THE INDIVIDUAL AS A PARTIAL SUBJECT OF IL

1. Before reading the text study the vocabulary from the text.
1. States of the German Reich государства Германского союза
2. canton кантон, округ
3. international legal personality международная правосубъектность
4. belligerent party воюющая сторона, боевики
5. ILO (International Labour конвенции МОТ (Международная Организация Труда)
Organization) Convention Международная организация труда
6. indigenous [ɪnˈdɪdʒənəs] peoples коренное население; коренные жители; аборигены
7. with respect to что касается
8. exclusive control монопольное управление
9. alien чуждый, чужой, иностранный
10. State of nationality государство гражданства
11. mediate посредничать, быть посредником
12. advisory opinion а) совещательное мнение; б) консультативное
заключение (суда)
13. Permanent Court of International Постоянная палата международного правосудия
Justice (PCIJ) (ППМС)
14. individual rights and obligations индивидуальные права и обязательства
15. relevant issue актуальный вопрос
16. to annex присоединять, аннексировать (присоединать к стране
территорию, принадлежавшую другому государству)
17. the Agreement for the Prosecution Соглашение о судебном преследовании и наказании
and Punishment of the Major War крупных военных преступников европейских стран
Criminals of the European Axis
18. to acquire a legally relevant получить надлежащее юридическое оформление
position
19. subject to obligations выполнять обязанности
20. of international law marks ознаменовать собой начало нового процесса
развития международного права.
21. traditional State-centrism традиционно
22. domestic legal systems внутренние правовые системы
23. a procedural corollary процессуальный вывод или заключение

2. Skim the text to say what it is about in general.

Although States are the traditional subjects of International law, already in the 18th and 19th
centuries a number of atypical subjects of international law were accepted. The Holy See took part
in international relations as a subject of international law right from the beginning of its
development. The Sovereign Order of Malta traditionally has also been accepted as a subject of
international law. Other atypical subjects recognized in the 19th century were free cities,
constituted as such by the Vienna Congress (1815), eg Cracow. Also, non-sovereign Member
States of federations — such as the constituent States of the German Reich after 1815 or the
cantons of the Swiss federation — were attributed some degree of international legal
personality (Federal States). The same holds true for the ICRC, an organization established in
1863 as a private Swiss association for fulfilling humanitarian tasks in times of war. The ICRC's
role in the promotion and implementation of the laws of war has led to it being endowed with
specific rights under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. It has also entered into international treaties
with a number of States and international organizations such as the UN. The same holds true for
belligerent parties exercising effective control over certain territories.
 Although indigenous peoples have been granted specific rights under the ILO Convention
(No 107) concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous and other Tribal and Semi-
Tribal Populations in Independent Countries and Convention (No 169) concerning Indigenous and
Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, it has been made clear in both conventions that the use
of the term people does not imply a respective general qualification under international law.
Therefore, until recently, current international practice did not seem to include indigenous peoples
in the right to self -determination (State Practice). However, the United Nations Human Rights
Council (United Nations Commission on Human Rights/United Nations Human Rights Council)
adopted in 2006, as one of its first actions, the draft for a United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which contains in its Art. 3 the express recognition that indigenous
peoples have the right to self-determination. If this approach is continued, indigenous peoples may
qualify as subjects of international law in the future.
The position of International law with respect to individuals has changed considerably in the
last 50 years. Under traditional IL, individuals were under the exclusive control of States. Even
the body of general IL which related to the position of aliens was, although motivated in part by
the intention to protect aliens as human beings, in principle a matter between the State of
residence and the State of nationality. Individuals were mediated in international law by the
States involved in their treatment in a specific situation and had no legal position of their own.
This traditional position is reflected in the advisory opinion of the Permanent Court of
International Justice (PCIJ) concerning Pecuniary Claims of Danzig Railway Officials who
have Passed into the Polish Service, against the Polish Railways Administration which stated in
1928 with respect to a treaty between Germany and Poland, that this treaty, ‘being an international
agreement, cannot as such create direct rights and obligations for private individuals’ (Jurisdiction
of the Courts of Danzig [Advisory Opinion]).
International law has undergone an evolutionary development in this respect. It is undisputed
that international treaties may create individual rights and obligations. The most obvious
examples are the numerous human rights treaties which have been concluded since 1945. The first
fundamental document protecting human rights was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR 1948) – which was intended as a “common standard of achievement for all peoples”.
Individuals may also defend their rights under the International Covenant on Economic, Social,
and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976), the European
Convention on Human Rights and so on.
Thus, individuals de facto do not exercise international rights unless these rights are granted
to them expressly by treaties. Though, the relevant issue of interpretation is now whether or not a
treaty creates individual.
A similar development has taken place with respect to the creation of international
obligations for individuals. In 1945, the Charter annexed to the Agreement for the Prosecution
and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis stated the individual
criminal responsibility for crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The
Nuremberg Tribunal consequently stated that ‘international law imposes duties and liabilities
upon individuals as upon States’ (Judgment of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal
1946 [1947] 220). This principle has been taken up in Art. 25 Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court (ICC) and in UNSC Resolutions 827 (1993) of 25 May 1993 and 955 (1994) of 8
November 1994 concerning the establishment of international ad hoc tribunals for the prosecution
of war crimes on the territory of the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda respectively.
In addition to rights granted to individuals, international law also imposes duties directly on
individuals: the duty to refrain from committing crimes against peace and humanity, war crimes
and genocide, acts of hijacking and terrorism, and more. The rights, powers and duties of
different subjects change according to their status and functions. For example, an individual has a
right of freedom from torture under international law and States have a duty under international
law not to torture individuals or to send them to a country where there is a likelihood of that
person being tortured.
All the above mentioned developments lead to the conclusion that the individual today has
acquired a legally relevant position in International law. It has internationally been granted
rights and is made subject to obligations which – in many instances have a procedural
corollary, e.g. the individual complaint mechanism in international human rights protection
(Human Rights, Individual Communications/Complaints). For this reason, the individual today is
usually qualified as a partial subject of International law in the field of war atrocities, genocide
and crimes against humanity by international legal doctrine. Although many norms of
international law are, for reasons of their content, only applicable to States, the general acceptance
of individuals as partial subjects of international law marks an important shift in the structure of
international law. It reduces the traditional State-centrism and will in the future contribute to a
further restructuring of its role in the domestic legal systems.

