Save the Planet after September 11

Posted by Bizina Savaneli on March 22, 2002 at 13:27:24:

Save the Planet

I. Religion, Law and Ecology in Crisis after September 11
II. Universal Human Rights Law Instead of Degrading International Law
III. Globalization, “Stufentheorie” and Normative Pluralism

I. Religion, Law and Ecology in Crisis

Our planet is sick, and its symptomatic treatment will not give us any results. It’s necessary to look for the deep-remote reasons of the sickness that are settled in unconscious layers of brain as a result of development of mankind’s hardly-controllable aggressive inclinations into social stereotype. We are speaking about anthropological catastrophe, about the circumstance that the human being is not formed still as a “human being”, in fact he is the modified animal.
The progressive representatives of the humanity were trying to embellish the facade of humankind society with ideological myths, to change the vampire’s face at least outwardly. At the very outset of our civilization the sage persons with high morals were realizing their noble attempt of humanization of social relations with the help of unification of different religious systems, but their attempt was unsuccessful: the “representatives” of God on earth, the establishers of Gods will weren’t able to persuade the human being that he is not the center of the universe, that the energy of the universe is accumulated in God.
The human being has turned away from God, he has forgotten that God has not given him the right of ascendancy over the nature, that the mentioned right is the prerogative of God only (this point of view is shared by all religions except Judaism). The human being has begun to accomplish the functions of God: has initiated the construction process of the New World in such a way that hasn’t studied earlier the solidity and stableness of “building materials”. In order to justify such self-will the human being has created image of man-God. God has created a human being, but it has founded the man-God, has given the appearance, look and air of human being to God.
Having founded the man-God, the human being has fulfilled the objectivization of his mind and, by the means of this method, the colonization of surrounding nature and the whole universe. He has regarded himself as the center of universe, so far as he has recognized the creator of it. And what is more, the “impertinence” has reached such rate that he wished to create the new kind of human being himself using the method of “gene engineering”, which was an attempt for occupation God’s place entirely, however the human being is just the result of “gene engineering” like every living organism (how perfect is, that’s another question). Mankind’s tragedy is originated from the fact that he has forgotten Godfather and has transferred all his attention to Godson.
The religious dogma of mankind’s ascendancy over the nature was instilled into human mode of life as the directing norm of their activity, and it has directed humanity to ecological catastrophe.
Adoration of supernatural property of human being has become the civilized alternative of idolatry. From this point originate all sins of human being. The mankind isn’t any more God-fearing already for ages because, by his opinion, Godson is all forgiving. After having accomplished the sin, the human being applies to GodSon, begs the forgiveness, some minutes later he makes another sin and so on infinitely. On the whole, the oriented to man-God haven’t saved the humanity, they have implemented the arrogance and laziness in human being. Such religions haven’t been able to help the mankind in order to let him break the dike of barbarous mode of life.
The human being is bifurcated. On the one hand, he feels the evident advantage in comparison with all beings or events known by him, on the other hand, during the process of becoming acquainted with surrounding nature, he becomes sure that he universe is infinite and incognisable, and the more he encroaches deeply upon the essence of the events (phenomena) of universe the more is he seized with the feeling of vainness. Besides these, the unlimited free will in 20th century has leaded the humanity to the brink of planet catastrophe twice. At the second half of this century the global ecological crisis was added to such situation, and this crisis grows deeper and deeper progressively. The free will has transformed into self-will, especially after September 11.
However, this natural process of evolution dies down gradually as a result of unreasoned and uncontrolled intervention of human being… It’s possible to save the mankind but it’s possible only passing through the fundamental reorganization of law and morality based on ecology. .
Is humankind more important than other natural creatures? Do animals, birds, plants, water and biomass have "rights"? Such concerns are in the realm of ethics as a philosophical study of moral values. A key aspect of environmental ethics is developing and justifying a theory of the moral relations between humans and nonhuman species (including nonliving entities).
Western ethics forward the environment have been influenced by the teaching of the Judeo-Christian religions. Based on the passage of the book of Genesis, generations of theologians and laypeople have concluded that humanity is special, having been created in the "image" of God. Humans were destined to rule over the rest of the world and use it for their benefit. “God created nature to serve and benefit humankind”. Many environmental thinkers have suggested that such Judeo - Christian belief have contributed to recent environmental degradation by humans.
Other members of Judeo-Christian tradition have espoused a different attitude, that of stewardship. According to this view, God created nature, and humans have a duty to protect and preserve it - be stewards or keepers of nature - on God's behalf. To abuse or misuse nature is to slight God and God's work. The concept of Christian stewardship has gained prominence recently among many Christian denominations, but it roots can be traced back to at least the time of St. Francis from Assisi.
Neo-Maltuzians correctly believes that we will run out of resources and seriously damage or destroy our environment unless we can control our breading.
Plan for saving the world elaborated by ecologists, in case of its frank confession and urgent accomplishment, can improve considerably the situation on our planet, but, as we see, this hope isn’t real. The root of evil has its origin in political insertion that decoys always some representatives of Eastern and Western political elite into the bottomless mire of strict nationalism and religious separatism. Their shortsighted egoism of world ascendancy resembles me the parable of Rousseau: Five hungry hunters were sitting in the bush and waiting for a deer. Suddenly they saw the big deer moving straightly to their ambush, but in the same moment the small hare jumped from the bush. One hunter shot to the hare, it ran away safe and sound, and the deer was frightened. The deer ran away also, the hunters were remained hungry…
The consideration that any living or unliving creation existing on our planet, any object extended in time or space, any object extended in time or space, any bearer of energy on the crust of Earth or under it (except the human being), is the property of mankind, the treasure presented by God to human being solely, appears as harmful, destroying, blasphemous.
In such a case human being introduces himself like a real universal beast – he eats everybody, nobody eats him, he obliterates everything but nothing, except the human being himself, can obliterate him. And it happens under the conditions that the arbitrary being, object or energy inside the planet, on the surface of the planet or outside the planet, belongs equally to everyone and everything. Every part of the universe is the property of other parts and, at the same time, the proprietor of these other parts. This is the harmony of nature where the human being is fallen out.
Near the entrance of one zoo in USA there is hangered the mirror with the notice under it: ”Stop, look at this mirror and you’ll see the most wicked being, that destroys things that aren’t made by him.” Really, if all other living creations are included “strictly” into the chain of causal-effectual relations, the human being is the broken link of this chain, so that he countervails by the essence, first of all, against himself as the part of nature. The freewill, as it appeared, serves only for benefit and profit of one mankind taken separately, but on the whole it is harmful for the nature and for the humanity, i. e., for each human being.
E. Fromm has given the name “ugliness of nature” to the mankind countervailing against God, and in fact, every being has the space and objects of fight for existence determined strictly from the very beginning, but the mentioned compounds are limitless for the human being, he can annihilate everybody and everything what is for him practically accessible, and this fact doesn’t depend on necessity. The human being brings the misbalance to the balance of life and death that exists in the nature.
The optimal, suitable and affective means for satisfaction of versatile interests useful for every human being and the whole society that are accumulated in mankind’s right and freedoms acknowledged everywhere, are alien to the Phihistine, instead of them for him are attractive non-civilized, sometimes even wild forms of satisfaction of means of subsistence and spiritual necessities, from the extermination of the whole massifs of forests till the brutal kinds of sports, not to tell anything about the fact that mankind is the universal “meat-eating” being.
The brutality has increased sharply also for the reason of absence of even minimum propaganda of mankind’s rights and freedoms acknowledged everywhere. The human being has moved away from his essence, and the essence of human being is connected with his non-conscious aspiration for overcoming of his trite existence in the time and for breaking into transcendent (without-the-time) existence.
Even Freud has changed his initial position in the second half of his creative work and he has come to conclusion that the life is ruled not by two instincts-hunger and sex, but by two passions: love and aggressiveness, and these two passions serve to physiological survival. These two passions are balancing the relations between “life” and “death”. The mentioned balance is disturbed by unlimited politicians and political institutes; they promote the strengthening of injustice, the aspiration for unlimited power, the cruelty, indifferentism, burocratism, narcissism, toadyism, depersonalization, they establish the dictatorship not of justice, but of law, what leads us to totalitarianism, to aggressiveness of global scales, in the end.
The paradoxical statistics approving this process is given by the well-known researcher K.Whrite: the number of armed conflicts on the European continents in15th century was 45, in 16th century-87, in 17th century-239, in 18th century-751, in 19th century-781, in 20th century-892. Such alarming statistics is corroborated by other scientist and is considered to be doubtless. So, the higher is the level of civilization the more is the number of conflicts and vice versa. It’s strange and very perplexing event. After September 11 Humankind has entered into new, more perspective, but at the start - more dangerous transmission era, in seventh dimension.
Statement about the fact that society can’t stay without controlling leaders is the pure myth, it is denied by social systems of modern civilized world that are functioning very well without any hierarchy. The only structure that can be preserved is the law institutions of protection of human rights and freedoms.
So, the conception of freedoms as only the aspiration for reconstruction of world is the result of “creative work” of Satan.
Where is the solution?
At the begining, we have to remove the human image from God because no one has seen the creator of universe yet. The unsuccessful fear of man-God must be replaced by the fear of nature. The solution will be found in creation of ecological religion. The illusion that only human being is the bearer of highest energy must be dissipated. Such a property must be awarded by mankind officially to the phenomena that possess such energy, and that the human being himself takes the living and existence energy from. These objects are Sun, Earth, and Water. It means that we’re speaking about the restoration of primordial religion in new, civilized form named by us as ”ecological religion”. The main aim of it can be explained as” ecologization of thought” with global scale. Only following this way can we restrain in human being the arrogance and laziness pernicious for him.
The human being can say: “I am this that I ought to be”(“solen”), God says: “I am this that I am”(“sein”). The human being never “is”, he is always “becoming” and finite. God is eternal and infinite. God is the basic norm where has originated, originates and will originate from the “existence of exiting”. The superreasoning being – God is the creator of life, it’s evident, but why are we placing the God into human body and its borders?
Our conception of the religion eliminates the discrepancy between the principal religious systems from the very basis, and the same can be said about the discrepancy between different trends within the limits of each religion, this conception exterminates even the possibility of assumption about the existence of several gods, in order to provide the life-protection on our planet the centers of different religions must establish with their agreement the ideology of existence of one God. The religious separatism is today’s tragically reality and the real “chance” of perdition of the humanity.
Religion is the relation of mankind and world with non-conditional origin that all paints of objectively existing creations are connected by equal rays with. The disclaim of reality of this phenomenon is caused by the alienation and contradiction of human mode of life. The main reason of mentioned alienation and contradiction is politics, more exactly, the elite of politicians that regards as the true being only politics and that is circulating in the “magic (vicious) circle” of political ideology banishing from this circle everything connected with morals and laws the effected whimsy of fight for power can be added hereto, together with adoration of state mode and with looking for the origin of human prosperity in it.
More broadly, one can contend that fundamental human rights include the right to a safe, healthy environment, which means that any government should use its authority and power to promote the general welfare of its citizens, and this includes enacting laws that address environmental concerns. More over, the right to a healthy and healthful environment is so fundamental that it envelops much of civil political, economic, social and cultural rights. In the broadest context one can justify environmental legislation as simply protecting the fundamental rights not only humans, but organisms and even inanimate objects and Earth itself.
Political “values” of today originate from pagan period: Caesar was qualified (recognized) for God, Hitler and Stalin were worshiped as God each of them, the status of the Church was awarded to the state, the nation was left without function. It is the highest instantion of blasphemy, isn’t it? N. Berdiyaev has characterized Russian totalitarianism in such a way: “Russian constraining State mode is the organized evil, the organized conscious crush of God’s laws. Revolution at first has excluded politics from eternal values, and then has subordinated all values of politics, the physical extermination of human being was regarded as the means of happy future of the humanity. Here the face of the same beast appeared once more.” Politicians to be more exact-politicians haven’t been able to learn and adopt the simple truth that following rational way it’s impossible to make perfect and humanize the human being and the world, it’s inadmissible to organize the humanity without God and against God, to accomplish the complete depersonalization of mankind. We must mention that Western ecologists have rejected unanimously the idea of Marx about “humanization” of nature.
Only religion annihilates the stereotype of primordial beast in the human being and it given the meaning to mode of being and to the being mankind and of world, it saves mankind and world from the chasm of futility (emptiness) while the adoration of State leads us to the real cult of Satanism.
The universe is endless, and for this reason it’s incognizable. It is God!…This statement was proved involuntarily first by astronoms, later - by physicists: they have argued the theory of permanently extending universe. They have ascertained also that the human being in fact doesn’t “extend”, his psychophysical and spiritual makings are constant because he can’t “exit” himself. He isn’t able even to participate in the process of extension of universe with at least the minimum dose. Because of it the human being must be oriented not at himself but at nature and only with its help - at himself.
Here the problem of sensecomprehending is formulated, and the same can be said about the problem of mankind’s being in nature. The human being must be regarded not as the member of human society but as the member of the family of natural phenomena, and only from this point of view we state the question of comprehending the sense of human mode of life, the problem of mankind’s “being” inside nature and not — outside it, or the understanding of human being as one of the aggregates of nature’s mechanism. In short, we state the problem of derationalization of mankind, the problem of elucidation of his status in the nature and of nature’s status in him. The first is studied by the natural sciences, the second - by the humanitarian sciences.
The purpose is such - let’s return the mankind to nature! But, what can we do with the freewill of mankind? Must we restrain it?! No, but we must provide the freedom of mankind so far as he possesses such right given to him by nature, by norms of ecology, by “Ecological Code”. Solving any social problem we must “appeal” to ecological norms in each case, i.e., we must evaluate any decision according to the scale of its usefulness not for the human being but -for nature, and, also, for the human being as part of nature. The formula “Do not harm” must be considered as follows: “What is harmful for the nature, is harmful for the mankind, but what is harmful for the mankind, isn’t always harmful for the nature.”
There arises one question: who must be the “legislator” in ecology? First of all and mainly, the expert-ecologist of wide profile. The expert-ecologists must be equipped with the attributes of power.
So, Chrystogenesis reflects the end of biogenesis on our planet and makes way for the new religion - Ecogenesis. The central question stated in any case is such: how must mankind behave regarding the nature? From this point of view the ecological law has the privilege to make a decision, and the ecological law is the collection of these norms of justice that are regulating the relations of physical or judicial that persons with the objects of nature. In such a way, the ecological law brings us the life-creative charge because it’s oriented at the integration of mankind and nature, in the language of jurisprudence - at the regulation of relations between mankind and nature.
The law while regulating the actions of the human being with respect to nature regulates also, in the certain sense, the “re-actions” of nature with respect to human being. From this point of view, the ecological law brings the essential correctives into the comprehending of law as the regulator of social relations of human being. In the wide sense, the law regulates the relations between mankind and nature because in the nature there is the meaning provided by God and mankind’s spirit is directed to the understanding of this meaning.
We know doubtlessly the religion has influenced the process of mankind’s humanization importantly, and this influence continues its action today, but the history of the humanity remains criminal. The words of L.Tolstoy: “Aren’t we arisen to this world in order to hate each other and, because of it, to torment ourselves and other persons?” That still expresses the bitter reality. The roots of evil must be looked for rather in mutilated spirit of human being, than-in social structures, political regimes or unjust distribution of goods.
The label once attached to the individual by wicked forces and later repeated many times by them again engenders the stereotype. This ideological model that has become a system maims the mentality of human being and then-of the whole society, the non-human being recognized artificially as human being come to power and elite, and the human being are acknowledged as non-human beings. We must add to this list also some educated mankurths having their souls sold to devil and coloring the political facade of the country outwardly.
Lie and duplicity become the norm of social living-together. The lower layers (strata) of society master this norm in order to preserve their existence, they do it the model of their daily behavior. In such a way the criminal society is formed and for this reason the human being escapes from freedom!
Because of it, before we begin to think about the problem how to save the nature, how to avoid the hunger, wars and cruelty, we must consider once and for all: how to humanize the human beings and not the nature, how to make him not only conscious but, what is more important, conscientious. The most terrible thing that the humanity can meet in future is not the atomic, thermal or such danger but-the anthropological catastrophe, the annihilation of human properties in the human being, the dehumanization of the human being.
In the modern globalistics it us ascertained that today the world is in such a complicate situation that we haven’t the possibility of use of one some system or other of values, ideology or culture as a model in order to preserve its existence.
The first step that the humanity has to do is the integration of basic religious trends as well as God is one and unique.
The second way it’s the peremptory subordination of politicians to the human rights and freedoms of mankind recognized everywhere what implies the global “ecologization” of the thought and mode of life of the humanity. Since beyond the orthodox politics there are many hopeful symptoms of break-throw in this direction but the reality givens us the grounds to make only insecure prognosis. The novatory discoveries regarding utilization of solar energy stumble on the unquenchable avidity of the world’s industrial moguls realizing the uncontrolled exploitation of natural resources existing on the Earth. Meanwhile, the resources of the Sun are unlimited, at least-for a survivable future. The attempt of cultivation of organic, natural compounds in agriculture are hindered from the world’s agroindustrial corporations with a strong obstacle. The new ideas of balanced decentralization are perceived morbidly by the structures of bureaucracy of world’s states. The mentioned antiecological situation is of general type and for this reason they infringe on the rights-freedoms of the mankind living in any point of the Earth that are recognized everywhere, they prevent the accomplishment of pacts about human rights with global scale. So, the problem concerns the suppression of encroachment of human rights and freedoms on the whole planets and not only from separate states because the nature hasn’t frontiers. The protection of civil, political, economic, social and cultural human rights and freedoms by separate states within their frontiers loses the sense, if ever the life on our planet will not be retained.
