does not lead to any legal
consequence. It is fundamental that States recognize such a practice as obligatory for

VI-16

Alberto do Amaral, Jr., The Right to Humanitarian Assistance

themselves.

Besides repetition of identical conducts, the formation of a custom

presupposes a belief that a given norm binds States.

Although article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice referred only to general
customs, it is possible that a customary rule limit itself to a particular region of the globe or even oblige
only two States. The International Court of Justice recognized the existence of a regional custom in the
Haya de la Torres case of November 20, 1950 that opposed Colombia to Peru. Discussions concentrated
on the diplomatic asylum that Colombia granted to Haya de la Torre, an important Peruvian politician.
Colombia, under Peruvian protest, argued that a Latin American custom existed according to which each
country may analyze how serious the fault is prior to diplomatic asylum. Despite refusing the Colombian
thesis, the ICJ accepted a regional custom binding some Latin American States ( 22 ). Similarly, the
ICJ admitted that a local custom could be formed with the participation of only two States as in a case
opposing Portugal to India about the right of passage in the Indian territory, judged on April 12, 1960. A
general custom, however, demands recognition on the part of most States.
The right to humanitarian assistance fulfills both conditions for a custom to be formed. The approval
by the General Assembly of Resolution 43-131 is a sharp manifestation of the significance that an
international community lends to humanitarian assistance. The Security Council Resolutions admitting same
have demonstrated the emergence of a constant and general behavior in spite of those who see such
Resolutions as specific answers to particular issues. Likewise the binding conviction renders reiterated
manifestations of the Security Council on legal rules regulating humanitarian assistance.
VI-17

Panel 6: Fundamental Rights and Punishment

Mario Bettati, in a classical book entitled Droit Dingerence, analyzes criticism against the right
to humanitarian assistance or the right to humanitarian intervention. First of all, he states that the right to
humanitarian assistance is a concept that developed States forged to legitimize their intervention towards
poor countries. That accusation neglects the fact that a number of developing countries supported the
United Nations Resolutions on the right to humanitarian intervention. The interventions in Bosnia and
Somalia, for instance, were requested by many Muslim Nations and African States. It is not reasonable to
think that they are simply agents of the great powers with permanent seats in the Security Council. The
second argument asserts that intervention occurs only in situations in which the US, France and Great
Britain have interest. According to Bettati, the important work of organizations like Mdicins sans
Frontires in the Bronx region in New York proves that thesis to be mistaken. Both American and
French doctors worked together in the early 90s to provide assistance to people dependent on garbage
to survive. Finally, the right to humanitarian intervention is seen as a means towards neo-colonialism. That
assertion is equally incorrect. Whereas neo-colonialism is characterized by the ownership of another
countrys reaches, humanitarian intervention envisions protecting both life and health of a population
( 23 ). Unlike neo-colonialism which wishes to perpetuate itself, humanitarian intervention is provisional,
and restricts itself to cases of manifest urgency. Humanitarian intervention does not take jobs from national
authorities. It is based on the subsidiary principle by which States are, more than any other entity,
responsible for providing humanitarian assistance, according to Paragraph 2 of Resolution 43/131. When
national States fail to fulfill their mission, such a duty is automatically transferred to an international

VI-18

Alberto do Amaral, Jr., The Right to Humanitarian Assistance

community.

NOTES
1 - BOBBIO, Norberto. A era dos direitos. Op. cit. p.68
cf. RANGEL, Vicente Marotta. Do homem humanidade: o elemento ftico no direito internacional. In:
LAFER, Celso; FERRAZ JNIOR, Trcio Sampaio. (Coord.)Direito poltica filosofia poesia: estudos
em homenagem ao prof. Miguel Reale em seu octogsimo aniversrio. So Paulo: Saraiva, 1992. p. 40311.
cf. RANGEL, Vicente Marotta. A Declarao Universal dos Direitos do Homem e o seu vigsimo
aniversrio. Problemas Brasileiros, So Paulo, v.6, n.70, p.3-14, 1969
cf. POPPOVIC, Malak el C.; PINHEIRO, Paulo Srgio. Pauvret, droits de l'homme et processus
dmocratique. Droit et Socit, Paris, n.4, p.635-48. 1996.
cf. PINHEIRO, Paulo Srgio. O Brasil e a ordem jurdica internacional. Revista da Procuradoria Geral
do Estado de So Paulo, So Paulo, n.24, p.353-9, dez. 1985
cf. PINHEIRO, Paulo Srgio. Dialtica dos direitos humanos. In: SOUSA JNIOR, Jos Geraldo (Org.)
Direito Achado na Rua. Braslia : Ed UnB, 1987. p. 83-5.
cf. PINHEIRO, Paulo Srgio. Proteo da pessoa humana na ordem jurdica nacional e internacional. In:
CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE FILOSOFIA DO DIREITO, 4., Joo Pessoa, 1990. Conferncias.
Joo Pessoa : Espao Cultural, 1990. p.244-51.
cf. PINHEIRO, Paulo Srgio. Viena valeu. Folha de So Paulo. So Paulo, 25 jul. 1993. Caderno 1,
p. 3.
cf. MELLO, Celso de Albuquerque - A sociedade internacional: nacionalismo versus internalismo e a
questo dos direitos humanos. Arquivos do Ministrio da Justia, Braslia, v.46, n.182, p.115-27,
jul/dez. 1993.
cf. MELLO, Celso de Albuquerque - Anlise do ncleo intangvel das garantias dos direitos humanos em
situaes extremas: uma interpretao do ponto de vista... Direito, Estado e Sociedade , Rio de Janeiro,
n.5, p.13-23, ago./dez. 1994.

