You are here:   Constitutional Affairs > The Hijacking of the Human Rights Debate
 

Hans Kelsen's Jewish parents arrived in Vienna in 1884, when he was three years old. He attended one of the city's most demanding schools, the Akademisches Gymnasium, converted in 1905 to Roman Catholicism (mainly for "reasons of expediency"), took his doctorate in law at the University of Vienna in 1906 and became a full professor there in 1919. A Social Democrat, he drafted a key part of the country's new constitution and was appointed in 1920 to the constitutional court of the rump Austrian state which emerged from the First World War. With the ascent of the Nazis to power in Germany, he moved first to Geneva and, in 1940, to the US. 

Kelsen was the author of one of the 20th century's major texts of legal philosophy, A Pure Theory of Law. The essence of his theory was that an obligation to obey the law does not stem from national sovereignty but from a fundamental norm. In practical terms, this led after the First World War to his advocacy of an Austrian constitutional court as part of the Austrian constitution and, after the Second World War, to support for the idea of an international court with compulsory jurisdiction as a key part of the framework of the United Nations.

In 1919, a 22-year-old graduate student arrived in Vienna for doctoral studies under Kelsen. Hersch Lauterpacht was a middle-class Jew from a small town near Lviv. Until the First World War, this had been part of Austro-Hungary. He became the founding president of the World Federation of Jewish Students (Einstein in Berlin was the honorary president) and married a fellow student who had come to Austria from Palestine. Lauterpacht's dissertation combined his interests in jurisprudence and Zionism with an argument about mandates granted by the League of Nations which implied that the mandate given to Britain to govern Palestine did not give Britain sovereignty. Rather, this rested, argued Lauterpacht, with the League of Nations. In 1923, Lauterpacht moved first to the London School of Economics and then to Cambridge, rapidly winning academic laurels as an international lawyer. In 1933, he completed his major work, entitled The Function of Law in the International Community

Despite the failure of the League of Nations to prevent Nazi aggression, the Second World War and the murder of his family in the Holocaust, Lauterpacht remained attached to notions of an international legal order. Before his early death in 1960, he served as a judge on the International Court at The Hague. Lauterpacht was devoted to the view that fundamental human rights were superior to the laws of individual states and were protected by international criminal sanctions even if the violations had been committed in accordance with existing national laws. He advised the British prosecutors at Nuremberg to this effect. Together with another Jewish lawyer from the Lviv area, Raphael Lemkin, Lauterpacht had a major role in the passage by the United Nations General Assembly of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Lauterpacht's publication in 1945, An International Bill of Rights, also had a formative influence on the European Convention of Human Rights drawn up in 1949 and ratified in 1953.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Kevin Law
July 28th, 2012
3:07 AM
In other words, we have yet another group (ie the Human Rights Judges) who think they know best and because of this should be able to rule without opposition. Depressingly we habe another bunch of despots who just dress their dictatorship desires up with the fancy clothes of human rights legislation. But underneath it boils down to another group who want to rule unincumbered by the necessity to consult those they rule. Just how many times have we been down this road - but they never learn, do they?

Anonymous
May 24th, 2012
4:05 PM
One hopes that even such callow individuals as our Prime Minister will read this article. However I fear not. And with Clarke as Justice Secretary...how could it possibly go wrong...? This is a fascinating insight in the behind the scenes working of an ideologically determined elite forcing a particular system on an unknowing and sadly uninterested polity. The analogy to Communists in post WW2 Europe is apt. Should it be resisted? Absolutely. Will it be? I can't see how. And we will all live to regret it.

Iain Sanders
May 16th, 2012
4:05 PM
Parliament is obviously ratcheting towards an equivalent relationship with the HRA/EU/et al that the Monarchy currently has vis-a-vis Parliament & with less struggle; more slow suicide than Parliamentary Wars. Jose Manuel Barroso currently playing Cromwell..

Anonymous
May 10th, 2012
11:05 AM
Our parliament is sovereign and derives it's sovereignty from the British people. Any attempt to supplant this sovereignty is an attack on the British people and must be resisted at all costs.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.