Introduction
International law has historically been a state-centric framework, with states as the primary subjects and individuals largely relegated to the periphery, their rights and obligations mediated through sovereign entities. However, the evolution of international human rights and criminal law, particularly post-World War II, has prompted claims of a revolutionary shift, positioning the individual at the center of international legal discourse. This essay critically assesses this assertion, arguing that despite apparent progress, the individual remains a secondary and largely ineffective subject, whose legal status is ultimately contingent on the will of states. To illustrate this argument, the essay examines a pertinent international incident from 2024—the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza involving Israel and Palestinian civilians—as a case study. Through an analysis of legal developments, state behavior, and authoritative perspectives in public international law, this essay challenges the notion of a revolutionary shift, highlighting the enduring dominance of state sovereignty.
The Evolution of the Individual in International Law
The emergence of international human rights law, particularly through instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 and subsequent treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1966, marked a significant departure from the traditional state-centric model of international law. These developments ostensibly empowered individuals by recognizing their inherent rights and providing mechanisms for redress, such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). Scholars like Lauterpacht (1950) have argued that such frameworks signify a transformative shift, granting individuals direct access to international legal protections, independent of state mediation.
Furthermore, international criminal law has sought to hold individuals accountable for atrocities, as seen in the establishment of the ICC under the Rome Statute of 1998. This mechanism targets individual perpetrators of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, ostensibly reinforcing the centrality of the individual as both a rights-holder and a subject of responsibility. However, while these developments appear revolutionary on paper, their practical efficacy is limited by the overriding principle of state sovereignty. As Shaw (2017) notes, international law remains a consensual system, wherein enforcement is often contingent on state cooperation, thus undermining the autonomy of individual agency.
The 2024 Gaza Crisis: A Case Study of Individual Subordination
The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, exacerbated in 2024, provides a stark illustration of the individual’s subordinate status in international law. Throughout 2024, reports from reputable sources, including the United Nations, have documented severe civilian casualties, displacement, and allegations of war crimes amid the conflict between Israel and Palestinian armed groups. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported tens of thousands of civilian deaths and widespread destruction of infrastructure as of mid-2024 (UN OCHA, 2024). International human rights law, under frameworks like the Geneva Conventions, mandates the protection of civilians in armed conflict, yet enforcement remains elusive.
Despite the ICC’s issuance of arrest warrants for key figures involved in the conflict—an action aimed at individual accountability—states have largely failed to cooperate, highlighting the limits of international mechanisms. Israel, for instance, has rejected ICC jurisdiction, asserting its sovereign right to handle internal matters, a stance supported by some allies (BBC News, 2024). This incident underscores the argument that individual rights and accountability are subordinated to state will. While international law ostensibly protects individuals, the lack of compulsory enforcement mechanisms means that state consent—or its absence—dictates outcomes. As Cassese (2005) argues, the effectiveness of international criminal law is inherently tied to political will, rendering individuals vulnerable to state inaction or obstruction.
Theoretical and Practical Limitations of Individual Centrality
Theoretically, the individual’s elevation in international law challenges the Westphalian notion of absolute state sovereignty. Scholars such as Tesón (1997) advocate for a human-centered approach, positing that the protection of individual rights should supersede state interests. However, this perspective is arguably idealistic, as the practical reality reveals persistent state dominance. The principle of non-intervention, enshrined in Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, often shields states from external scrutiny, even in cases of gross human rights violations. Moreover, mechanisms like the UN Security Council, tasked with maintaining international peace, are frequently paralyzed by veto powers, as seen in resolutions concerning the Gaza crisis throughout 2024 (Shaw, 2017).
Additionally, individual access to international legal remedies remains limited. While bodies like the ECtHR allow direct petitions, such mechanisms are exceptions rather than the norm, and their jurisdiction is geographically or contextually constrained. In the ICC context, individuals can only be prosecuted if states are unwilling or unable to act, a stipulation that inherently prioritizes state authority (Rome Statute, 1998). Therefore, despite rhetorical emphasis on individual rights, the structural design of international law ensures that states remain gatekeepers of legal action, undermining the notion of a revolutionary shift.
Counterarguments and Their Shortcomings
Proponents of the revolutionary shift narrative might argue that the proliferation of human rights norms and the activism of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) signal a growing focus on individuals. Indeed, NGOs like Amnesty International have played a crucial role in spotlighting violations, as seen in their detailed reporting on the 2024 Gaza crisis (Amnesty International, 2024). However, while such efforts raise awareness, they lack binding authority and rely on state cooperation for tangible outcomes. Furthermore, the impact of human rights norms is often diluted by cultural relativism and geopolitical interests, with states selectively invoking or ignoring obligations based on domestic priorities (Crawford, 2012).
Another counterargument is the increasing jurisprudence of international courts, which appears to prioritize individual accountability. The ICC’s actions in 2024, pursuing cases related to Gaza, might suggest progress toward individual centrality. Yet, as previously noted, the efficacy of such actions is curtailed by state non-compliance. This reinforces the view that international law, while progressive in rhetoric, remains state-driven in practice.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while international law has made strides in recognizing the individual through human rights and criminal law frameworks, the claim of a revolutionary shift placing the individual at its center is overstated. As demonstrated by the 2024 Gaza crisis, the individual remains a secondary and largely ineffective subject, with legal status contingent on the will of states. Theoretical advancements and institutional mechanisms are undermined by the enduring primacy of state sovereignty, limited enforcement capabilities, and political obstructions. The implication of this analysis is that without structural reforms—such as enhancing compulsory enforcement or reducing veto powers—international law will continue to prioritize state interests over individual rights. This state-centric reality, though occasionally challenged by normative progress, suggests that the individual’s position in international law is far from revolutionary, remaining a derivative and often powerless construct.
References
- Amnesty International. (2024) Israel/OPT: Horrific escalation of violence in Gaza and Lebanon demands immediate international action. Amnesty International.
- BBC News. (2024) Israel-Gaza conflict: ICC seeks arrest warrants for leaders. BBC.
- Cassese, A. (2005) International Law. 2nd edn. Oxford University Press.
- Crawford, J. (2012) Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law. 8th edn. Oxford University Press.
- Lauterpacht, H. (1950) International Law and Human Rights. Stevens & Sons.
- Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. (1998) United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 2187, No. 38544.
- Shaw, M. N. (2017) International Law. 8th edn. Cambridge University Press.
- Tesón, F. R. (1997) A Philosophy of International Law. Westview Press.
- UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). (2024) Hostilities in the Gaza Strip and Israel: Flash Update #181. United Nations.
