3.1

3.1.1

Terminology and Concepts

PREVIEW

How do you think international laws are created?

‘State’ can have a similar meaning to ‘country’. It is often used as a legal term in international law. Every state has three parts:

1. People (the community of legal citizens of the state).
2. The territory of the state (the area that the people of the state live in).
3. Institutions (organisations that serve the people, such as governments, militaries and hospitals).

In some countries, the word ‘state’ refers to one region that is part of a larger political community (such as a country). When political scientists talk about ‘the state’, they are referring to the bigger political community (the country or union).

A State Party is a state that has ratified or acceded to an international law. The State Party is legally required to follow the obligations in the law and to incorporate them into, or directly apply them as, its own national law.

A treaty is a general term for any international law or legally binding agreement between states that have ratified or acceded to it. Convention and covenant are two types of treaties. 

Treaties must be enforced by states. If states do not follow treaties they are legally bound by, they might be held accountable. For example, other states within the UN can complain or impose sanctions on them. Some treaties are also enforceable in international courts. States also have an obligation to ensure that people within their territories follow legally binding treaties. If people do not, then states should have a domestic court system and other mechanisms to enforce the rules in these treaties.

A declaration is a document stating internationally agreed beliefs, guidelines and standards. Declarations can influence government policies, but they are not legally binding like a treaty

Adoption is the formal way a proposed treaty is agreed to. When states agree through voting to the proposed text of a treaty, it is considered adopted. Signing is the first step in becoming a State Party to a treaty or declaration. When a state signs a treaty or declaration, it expresses the intention of following the obligations and rules in the document.

Ratification is the formal way a state confirms its signing of a treaty and becomes legally bound by it. Ratifying a treaty might result in the State Party changing its national laws or adopting new national laws to reflect the obligations within the treaty. Accession is when a state becomes a State Party by signing a treaty that has already entered into force as international law because enough states have already ratified it.

Reservations are exceptions that States Parties make to a treaty, such as to parts of a treaty that they do  not agree to follow. Reservations must not conflict with the fundamental meaning of a treaty

REFLECTION/DISCUSSION

1. Who or what should enforce treaties?
2. Should states be allowed to make reservations to treaties?

Educator’s notes

There are different opinions among different people about the status, implementation and enforcement of treaties. 

Some people believe that states should not choose or be forced to be legally bound by international laws. They believe that international laws infringe on the sovereignty of individual states. They might say that individual states have their own laws, policies, rules, values and cultures. They might argue that international laws should not be imposed by foreign organisations or governments to the effect that the laws, policies, rules, values and cultures in individual states are reduced in importance or replaced altogether. People who are of these opinions are often in favour of reservations against articles in treaties and do not want any organisation, like the United Nations, to develop any strong enforcement mechanism. 

Other people believe that it is important that as many states as possible become legally bound by as many treaties as possible. They might say that every human being everywhere should have as much protection and as many human rights as possible, at all times. They might believe this to be more important than the sovereignty of individual states. They might say that human rights are universal and compatible with values and cultures in all states. They might argue that states have to change their laws and policies to protect and promote human rights, if their current laws and policies violate human rights. People who are of these opinions are often in favour of strong enforcement mechanisms for human rights and do not want states to make reservations against articles in treaties. 

Yet other people have opinions that are somewhere in-between these other ideas, or that are undecided and unclear. For example, if people have not learned about human rights in school, they may not think that human rights and international laws are important. Some people know about human rights and international laws but think that these are ‘foreign’ or irrelevant for their lives. Some people believe that certain rights, but not others, are important and relevant to protect and promote. Some people believe that it is most appropriate for states themselves to decide on how they should protect and promote human rights, and that organisations and foreign governments should not be responsible for the enforcement of international laws.