The third way is the way of establishing prudence, justice and moderation in public and private life. The prudence means orientation of public and private structures to the reality and overpowering of some aspects of the reality with the aim of satisfaction of interests with living necessity, protection the norms of ecology end genetics; the envy and the insatiability are unremitting enemies of prudence, they for their engender injustice as the rule of behavior as the norm for public and private structures. They provoke the human being against another human being, they put the whole society into the locked circle of receiving only material profit, they accomplish the erosion of spirituality that causes the loss of sense of proportion. In the end, the criminal society is formed, and it is based only on the principle of egocentrism. Of course, prudence, justice and moderation don’t imply that we must not to love ourselves. The Christian teaching preaches: “Love others, as yourself” (neither more nor less).
The fourth way – is the “aphroditization” of men’s mind, or the “hermaphroditization” of the whole society. In the works of Aristotle, Aquanaut, Rustaveli and Dante there is developed the consideration that the harmonious consensus of manhood and womanhood is the necessary condition for making the picture of reality without distortion, what creates the grounds for the adequate behavior of human being and excludes the social catastrophes. In the works of famous scholars of 20th century, especially – in fundamental investigations of K. Stern, there is argued with sufficient depth that in the thought of Dante, Shakespeare and Goethe, also – of several well-known persons from the newest history, we can find the ideal harmony of the two trends.
Woman isn’t the surrogate of man, but our patriarchal way of thinking and mode of life allege the opposite statement…
The fifth way – establishment of supremacy of the justice (and not only of law). The justice is oriented to overpower the socially dangerous conflicts between opposite interests, priorities and principles. From this point of view, Justice is the civilized alternative of force. It is called for elimination of the dangerous contradiction between freedom and order, equality and non-equality, individualism and solidarism. The prudence, justice and moderation are accumulated into justice as well as it can direct each conflict to the channel needed for its dying down. The channel of justice is the compromise. The ignoration of the supremacy of justice leads us to the bloody revolutions, concentration camps and common graves.
What is the wide sense of justice based on? By the opinion of Th. Kolouell, the scholar with worldwide recognition, “The balance existing in the nature gives us the objective normative model we can use as the basic principle for our activity. Balance existing in the nature – this is the initial and supreme value, it’s the natural law and not the result of social contract. This principle requires form the human being the following: “You must produce and use such energetical systems and with such doses that fit perfectly the cyclical organization of natural processes. The aims of the human being must be coordinated with the ecosystem possibilities of the nature”.
Actually it means a global substitution of very expensive and dangerous exploitation of Earth’s resources by using of inexpensive and undangerous solar energy as a stable guaranty sustainable development of humankind.
Energetically our planetary ecosystem is an opened system. Between incoming solar energy and the spread-out energy there exists the balance because ecosystem processes are organized cyclically and the non-entropy processes in them are indissoluble with energetically degradation. At the same time, the system isn’t statically, it is dynamical, as long as the forces creating the equilibrium are entrained themselves into the stream of changes, so that the natural search of equilibrium is accompanied by deviations from it, because of the participation of forces directed oppositely in the transactions. The infinite natural combination of forces leading to equilibrium and of such deflecting from it is the very moving force of evolution process.
Solar movement is, first of all, a political movement, because it is directed to the force of governments to respect and strictly observe the rules, which are, obliged them to control.
Solar movement is, secondly, an economical movement, because it is directed to the force of economical persons to respect and strictly observe the rules that are obliged them don't polluted environment.
Solar movement is, thirdly, a social movement, because it is directed to improve of social conditions of life of people on which they have inherent Human Right.
Where is the solution?
In the modern Western philosophy among others there are formed two ways: it’s possible either replace the Judaic –Christian religion with Buddhism or modify the Judaic – Christian religion in the mode of the doctrine of Francisco d' Assisi. We consider as acceptable the coexistence of the both trends, even to act in concert towards the creation of new and united environmental religion.
Actually it means a global substitution of very expensive and dangerous exploitation of Earth’s resources by using of inexpensive and undangerous Solar energy as a stable guaranty sustainable development of humankind.

The God is one for all nations!
All Nations have one Sun!

_____________________________________________________________________________________

II. Universal Human Rights Law Instead of Degrading International Law

Legal personality of the individual in the contemporary international law still remains controversial. It seems still difficult to formulate one doctrine, which reflects both a general consensuses between scholars, as well as lawyers of different legal systems.
Disregard of that, it is established common view, that the individual is a bearer of International Human Rights and Freedoms and his restricted procedural capacity is a constantly enhanced and increased. Restoration of natural law and demise of pure theory of law after the World War II speeded up the process of the Universalization of Human Rights.
