Thursday, April 25, 2013

A New Kind of Court

Garry Davis
"Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law."               
Article 6, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Unlike all preceding courts throughout human history based on local or national units, a "world court of human rights" must by definition be grounded on fundamental human rights already proclaimed and recognized universally. This is a juridical breakthrough unprecedented within the concept of nation-states from which all so-called international courts such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court and even the European Court of Human Rights -- though this court could be identified as a "half-way house" -- have derived to a world court grounded in the sovereignty of humanity itself.

The questions then suppose: From where does such a court arise and how can it be organized?

Given the potential destructive power of the present nation-state system, in short, absolute and "pointing" at humanity per se, global judicial procedures as exemplified by the Nuremberg trial and Principles -- without sanction, incidentally, of any constitutional reference -- must relate dynamically and juridical from humanity's primal and innate sovereignty in order to adjudicate its very fundamental safety, well-being and happiness.

Such an essential structure represents a primal shift in juridical thinking such as already indicated by the renowned Dr. Luis Kutner, author of World Habeas Corpus.[1]

Indeed, the very Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself, deriving irrationally and incongruously from the powerless United Nations[2], proclaims such a breakthrough -- both juridically, viz article 6 to 11, and socially, economically and politically, the last being mandated by both articles 21(3) and 28.

In short, a world court of human rights worth the name cannot derive from the nation-state dysfunctional system itself -- as aptly proven daily by the impotency of both the socalled International Court of Justice[3] and the ICC to adjudicate humanity's safety, etc. -- but must arise directly from the world citizen constituency itself as indeed the eminent consult-jurist Luis Kutner has advocated in his epic book, World Habeas Corpus. Myriad other jurists' notables such as Associate Justice, United States Supreme Court Wm. J. Brennan, Jr. have confirmed "Faith in fundamental human rights, and the dignity of the human person, is the inspiration and the guiding spirit of the movement for a world rule of law."

The Global Mandate

If "everyone" has the right "everywhere" to "recognition" before the law, as affirmed by Article 6, UDHR, such law must be global. So both the law and the person to whom it applies are global or citizens of the world community. A court of world law therefore adjudicates world law for world citizens. But, as sovereignty begins with the human being, a court of world law depends on world law relative to the conduct, rights and duties of humans who have asserted their world citizenship publicly. Otherwise such a court would have no advocates to service in legal jurisprudence. In short, the court's "constituency" precedes its existence just as citizens on any level of social life precede the government thereof.[4]

A "world court of human rights" therefore is the result of the recognition of a constituted group of humans having declared themselves "citizens of the world." In essence each so-called declared world citizen is a de facto world court of human rights-in-microcosm. The question, "Where is the real government" is likewise answered, "Within the affirmation of each citizen therefore." 

This in turn is the essence of sovereignty: the individual human exercising freedom of association within a social environment. The formal institution of a WCHR, therefore, is the result of the already-constituted constituency of humans having declared each one, a "citizen of the world" publicly.

Crimes Against Humanity

The Nuremberg Principles defined "crimes against humanity" as indictable under Principle VI.
"a. Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime."

Humanity itself, however, was not defined although described as a plaintiff for the first time in juridical jurisprudence. Neither was nuclear war described as the most self-evident "crime against humanity."

A World Court of Human Rights' primary ruling must per se indict world war as the ultimate crime against humanity itself. But war is not a cause but an effect. As Emery Reves wrote in The Anatomy of Peace[5], "Throughout the entire history of all known civilization, only one method has ever succeeded in creating a social order within which each man had security from murder, larceny, cheating and other crimes, and had freedom to think, to speak and to worship. That method is law."

The ultimate "crime against humanity" therefore, is world anarchy.

As nuclear war is the ultimate crime whereby humanity itself will be annihilated, a World Court of Human Rights' acting on humanity's behalf and defense, first juridical duty is to outlaw war itself by injunction.

What is the constituency of the WCHR?

The above reasoning leads to a startling and undeniable assertion: Just as every national citizen by definition is a potential advocate of the national legal system from birth, so a world citizen is likewise a "global advocate" of humanity's legitimacy, read "sovereignty," identified per se by such as the UDHR and, as of 1974, by the founding of the World Court of Human Rights.[6] Indeed, the very claim by a given nation-state that a human born within its artificial and arbitrary borders is ipso facto bound legally to that arbitrary legalism, confirms the verity of the civic reality of a member of the human species born within the confines of the planet itself.

Numerous jurists worldwide have advocated world peace through enforceable law such as have been gathering at the City Montessori School in Lucknow[7] since 2001.

As the already 60-year-old World Service Authority issues relevant documents pertaining to specific articles of the UDHR such as World Birth Certificates, World ID Cards, World Passports and World Marriage Certificates, it will issue to all registered World Citizens a World Court of Human Rights Advocacy Card attesting to that human's affiliation of world legitimacy vis-a-vis the WCHR. In short, the individual World Citizen IS the legal personification of world law to which, incidentally, each and every member of the United Nations has affiliated vis-a-vis the UDHR.

Formation of the World Court of Human Rights

The actual formation and "sitting" of the court will follow inevitability and necessarily the rapid evolution of the "world citizen's legal advocacy" formation, potentially in the millions of already registered world citizens. This powerful and undeniable linkage of a world citizens with a logical juridical body designed to protect him/her vis-a-vis human rights violations can happen literally overnight given the communication facilities such as the internet, adequate funding, popular support worldwide, etc. The world citizen constituency will be assessed a modest sum to pay for the issuance of the WCHR’s "World Legal Advocacy Card" as well as enjoined to donate to the "WORLD COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FUND" already registered with the Merchant's Bank, South Burlington.

