TEDxHousesofParliament - Philippe Sands - The individual in the new world order
-
0:11 - 0:14Many of you in this room have been reading in the
-
0:14 - 0:17papers over the last few days about what's going on in Syria.
-
0:17 - 0:22And probably you are as appalled as anyone else
-
0:22 - 0:25of the images of mass killing on all sides,
-
0:25 - 0:29of the taking of innocent life of children, women,
-
0:29 - 0:31completely defenseless people.
-
0:31 - 0:33And you're probably asking yourselves:
-
0:33 - 0:37"Why isn't anything being done to stop it?"
-
0:37 - 0:41I want to talk a little bit about the system of international rules
-
0:41 - 0:44that allows you to begin to answer that question.
-
0:44 - 0:48And I want to do it by reference to a case to have come to,
-
0:48 - 0:53as I conclude, that took place ultimately in the Houses of Parliament.
-
0:53 - 0:56The judgment given in November 1998
-
0:56 - 0:58in a case that many of you would be familiar with involving
-
0:58 - 1:03senator Augusto Pinochet. Decisive moment that goes
-
1:03 - 1:06very closely to the kinds of issues we're talking about
-
1:06 - 1:08when we ask the question:
-
1:08 - 1:14"Why isn't president Assad being stopped from killing?"
-
1:14 - 1:16I work as an international lawyer. You've probably have
-
1:16 - 1:18heard about international law. You probably don't know
-
1:18 - 1:22a huge amount about what international law is.
-
1:22 - 1:25It's traditionally described as the rules that govern
-
1:25 - 1:27the relations between states.
-
1:27 - 1:31I wake up in the morning, I switch on my computer,
-
1:31 - 1:34I have emails about the sort of cases and issues that I'm involved in:
-
1:34 - 1:41the protection of human rights in the former Yugoslavia, the cases of Vukovar;
-
1:41 - 1:46the right to return of the Chagossians to the Island of Chagos,
-
1:46 - 1:48part of the decolonization problems involving
-
1:48 - 1:53the United Kingdom and a load of other cases.
-
1:53 - 1:56And classically the world that I deal with,
-
1:56 - 1:59is a world between states,
-
1:59 - 2:01it's a world which governs relations between
-
2:01 - 2:05the two hundred or so countries that occupy the world.
-
2:05 - 2:08If you were to step back from this planet, jump up to the moon,
-
2:08 - 2:12and look at how we organize ourselves
-
2:12 - 2:14you'd think it's pretty weird.
-
2:14 - 2:19We've divided ourselves into about two hundred countries
-
2:19 - 2:22and the basic idea of international law is that
-
2:22 - 2:26within those two hundred countries -- and it used to be
-
2:26 - 2:30only forty or fifty in the 18th and 19th centuries --
-
2:30 - 2:35states, governments are free to do whatever they want
-
2:35 - 2:37to their citizens.
-
2:37 - 2:40They can torture them, they can kill them,
-
2:40 - 2:42they can disappear them,
-
2:42 - 2:44they can adopt rules saying that, you know:
-
2:44 - 2:46"every female over the age of sixty is going to be killed,"
-
2:46 - 2:49"every male under the age of fifteen is going to be killed."
-
2:49 - 2:53The classic rules of international law are premised on
-
2:53 - 3:00the concept of sovereignty, the power -- absolute power of the state.
-
3:00 - 3:04That changed dramatically in the 20th century
-
3:04 - 3:08and it's the idea that is at the heart of that change,
-
3:08 - 3:13the idea that finally gives a role and a place for an individual
-
3:13 - 3:17that is at the heart of the answer to the question that I posed at the outset
-
3:17 - 3:21and that dominates the answer to that question.
-
3:21 - 3:24It's the one that I want you to think about.
-
3:24 - 3:29What happened? We know about the atrocities in Stalin's Soviet Union.
-
3:29 - 3:33We know about the atrocities in Germany
-
3:33 - 3:36and in many occupied countries in the '30s and in the '40s
-
3:36 - 3:38and the argument of the government of those countries
-
3:38 - 3:41at the time was: "Well, we may have domestic rules
-
3:41 - 3:44that limit what we can do but there's no rule of
-
3:44 - 3:47international law that stops the killing."
-
3:47 - 3:50Individuals have no rights.
-
3:50 - 3:53A very small number of people in the middle part of the 20th century
-
3:53 - 3:59started developing the idea that actually individuals did have rights.
-
3:59 - 4:03And the rights of individuals were exercisable against state.
-
4:03 - 4:08For the first time, ever, the very recent idea
-
4:08 - 4:10an individual could stand up and say:
-
4:10 - 4:14"You Mr President are not allowed to do that.
-
4:14 - 4:17You are subject to constraints, not the constraints of
-
4:17 - 4:20your domestic legal order but the constraints of
-
4:20 - 4:23your international legal order."
-
4:23 - 4:25And that's what culminated in the creation of instruments
-
4:25 - 4:28that many of you are very familiar with:
-
4:28 - 4:30the Universal Declaration on Human Rights,
-
4:30 - 4:33the European Convention on Human Rights and then
-
4:33 - 4:36other instruments that emerged in the late 1990s like
-
4:36 - 4:39-- also in 1998 the year of the Pinochet case,
-
4:39 - 4:42the statute of the International Criminal Court.
-
4:42 - 4:45In fact that was the year that was vital for another reason,
-
4:45 - 4:48in that same year - 1998 - for the first time ever,
-
4:48 - 4:52for the first time in human history, a serving head of state
-
4:52 - 4:56was indicted by an international court:
-
4:56 - 4:59Slobodan Milošević. It had never happened before.
-
4:59 - 5:04Now that is a vital change. A change which is premised on
-
5:04 - 5:09the very simple idea that individuals have rights against their state.
-
5:09 - 5:14That was a development that was hard fought for
-
5:14 - 5:16and which, I have to say right now, is under challenge
-
5:16 - 5:21and under threat. Why? Well, many of you remember
-
5:21 - 5:23the events of September 11th
-
5:23 - 5:27and with the events of September 11th a number of governments
-
5:27 - 5:30that had been at the heart of promoting the idea that
-
5:30 - 5:35"every human person has rights", an idea reflected for the
-
5:35 - 5:37first time in a very obscure document called
-
5:37 - 5:41the 'Atlantic Charter' adopted in 1941 by Churchill and
-
5:41 - 5:46Roosevelt, that idea that "every individual has rights,
-
5:46 - 5:50whoever they are, wherever they may be, in whatever
-
5:50 - 5:53circumstance they may find themselves in" is now under
-
5:53 - 5:57threat from those who promoted the very idea.
-
5:57 - 6:00Why is it under threat? Well, many of you are familiar with
-
6:00 - 6:03the stories about banging people up because they are alleged
-
6:03 - 6:06to be terrorists and holding them without charge
-
6:06 - 6:10indefinitely for the rest of their lives -- I wrote a book about that.
-
6:10 - 6:13About and individual Mohammed al-Qahtani arrested in
-
6:13 - 6:192002 still detained at Guantanamo, has not being charged,
-
6:19 - 6:24has no release date and it appears will be held for the rest
-
6:24 - 6:29of his natural life because of a 'so called' war on terror.
-
6:29 - 6:32You're familiar with the idea of "drones", the idea that
-
6:32 - 6:35all of a sudden because we are 'at war'
-
6:35 - 6:38we are free as a nation,
-
6:38 - 6:42or as Americans, to define individuals who pose
-
6:42 - 6:46a threat to our society and just take them out.
-
6:46 - 6:50Other people call that extrajudicial killing.
-
6:50 - 6:54It's done in Afghanistan and it's extended beyond the war-zone
-
6:54 - 6:59to places like Pakistan and to places like Yemen.
-
6:59 - 7:01Well, if you are going to take people out
-
7:01 - 7:04because they are alleged Al Qaeda individuals in Pakistan
-
7:04 - 7:07why not do it in Edgware? Where do the limits stop?
-
7:07 - 7:10When you start deciding you are simply going to eliminate those
-
7:10 - 7:15individuals abandoning the rules that were put in place
-
7:15 - 7:19in that remarkable period in the decade after
-
7:19 - 7:20the Second World War.
-
7:20 - 7:25So, we face a fundamental challenge in relation to
-
7:25 - 7:29whether we care about these rights. The idea the individual
-
7:29 - 7:34is now an actor on the international stage and has rights
-
7:34 - 7:39exercisable not only in relation to his or her fellow individuals
-
7:39 - 7:44but against the state. And rights not just before national courts,
-
7:44 - 7:47rights before an international court and international instances.
-
7:47 - 7:53That was a hard fought victory in the 1940s
-
7:53 - 7:57it was unique, for millennia there had not been such rights
-
7:57 - 8:01and yet there are now people in this country, too
-
8:01 - 8:05in this parliament also who say the time has come for
-
8:05 - 8:09the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Convention
-
8:09 - 8:11on Human Rights. Because, why? Because they don't like
-
8:11 - 8:15judgments about prisoners' voting rights or they don't like
-
8:15 - 8:18the way in which certain immigrants are allowed to have
-
8:18 - 8:22certain rights but that is the essence of human rights.
-
8:22 - 8:26That is the essence of the system that was put in place,
-
8:26 - 8:31is that no one falls into a black hole.
-
8:31 - 8:36Everyone has minimum rights at all times and in all circumstances.
-
8:36 - 8:39And at the heart of that idea is the place of
-
8:39 - 8:46every human individual having indivisible rights to be exercised at all times.
-
8:46 - 8:52Now, I mentioned this building Parliament and why it was significant.
-
8:52 - 8:55On the 24th of November 1998 I was involved
-
8:55 - 8:59in receiving a judgment in a case that I've been involved in --
-
8:59 - 9:03the Pinochet case. And in sense the case articulated the
-
9:03 - 9:07moment when the idea of individual rights became very real.
-
9:07 - 9:11What was an issue? Some of you will remember what happened.
-
9:11 - 9:16Senator Pinochet came to the United Kingdom, for medical treatment.
-
9:16 - 9:19He took tea with some rather powerful friends and
-
9:19 - 9:22then one day out of the blue a knock came on the door
-
9:22 - 9:26and he was arrested. Arrested for allegations of international
-
9:26 - 9:31crimes committed in Chile very far away not even against
-
9:31 - 9:33British nationals.
-
9:33 - 9:37The idea was posited on something called 'universal jurisdiction'
-
9:37 - 9:44the idea that some crimes: torture, disappearing, killing on a significant scale,
-
9:44 - 9:47crimes against humanity that are so terrible
-
9:47 - 9:51that any country can exercise jurisdiction in relation to those crimes.
-
9:51 - 9:54And a Spanish prosecuting judge decided to indict
-
9:54 - 9:58senator Pinochet for those crimes and he was in England,
-
9:58 - 10:03an arrest warrant was issued seeking his extradition to Spain.
-
10:03 - 10:05Senator Pinochet did exactly what one would
-
10:05 - 10:11expect him to do, he said: "You can't arrest me, I am the State."
-
10:11 - 10:14That's the 19th century view of international law.
-
10:14 - 10:19'L'Etat, c'est moi.' I have absolute power and you
-
10:19 - 10:23the English courts, the Law lords on the House of Lords are
-
10:23 - 10:27not entitled to overwrite my immunity.
-
10:27 - 10:32The case was argued for quite a few days and a couple of
-
10:32 - 10:35weeks after it was argued we trot it off to
-
10:35 - 10:37the Chamber of the House of Lords, when the grand all traditional
-
10:37 - 10:40has changed now, we got a Supreme Court,
-
10:40 - 10:44five Law Lords stood up in turn to give the judgment.
-
10:44 - 10:46It was the single most decisive
-
10:46 - 10:49and defining moment of my professional life
-
10:49 - 10:54in which the system of international rules, the old system, was cast away.