It is widely shared that individuals and groups of individuals have their rights better safeguarded if they have the rights to appeal to competent bodies that lie outside the domestic jurisdiction of the National State. The individual complaint procedure established under the optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the procedure for human rights complaints established under Economic and Social Council resolution 1503, represented crucial steps forward in the creation of International Human Rights Law as an independent branch of Law in whole.
Four main theories on the status of the individual in the contemporary international law were established.
From the point of view of the first theory, the private individual has no legal personality, because he has no legal capacity by his actions to give rise to international rights and obligations; this attribute is obtained only States. Further, another criterion of the State's personality is the attribute of sovereignty, which cannot be claimed by an individual in his ordinary legal position. State, as a corporate personality of a hierarchic structure, holds the highest rank within assumed hierarchy of personal units. The right to apply to international organizations can play a useful role on the international level in guaranteeing the rights not of Individuals, but of nations and peoples, particularly, as a means of combating racial discrimination.1
The second theory provides that a private individual is the object, not the subject, of international law. This theory bases primarily upon a specific interpretation of the individuals, especially citizen’s position within the corporate unit of the State. The State is the only addressee of international law, while by the very definition of International law, since he is allegedly subject to duties without having any rights, and for this reason the term object is to be preferred. The object - theory has been challenged on the ground that it is illogical to apply a double standard to municipal and international law.2
The third theory considers legal personality of the State as a fiction; only individuals are the «real» subjects of international law. According to the third theory, the State is unreal, because as a corporate entity, a moral person, it cannot have a will of its own, that is to say, a will other than that of the individuals, which comprise it. Nevertheless, only the «declared will» and not the formation of the will count, as a rule, in international relations. In this regard, it should be emphasized that a State, that disregards the personality of its individual members, does not fulfil the true mission of an ideal democratic State.3
According to the forth theory, States are the «normal» subjects of international law, but the validity of rules concerning individuals is not excluded. The followers of this theory believe that the individual enjoys «some limited personality» under the rules of international law. Although at the present time, the rules of substantive international personality on the individual, they see no reason why he/she should be deprived of such personality and advocate to necessity of granting the individual the capacity to claim his vested rights before an international tribunal.4
2. We put forward fifth theory on this matter.
Accordingly to a classical international law, its main purpose is the regulation of the relations among the States. We are agreeing with that doctrine: International law means interstate law, including relations on the level of intergovernmental organizations.
Let us take the uncontroversial statement that " public international law is the aggregate of the juridical norms which governing international relations".5
In theory of Law it was established the notion of juridical norms. As far as international juridical norms are variety of juridical norms, they might be have similar character. But International Law made not up of the norms creating precise legal rights and obligations. Basically "more and more normative system of international law comprises norms whose substance is so vague, so uncompeling that "A"-s obligation and "B"-s rights all but elude the mind".6
The most numerous treaty provisions whereby the parties undertake merely to consult together or to open negotiations, to settle the problems by subsequent agreement and to "seek to", "make efforts to", " promote", "avoid", " examine with understanding", " act as swiftly as possible", "take all due steps with a view to" and etc. A recent Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice including obligations such as: " to co-operate in good faith", " to consult together" and etc.
From that point of view the norms of International Law has remained at the stage of abstract general standards on which only the farther development of international law can confer concrete substance and precise meaning. In regard to certain points, international law knows no norms at all, but a lacuna. Some of its structural weaknesses are too familiar to require lengthy treatment here: not only the mediocrity of many of its norms, but also the inadequacy of its sanction mechanisms. Yet the fact remains that the proliferation of " soft" norms, of what some also call " programmatory" law, makes the international law like a programme of wishes without any correlation rights and obligations, without normativness. Even in the documents where rights or obligations more or less are structured, it is not simple matter for a jurist to determine what may be called the threshold of the normativity, i.e. the line of transition between the nonlegal and the legal, between what does not constitute a norm and what does. More over, the sanction visited upon the breach of a legal obligation is often less real than that imposed for failure to honor a purely moral or political obligation.7
If there is one field pervaded by this problem, it is surely that of the resolutions of International Organizations. From the juridical point of view even of resolutions do not attain full normative status, they nevertheless constitute " embryonic norms" of " nascent legal force", or " quasi-legal rules". In other words, there is no longer any straightforward either /or the problem of the normative force of the acts of International Organizations; it is a all a meter of degree.8 Therefore, it is necessary to agree with Prosper Weil: "It is beyond question that we are faced with a pathological phenomenon of the normativity of international law. We are faced because, however much some writers deny the difference between norms and non-norms, states continue clearly to perceive that difference. More than a dozen years after the signature of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the theory of jus cogens has not yet been put to any practical test."9
Some scholars are arguing the applicability of principles of " jus cogens" and " ergo omnes" to the Human Rights categorie.10 But mechanical removing these notions from the international law in the field of Human Right Law should be considered as a forcible action. Human Rights Law is not in need to borrow term from other branches because it has its own, that is the term " Universal". The substance of Human Rights is concluding in its Universality, which is provided by the articles 6 and 28 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. International law is not universal, it is although a special,11 but just one of the branches of law. Traditional principles of " jus cogens" and " ergo omnes" are obliged only states each to others, but not the states before the individuals. It is in this sense that the Count of Justice of the European Community spoke of: " Fundamental rights form an integral part of the General principles of the Law",12 ( not- international law).