A campaign is already underway to enjoin progressive philanthropists to donate to this vital, historic cause. In addition, a festival is planned to take place on December 10, 2013 at Griffith Park, Los Angeles, California to celebrate the 65th anniversary of the declaration of the UDHR with music and entertainment of leading personalities, information booths for world citizen registration, issuance of the "World Legal Advocacy Card," free UDHRs, books on world law, world citizenship, world travel, etc. (See

Moreover, the creation of its own web site – already registered as will hasten the evolution of the actual sitting court as preliminarily outlined by Luis Kutner (See

[1]  Oceana Publications, Inc, 1962: "Existence of World Man is founded on a fundamental identification of reason with law and that all his grievances, be they imaginary or real, shall have a forum of due process of law."

[2]  Rendered impotent from its inception due to its Security Council dictatorial system by which any change can be vetoed by the original 5 "victors" of WWII.

[3] 1996: In a split decision the International Court of Justice ruled that "There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such. But the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law; However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake."

[4]  Ref. Declaration of Independence

[5]  George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1946

[6]  Dr. Luis Kutner's Acceptance Speech as the Chief Justice of the World Court of Human Rights:

June 12, 1974, Sausheim, H.R., France

I am indeed honored by this appointment which I accept in all humility.

The international community has come to realize that human rights are not an issue to be left solely to the national jurisdiction of individual states. These rights obviously need protection at a higher level within the framework of international law.

If the principle aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of what Blackstone termed "absolute rights," then it follows that the aim of human laws should serve to promote and guard these rights.

As the World Coordinator rightly pointed out, this morning's trial dramatically exposed the dilemma faced by the sovereign state. While advocating human rights and even proclaiming them as a "common standard of achievement," as does the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of human Rights, it prosecutes blindly* -- as the spokesman for the French Government so vividly revealed* -- a stateless person who, to provide a legitimate framework for his own rights, was obliged to found his own government. I wholly support this action as a logical corollary of 'the U.N.'s proclamation of' the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

If we accept the legitimacy of individual choice in political matters-which is, after all, the essence of democracy -- then the legitimacy of a world government chosen by millions of ordinary citizens cannot be in doubt. What began as a declaration of intent on December 10, 1948 has been slowly evolving into a global compact, a set of rules that proscribe and prescribe the behavior of governments toward their citizens.

There exists today a codified body of international human rights laws that include conventions and covenants on genocide, civil and political, economic and social rights, refugees' ancl women's rights and racial discrimination. The international community is currently working on instruments to prevent torture, to protect the rights of children and to assure the freedom of religion. While these instruments are not self-enforcing, they do provide means for holding governments accountable. They lead inevitably to this assembly today.

We are the citizens concerned, We are the ultimate arbiters of human rights as they are innate and inalienable. Our action today in founding a new court to which the single world citizen can appeal falls within the historical evolution of law itself as an evolving institution. After all, the standards and norms enumerated and outlined in international human rights instruments have not been imposed on any of the nations that are party to then. They are, instead, obligations that governments, having assumed freely and voluntarily, cannot afford to abrogate or disregard under any pretext.

The World Court of Human Rights, while not operating under any written world constitution, nonetheless can embody a "world bill of rights" which defines guarantees relating to deprivation of life, inhumane treatment, slavery and forced labor, personal liberty, determination of rights, including procedural safeguards in criminal cases, freedom of conscience, expression, peaceable assembly and movement, freedom from discrimination and prohibition against compulsory acquisition of property without adequate compensation. Indeed the very enunciation and acceptance of these basic human rights implies due process to insure their implementation and punishment to their violators.

Such was the premise of the Nuremberg Court. No written world constitution sanctioned the Nuremberg Principles, Yet they were effectively used by the Allies to charge, convict and condemn those accused of the international crimes of war planning, war-making and genocide. tion replaces constitutional guarantees of personal liberty. The citizenry then is made to live in a perpetual state of emergency, When that happens, the state becomes an end in itself, a mere summation of the individuals within it.

Before this assembly, I pledge my best and most devoted endeavors as Chief Justice of the World Court of Human Rights in the service of the oppressed, the persecuted and the downtrodden. It has been said that the guarantees of personal liberty and impartial justice are the first causalities of a so-called national emergency. Civil courts are too often replaced by military tribunals and the writ of habeas corpus is usually suspended. Inevitablv the despicabie use of preventive detention replaces the constitutional guarantees of personal liberty. The citizenry then is made to live in a perpetual state of emergency. When that happens, the state becomes an end in itself, a mere summation of the individuals within it.

The World Government of World Citizens that you here represent, is the only effective counter-balance to national citizenry becoming national servitude due to suppression of civil liberties in the name of national security and public order. Now the newly declared World Court of Human Rights will take its place as a needful addition to provide a legal refuge, a global asylum, as it were, to our fellow citizens everywhere. I profoundly believe this day's work has the blessings of the Almighty. Thank you.

[7]  Largest high school in the world with 44,000 students under the direction of Jagdish Gandhi, all students indoctrinated immediately upon entrance as "World Citizens."

1 comment: