The UNILC and human rights:
As to laws, there are several treaties that nations have made to discipline their own actions. For example, “the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the genocide convention, the Hague convention on the laws of war, the Geneva protocol against the use of chemical and bacteriological weapons” are all made possible due to voluntary participation by member countries, although there are occasional lapses and breaches of agreements by member states. This is certainly progressive, when viewed in the context of the last century that saw two world wars that resulted in the loss of several millions lives. As to jurisdiction, “it is commonly agreed that for the nastiest crimes–slavery, genocide, gross breaches of the laws of war–any state can bring charges against an offending government”. For these actions, in lawyers’ terminology, “jurisdiction is universal”, which means that any nation has the right to bring a charge against another offending nation. Such improvements in the conduct of international affairs should be credited to the UNILC and its liaising agencies (Graefrath, 596).
The UNILC is also a better model in dealing with human rights issues. For example,
“Being international, it can better avoid the appearance of partiality. It already has an international court at The Hague, whose authority and self-confidence are growing. Its 15 judges, nominated for nine years by the Security Council and confirmed by the General Assembly, are picked to reflect the variety of the world’s legal systems. At present the court deals only with non-criminal disputes between states, but its job could be extended to handle criminal breaches of international law. Early on at least, only states could ask for a case to be heard”. (McCaffrey, 304)
No system of justice ever rises as a perfect functioning organization. Western Europe has a “human-rights system where a court can, and frequently does, oblige governments to change their minds”. Some states were reluctant to obey its dictates. But slowly they realized the advantage of submitting to international law. The world may not ever see a “fully developed criminal court”. But it can take move in that direction and UNILC is a step in the right direction (Paolillo, 82).
The working groups of UNILC:
The Commission has employed working groups, also known as “subcommittees, study groups or consultative groups, on particular topics”. These temporarily instantiated subsidiaries have been established by the UNILC for a broad range of purposes that with different requirements. The UNILC has also formed several working groups on new issues confronting international law. It has also appointing a Special Rapporteur to undertake an initial assessment of the work and to help “define the scope and direction of work” that includes:
(a) “Recognition of States and Governments;
(b) Succession of States and Governments;
(c) Jurisdictional immunities of States and their property;
(d) Jurisdiction with regard to crimes committed outside national territory;
(e) Regime of the high seas;
(f) Regime of territorial waters; [78]
(g) Nationality, including statelessness;
(h) Treatment of aliens;
(i) Right of asylum;
(j) Law of treaties;
(k) Diplomatic intercourse and immunities;
(l) Consular intercourse and immunities;”
(m) State responsibility; and
(n) Arbitral procedure. (Paolillo, 80)