Some scholars are considering the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as Customary International Law.13 In such case may also notice the intention to remove mechanically the notions from international law. More over, considering of Universal Declaration of Human Rights as customary international law decreases and weakness of effectiveness of protection of Human Rights. Human Rights and Fundamental freedoms are needed in strictly defining of the mechanism of their implementation through conventional norms, which are defining the mechanism of restoration human rights violations caused by the states.
3. Our proposal is following. Article 16 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights sets up: «Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law». This is the most important argument for recognition of individual not as a subject of interstates law, but as the Universal Subject of Law, as a bearer of Universal Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in any point of the earth. An individual has a value, which is not national or international, but Universal. The same we can not say about a State.
Universal Human Rights Law is a unity of such rules of Law, which is determined universal human rights of the Individual to the States and the universal duties of the States to the Individual.
International Human Rights Law already have been separated from international law and by the its universal feature should be called as Universal Human Rights Law. The process of separation of Universal Human Rights Law from international law originated from the Newrenberg (1945) and has been completed with the adoption of the Vienna Declaration and program of action on the World Conference on Human Rights (1993).
In this respect it is necessary to recall following positions of the conference: «The imperative of universality will undoubtedly be in evidence throughout our debates. Universality is inherent in human rights. The Charter is categorical on this score: Article 55 states that United Nations shall promote universal respect for, and observance of all without distinction. The title of the 1948 declaration is universal, but not international, reinforces this perspective. However, this concept of universality must also be clearly understood and accepted by everyone. It would be a contradiction in terms if this imperative of universality, on which our common conception of human rights is based, were become a source of misunderstanding among us».14
«The universal nature of these rights and freedoms is beyond question. Human rights and fundamental freedoms are the birthright of all human beings; their protection and promotion is the first responsibility of Governments».15 «Human rights, by definition, are the ultimate norm of all politics». «Human rights, by their very nature, do away with the distinction traditionally drawn between the internal order and international order. Human Rights give rise to a new legal permeability».16
Universal Human Right Law and International Law are distinct by the sources of each of them. The sources of International Law are basically collection of rules, which govern the relations among States. The sources of Universal Human Rights Law is constitute of rules, which directly govern the relations between Individuals and States through the recognition of economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights and freedoms of individuals before the States, and through the imposition economic, social, cultural, civil and political duties on States before the individuals. These rules are consolidated in collection of documents.17
Obligations of the States to each other are a subject of International Law, but the obligations of the States to the individuals is a subject of Human Rights Law. It is a fundamental distinction between two branches of Law, based on the personal composition of participants.
They are also distinguished by the different mechanisms of protection. Protection of Human Rights consists of two stages: internal and international. International stage is a continuation of the internal stage. Conversion of first stage into the second is linked with the conditions when individuals, who claim that any of their rights enumerated in the Covenant have been violated, have exhausted all available domestic remedies and submit a written communication to the Committee for consideration (Article 1, Optional Protocol to the ICCPR).18
4. Extending and deepening of international protection of Human Rights empower and strengthen independence of International Human Rights Law from international law.
In 1959 the Economic and Social Council of UN instituted a procedure providing for the examination of individual petitions. A confidential list of petitions was to be prepared by the Secretariat and than circulated to the Commission and Sub-Commission, although no action could be taken. The process became more speed in the late 1960 with the adoption of resolutions 1235 and 1503. These mechanisms led to the creation of the Special Reporters, both countries specific and thematic.