1. Match the definitions to the words they describe.

1) A political theory which stresses the role of the government on a) indigenous peoples
civil society. It holds that the state itself can structure political life b) canton
to some degree, but doesn't facilitate the way power is distributed c) belligerent party
between classes and other groups at a given time. d) ILO
2) "Rome–Berlin–Tokyo Axis" (also nicknamed with the Italian e) alien
name "Roberto", from the initials of "ROma", "BERlin" and f) to mediate
"TOkyo"), were the nations that fought in World War II against g) PCIJ
the Allies. h) to annex
3) A foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the i) European Axis
country where he or she is living. j) State-centrism
4) A subdivision of a country established for political or k) domestic legal
administrative purposes. systems
5) To intervene (between parties or in a dispute) in order to bring l) a procedural corollary
about agreement.
6) A specialized agency of the UN that was created in 1919 and aims
at promoting social and economic progress and improving labour
conditions.
7) The law established within a state to govern events, transactions,
and persons within or having a connection to that state; also
internal, municipal, national, or local law/legal system.
8) To add (territory) to one's own territory by appropriation.
9) The World Court, existed from 1922 to 1946. It was an
international court attached to the League of Nations.
10) A procedural proposition inferred immediately from a proved
proposition with little or no additional proof.
11) Inheritors and practitioners of unique cultures and ways of
relating to people and the environment. They have retained social,
cultural, economic and political characteristics that are distinct
from those of the dominant societies in which they live.
12) An individual, group, country, or other entity that acts in a
hostile manner, such as engaging in combat.
 2. Match the words in A to the words in B to make partnerships from the text. Give their
Russian equivalents.
A B
1) partial a) of the German Reich
2) free b) position
3) important c) control
4) to express d) against peace and
5) to subject humanity corollary
6) exclusive e) legal systems
7) indigenous f) Organization
8) States g) rights and obligations
9) belligerent subject
10) domestic h) party
11) a procedural i) recognition
12) crimes j) to obligations
13) individual k) shift
14) a legally relevant l) city
15) International Labour m) peoples
3. Translate the following
Коренное население; процессуальный вывод или заключение; to annex; посредничать
(быть посредником); belligerent party; проект (набросок); индивидуальные права и
обязательства; exclusive control; International Labour Organization Convention; проект;
набросок; draft; прямое признание; express recognition; advisory opinion; to self-determination
traditional State-centrism; международная защита прав человека; international human rights
protection; Международная Организация Труда; Декларации Организации Объединенных
Наций о правах коренных народов; rights and obligations; права и обязанности; a procedural
corollary; воюющая сторона (боевики); the prosecution of war crimes; консультативное
заключение (суда); express recognition; United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples; судебное преследование за военные преступления; individual rights and obligations
традиционно; выражать признание; mediate; конвенции Международной Организации
Труда; монопольное управление; Indigenous peoples; к традиционному государственному
центризму.
4. Mark the sentences as true or false
1. Individuals are subjects possessing limited capacity, thus they are partial subjects of IL.
2. Under traditional IL, individuals were under the exclusive control of Intergovernmental
Organizations.
3. War atrocities, etc. are committed by persons not by abstract entities and lastly when rebels or
belligerents gain de facto control of a certain territory they may enter into the international law
agreement (partial legal personality).
4. Individuals were mediated in international law by the MNO involved in their treatment in a