-
10:54 - 10:59Never before had any former head of State been held
-
10:59 - 11:01in the courts of this country or any other country outside
-
11:01 - 11:08his own to be not entitled to claim immunity for a mass crime.
-
11:08 - 11:12And the Law Lords took their vote, very soon on we would
-
11:12 - 11:18two nail down. Two out of the five had voted for immunity.
-
11:18 - 11:23And then it was 2-1 and then it was 2-2 and there was one
-
11:23 - 11:27judge left to express a view and at the moment when
-
11:27 - 11:31that judge articulated his view things were very finely balanced.
-
11:31 - 11:37You go with the old system: absolute immunity for former head of State.
-
11:37 - 11:39Or do you go with the new system?
-
11:39 - 11:43The system that says individuals have rights
-
11:43 - 11:47and that right includes the right to proceedings, legal proceedings against
-
11:47 - 11:51people who commit crimes that are particularly heinous.
-
11:51 - 11:56And the fifth judge -- the fifth judge said 'no immunity'
-
11:56 - 12:01and at that moment you can hear, you can still see it on
-
12:01 - 12:03the CNN website, the BBC website if you go to the archive
-
12:03 - 12:07there was certain sharp intake of breath.
-
12:07 - 12:10It was a remarkable moment because it was the moment
-
12:10 - 12:15more than any other where one recognised that the system
-
12:15 - 12:21had indeed changed and there's no room for complacency.
-
12:21 - 12:26A lot has happened since then. It's extraordinarily important
-
12:26 - 12:30that we do not lose the right of individuals to be protected
-
12:30 - 12:34against their own governments at any time.
-
12:34 - 12:38Every single person in Syria who is subject today in Homs
-
12:38 - 12:44or elsewhere, to the kind of heinous terrible indiscriminate attacks
-
12:44 - 12:47that are taking place is entitled to turn around to us
-
12:47 - 12:52and to say, to us and to our governments:
-
12:52 - 12:55"You adopted a new system in the middle of the last century,
-
12:55 - 13:00you are required to respect that system
-
13:00 - 13:03and you are required to protect us from this kind of
-
13:03 - 13:05system that is taking place."
-
13:05 - 13:08That is the new system of international law.
-
13:08 - 13:11That is the new set of rules that were talked about
-
13:11 - 13:14for the person who spoke, sang wonderfully credibly movingly
-
13:14 - 13:16just before me.
-
13:16 - 13:20That is a system which reflects a single idea:
-
13:20 - 13:24the place of the individual in international society.
-
13:24 - 13:26And I invite you all to think about it
-
13:26 - 13:28and to defend it with everything you have.
-
13:28 - 13:30Thank you very much.
-
13:30 - 13:32(Applause)
- Title:
- TEDxHousesofParliament - Philippe Sands - The individual in the new world order
- Description:
-
Philippe Sands QC is Professor of Law and Director of the Centre for International Courts and Tribunals at University College London. He is a practising barrister and co-founder of Matrix Chambers, acting in cases before the English courts and international courts and tribunals, including the International Court of Justice.
- Video Language:
- English
- Team:
- closed TED
- Project:
- TEDxTalks
- Duration:
- 13:37
Ellen edited English subtitles for TEDxHousesofParliament - Philippe Sands - The individual in the new world order | ||
Ellen edited English subtitles for TEDxHousesofParliament - Philippe Sands - The individual in the new world order | ||
Krystian Aparta edited English subtitles for TEDxHousesofParliament - Philippe Sands - The individual in the new world order | ||
Ivana Korom approved English subtitles for TEDxHousesofParliament - Philippe Sands - The individual in the new world order | ||
Ivana Korom edited English subtitles for TEDxHousesofParliament - Philippe Sands - The individual in the new world order | ||
Lena Capa accepted English subtitles for TEDxHousesofParliament - Philippe Sands - The individual in the new world order | ||
Lena Capa edited English subtitles for TEDxHousesofParliament - Philippe Sands - The individual in the new world order | ||
Lena Capa edited English subtitles for TEDxHousesofParliament - Philippe Sands - The individual in the new world order |