VI-19

Panel 6: Fundamental Rights and Punishment

2 - ALEXY, Robert. Direitos fundamentais no estado constitucional democrtico. Revista de Direito

Administrativo, v.217, p.58 e ss, jul./set. 1999.
cf. ALEXY, Robert. Coliso de direitos fundamentais e realizao de direitos fundamentais no estado de
direito democrtico. Revista de Direito Administrativo, v.217, p.67-79, jul./set. 1999.
3 - TRINDADE, Antnio Augusto Canado. A proteo internacional dos direitos humanos. So
Paulo : Saraiva, 1991. p.12
4 - TRINDADE, Antnio Augusto Canado. A proteo internacional dos direitos humanos. Op. cit.
p.13
5 - TRINDADE, Antnio Augusto Canado. A proteo internacional dos direitos humanos. Op. cit.
p.8 e ss
6 - FARIA, Jos Eduardo. Os direitos humanos e o dilema latino-americano s vsperas do sculo XXI.
Novos Estudos CEBRAP, n.38, p.53-60, mar.1994.
cf. PINHEIRO, Paulo Srgio; GUIMARES, Samuel Pinheiro, (Org.). Direitos humanos no sculo
XXI. Braslia : Instituto de Pesquisa de Relaes Internacionais, 1998. 2 v.
cf. TRINDADE, Antnio Augusto Canado. Tratado de direito internacional dos direitos humanos.
Porto Alegre : Fabris, 1997. v.1, p.177-206
7 - LAFER, Celso. Comrcio, desarmamento, direitos humanos. So Paulo : Paz e Terra, 1999. p.154
e ss
cf. LAFER, Celso. A reconstruo dos direitos humanos. So Paulo : Companhia das Letras, 1988.
p.117-236.
cf. COMPARATO, Fbio Konder. A afirmao histrica dos direitos humanos. So Paulo : Saraiva,
1999. p.403-14.
8 - LAFER, Celso. Direitos humanos e democracia no plano interno e internacional. Revista de Poltica
Externa, v.3, n.2, p.71 e ss, set./nocf. 1994.
cf. TRINDADE, Antnio Augusto Canado. Tratado de direito internacional dos direitos humanos.
Porto Alegre : Fabris, 1999. v.2, p.201-51
VI-20

Alberto do Amaral, Jr., The Right to Humanitarian Assistance

9 - ATIENZA, Manuel. Introduccin al derecho. Barcelona : Barcanova, 1985. p.36

cf. BOBBIO, Norberto. Giusnaturalismo e positivismo giuridico. 4.ed. Milo : Comunit, 1984.
p.161-212
10 - RIPOL CARULLA, Santiago. El Consejo de Seguridad y la Defensa de los derechos humanos.
Reflexiones a partir del conflicto de Kosovo. Revista Espaola de Derecho Internacional, Madrid,
v.51, n.1, p.74-5, ene./jun.1999
11 - TOMUSCHAT, Christhian. Obligations arising for states without or against their will. Recueil des
Cours, Haye, v.241, p.334-5, 1993.
12 - TOMUSCHAT, Christhian. Obligations arising for states without or against their will. Op.
cit. p.335-6
13 - UNCIO 6, 439
14 - CASSESE, Antonio. Los derechos humanos en el mundo contemporneo. Barcelona : Ariel,
1991. p.178
15 - RIPOL CARULLA, Santiago. El Consejo de Seguridad y la Defensa de los derechos humanos.
Reflexiones a partir del conflicto de Kosovo. Op. cit. p.75-6.
16 - DUPUY, Pierre-Marie. Securit collective et organisation de la paix.. Revue Gnrale de Droit
International Public, Paris, v.97, n.3, p.620, 1993.
17 - RIPOL CARULLA, Santiago. El Consejo de Seguridad y la Defensa de los derechos humanos.
Reflexiones a partir del conflicto de Kosovo. Op. cit. p.77
18 - BETTATI, Mario. Le droit dingrence. Paris: Ed. Odile Jacob, 1996. p. 94
19 - BETTATI, Mario. Le droit dingrence. p.112
20 - BETTATI, Mario. Le droit dingrence. p.115
21 - CARREAU, Dominique. Droit international. 3.ed. Paris: Pedone, 1991. p. 256

VI-21

Panel 6: Fundamental Rights and Punishment

22 - CARREAU, Dominique. Droit international. 3.ed. Paris: Pedone, 1991. p. 256

23 - BETTATI, Mario. Le droit dingrence. p.121

VI-22