specific situation and had no legal position of their own.
5. International treaties may not create individual rights and obligations.
6. The individual today has internationally been granted rights and is made subject to obligations
which — in many instances have a procedural corollary.
7. The individual is usually qualified as a full subject of International law by international legal
doctrine.
8. The numerous human rights treaties have been concluded since 1991.
9. Indigenous peoples are qualified as subjects of International law.
 5. Answer the following questions using the information of the text
1. What are traditional subjects of IL?
2. What are the atypical subjects of IL?
3. What are belligerent parties? Are they subjects of IL?
4. What are indigenous peoples? Are they subjects of IL?
5. When has the position of International law with respect to individuals changed considerably?
Why?
6. What do you know of the Permanent Court of International Justice? What are its decisions?
7. Do the individuals have the international obligations? Why?
8. What are the international obligations for individuals?
9. What document states the individual criminal responsibility for crimes against peace, war
crimes and crimes against humanity?
10. What subject of IL are many norms of international law, for reasons of their content, only
applicable to States?
6. Study the information and the vocabulary that touches upon war and peace.
A The outbreak (= start) of war
Wars often start because of a conflict (= strong disagreement) between countries or groups of
people, about territory (= land that belongs to one group or
country).
Look at the diagram on the right and read the text on the left.
Country A invades country В (= A enters В by force and in large
numbers), and captures (also takes / takes control of) the city of X.
Soldiers from country В have to retreat (= go backwards; ≠ to
advance) to the city of Y. As army and air force continue to attack the city of Y (= take violent
action to damage it), but B’s soldiers defend it (= take action to protect it) successfully.
B A war zone
The area around the city of Y is now the main war zone (= the area where the fighting is
happening). Country В has asked for help from its allies (= countries who are friends with country
B). The allies send aid (= help) in the form of extra troops (= large groups of soldiers) and
supplies (= food and other things that are needed every day, e.g. blankets and medicine) to help.
There is shelling (= firing of guns and explosives) of the city every day and hundreds of soldiers
are either killed or wounded (= injured while fighting). Many civilians (= ordinary people who
are not in the army) are killed as well.
C Peace talks
For the civilians who are still alive (≠ dead), the situation gets worse. As winter approaches, food
supplies run out (= they are almost gone/finished) and there is no electricity. The soldiers get
tired, and both sides begin to see that neither side can win the war; they agree to meet for peace
talks (pl) (= talks to try to negotiate a peace settlement (an end to the war). After some time they
agree to a ceasefire (= a period of no fighting).
D Terrorism
This is violent action for political reasons. People who do this are terrorists, and a common
terrorist crime is hijacking (= to take control of a bus, train, ship or plane; the people on board
then become prisoners). The main purpose of hijacking is to use the prisoners (called hostages) in
order to bargain for something (= to demand something in exchange for the hostages). The
terrorists may agree to release (v, n) the hostages (= permit the hostages to go free) if a
government agrees to give the terrorists money or release other terrorists.
 EXERCISES
1. Match the words on the left with the correct definition on the right.
1 ally a land controlled by a country
2 release b stop fighting
3 conflict с permit to go free
4 troops d injure while fighting
5 invade e large groups of soldiers
6 wound f friendly country
7 territory g strong disagreement
8 ceasefire h enter another country by force and in large numbers

2. Use opposites to contradict what the speaker says in the sentences below.
Example: A: Is the soldier dead? B: No, he’s .. Still.
1. A: Will they agree to a ceasefire?
B: No, they’ll …
2. A: Do you think the army will try to advance when the weather improves?
B: No, I think..
3. A: Do the people still have lots of food?
B: No, they’re beginning to …
4. A: Is the town mostly full of soldiers?
B: No, they’re …
5. A: Do you think they’ll keep the hostages for a long time?
B: No, I’m sure they’ll …

3. When we repeat an idea in a text we often try to avoid using the same word twice. Read this text
and find examples of words being used as synonyms for previous ideas.
THERE is a desperate need for food and gunmen firing at almost anyone who dared
medicine, but with the town surrounded, the to go out into the streets. One old woman
lorries are unable to bring in essential was hit in the leg and we saw at least two
supplies. others who were quite badly wounded as
We have seen ordinary people in the street well.
giving some of their meagre rations of food to Aid agencies have appealed to the soldiers
the soldiers who are defending them, but very to allow them to enter the town, but so far
soon the troops will be just as hungry as the the General in command has even refused to
civilians if the situation gets any worse. let to anyone in, including doctors and nurses.
Meanwhile, the centre of the town is being Many fear it is now only a matter of days
slowly destroyed. There is almost daily before the town is captured, and if this
shelling of the buildings that still stand, and happens, the army could take control of the
this morning we witnessed whole region within weeks.
4 Civil war
Match the words on the left to their opposites on the right and complete the mini dialogues below.
1. attack a. civilian
2. advance b. dead
3. alive c. defend
4. soldier d. loyalist
5. capture e. release
6. rebel f. retreat

Government: The town is safe. There are civilians everywhere.

Rebel:That's not true. There are mostly 1)… … .
Government: The rebels are losing the war.
Rebel:That is a lie. The 2) … … are losing.
Government: The rebel leader is dead.
Rebel:That is not true. He is still 3) … .. .
Government: Our soldiers are advancing into areas controlled by the rebels.
Rebel:That's not correct. The government soldiers 4) … … from their positions.
Government: The rebels are going to release 100 prisoners.
Rebel:That's another lie. We intend to 5) … …. more loyalists.
Government: The rebels are trying to defend their base, but our soldiers are going to enter very
soon.
Rebel:No! We are preparing to 6) … … the areas controlled by the government.
5 War facts
Read the sentences below. Without using a dictionary, match the underlined words to the
definitions below. Think about the context of the words.
1. In 1939, Nazi Germany decided to invade Poland.
2. Britain and France were allies in Word War II.
3. Approximately 300,000 Iraqi soldiers were wounded during the first Gulf War in 1991.
4. US president Kennedy sent troops to Vietnam in 1962.
5. North and South Korea agreed to a truce in 1953.
6. The conflict between Greece and Persia lasted about 50 years.
7. In 1914, an international crisis resulted in the outbreak of World War I.
8. The total number of casualties in Word War I was over 37 million.
9. In Roman times, the sword was considered to be an effective weapon.
a. an agreement to stop fighting for a certain period of time
b. a strong disagreement or war
c. countries who are friends
d. enter a country by force
e. groups or individual soldiers
f. injured while fighting
g. people who are injured or killed during a war
h. something that is designed to cause harm or damage
i. the start of a war
Do you think there are more conflicts than in the past? How have wars changed?
6 Answer these questions:
1. What Is Terrorism? What are the key elements of terrorism?
2. Why do terrorists take hostages?
3. Why do some governments always refuse to agree to terrorist demands?
4. What sorts of methods can be used by the authorities to monitor terrorist activity?
5. What is cyberterrorism? How real is the threat of cyberterrorism in your opinion?
6. Do you believe there is a military solution to terrorist activity?
7. Do you favour the threat or use of force to resolve the Venezuelan crisis?
7 Terrorism
Terrorism is violent action for political reasons. Match the verbs on the left to the nouns and
phrases on the right to form collocations.
1. hijack a. a bomb
2. release b. a plane
3. negotiate c. a prisoner exchange
4. agree to d. hostages
5. plant e. propaganda
6. spread f. the terrorists' demands
 Now complete the sentences below with the phrases:
1 The terrorists are planning to released …. …. and fly it to another country.
2 After 12 hours of negotiations, the terrorists finally decided to … … , mainly women. But they
kept a few men in order to continue the negotiations.
3 The government and the terrorists managed to …. … .The government released 5 terrorists, and
the terrorists released 10 hostages.
4 The government did not want to take any risks, so they decided to … … and removed their
troops from the area.
5 The man was planning to … … under the politician's car, but the police caught him just in
time.
6 Terrorist groups … … on the Internet in order to recruit new members.
Talking point
Discuss any of the questions below:
1. Why do terrorists take hostages?
2. Should governments agree to terrorists' demands?

8 Read the following magazine article and make a brief analysis of its contents.
Terrorism
Sometimes I start thinking that the world is going crazy. People become angry, indifferent,
cruel and tough. Having lost their sense of decency and tact, sympathy and compassion, each
person nowadays is only seeking the protection for themselves. We find every third a threat for
our happiness. In my opinion, it can lead to a more terrible thing – terrorism. Every two or three
days the world faces the terroristic attacks, which bring only one thing – death. While terror exists
in our world, nobody can feel safe.
Let's see what terror really is. Surfing the Internet, looking through dictionaries, you won’t
find a clear definition for the notion “terror”. In fact, terror is a social phenomenon which causes
fear and disillusion, what is more it greatly suppresses morally, sometimes it can cause even
physical destruction. Terrorism... in my opinion, is the worst and most dangerous phenomenon in
our world. Terrorist attacks claim the lives of innocent people, have a strong psychological
pressure, provoke wars and conflicts between countries.
Terrorism is the word that makes us feel fear and sympathy at the same time. When they
show pictures of terrorist acts on TV, a storm of feelings and emotions overwhelm the person.
You feel both: pity and concentrated hate. Why do we feel pity and sympathy to these criminals? I
think it happens so because we know that the person who commits a terrorist act is just a pawn,
who executes instructions given to him. We feel hatred because this person is the same human
being as we are and he made his choice in favour of terror and death.
The most terrible and dangerous gangs of the 21st century, no doubt, are: al-Qaeda, is known
for its most massive attacks and a great number of victims. ISIS is also very dangerous and scary.
Then come the Taliban, IRA etc. All these organizations act for one purpose - to show how
powerful they are to the world. These organizations see nothing bad that they have to kill innocent
people to achieve their specific goals.
Let’s recall the September 11, 2001 (NY) 8900 people were injured, and 3,000 people died;
23 Oct 2002 (Moscow, Russia, Nord-OST) killed approximately 160 people; September 1, 2004
(Beslan) were killed 333 people, including 186 children, and 800 were wounded; January 24,
2011 (Moscow airport) 37 people were killed and 174 were wounded; 11 APR 2011 (Minsk
metro) 15 people died and 203 were injured.
Thus, I’d like to stress that the problem of terrorism is not new for many countries and has
become an integral part of our lives.