Remedies that were more judicial in nature first evolved within the regional systems. The European Convention on Human Rights provided for a sophistical individual petition mechanism. Applications were initially examined by the European Commission on Human Rights which operated as a filter, with a relatively small number of those judged admissible being forward to the European Court of Human Rights for a judgement. The system began slowly in 1950, but after forth years it had become a victim of its own success. Protocol 11 to the Convention abolished the Commission and made acceptance by States parties of the Court's jurisdiction over individual complaints to be mandatory.
Scholars and practitioners of criminal law and procedure in Europe are already well aware of the impact of International Human Rights Law in the prosecution and defense of criminal cases. Particularly, European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms already had and has a major impact on the national practice of criminal law among the various European Union Member States.19
The inter-American system began somewhat later with a commission hearing Human Rights complaints from the early 1960. In the late 1970 s, a Court, based on the European model, began to operate. However, the inter-American court of Human Rights spent its first decade hearing request for advisory opinions submitted by the Commission or by the States. Only in recent years, have individual petitions taken on a more significant role in the Court's activity.
The African regional system also contemplates individual petitions, although their treatment remained shrouded in mystery until the last few years, when the reports of the African Unity is the process of creating a human rights court.
On the Universal level, there is no human rights court to correspond with the regional models. In its place, we have the treaty bodies or committees, created by the Universal Human Rights Conventions. Foremost, among them is the Human Rights committee with jurisdiction to hear individual complaints on the ground of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Two other treaties to the Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Convention against Torture and the Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment also allow for individual petitions. Drafting of a similar instrument for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is on the agenda.
Moreover, International Criminal Justice has been the great innovation of the last decade. Dislike the International Court of Justice, human rights NGOs and even individual litigants have an important role to play. Particularly, the right of Court's prosecutor to lay charges "proprio motu" means that in practice NGOs and individuals will have access to the Court.
Today these regional and universal petition mechanisms have proved universal legal subjectivity of the individuals.
International Human Rights Law at the same time began to influence the development. In particular field, International Human Rights Law begins to influence the development of International Criminal Law in a direction focussed on Human Rights of civilian populations. The 1948 Genocide Convention was the first instrument to recognize the criminality of certain acts, whether they ere committed in time of peace or in time of war. The evolution in the law over the next four decades or so was confirmed in the October 2, 1995 decision of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia in the Tadic case.20 It made two important dicta: 1. War crimes committed during internal armed conflict were punishable under customary international law. 2. Crimes against humanity could be committed in time of peace as well as in wartime. Accordance with Tadic, what is sometimes called international humanitarian law or international criminal law confirmed its focus on essentially the same concerns that constitute the core of International Human Rights Law.
5. Some remarks concerning the co-relation between Universal Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law. Public international law usually described as the law regulating the co-ordination and cooperation between the members of the international society - essentially the States and the organizations created by States.
To understand International Humanitarian Law one most start from the concepts and inherent features of the traditional layer: it was born as a law-regulating belligerent inter - States relations. International Humanitarian Law however nearly irrelevant for contemporary humanitarian problems. Indeed, inter-States armed conflicts tend to have disappeared in reality. Law indeed has to provide answers to reality; it has to rule over reality.21
Since the character of armed conflicts are changing (more and more armed conflicts are transmitting within the countries), accordingly International Humanitarian Law gradually turned into Internal Humanitarian Law. As the result, Humanitarian Law already hardly could be considering as a branch of International Law exclusively. In any case, it's necessary to re-interpret character of Humanitarian Law concerning a contemporary situation as a branch of International Law regulating internal country relations.
Contrary to the International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law tends to have denationalization in direction of its Universalization. The fact is lawyers insist, that national sovereignty for the benefit of Universal Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
International Human Rights have been only recently formulated as subjective rights of the individual against the sate - mainly their own State through international and/or regional governmental law-protecting organizations. This opinion gradually has assumed a common recognition.
6. We can not agree with Prof. Yasuhiko Saito, who pointed out that Human Rights have exclusively natural law character and indicated on the advisory opinion rendered by the International Court of Justice in the case of " Reservations to the Convention on the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" on 28 May, 1951. Particularly, International Court of Justice emphasized, that the Genocide: " ... shocks the conscience of mankind and results in great losses to humanity and is contrary to moral law and the spirits and aims of the United Nations...The principles underling the Convention are principles which are recognized by civilized nations as binding on states, even without any conventional obligation.... "22
Conscience of Mankind, Moral Law, Humanity, Spirit and aims of the United Nations are very abstract and general independently. These slogans could be used and really had been used by the dictators or powerful states arbitrary. Such examples were and are more in far and near history of Mankind. These values without normativity, without crystallization in normative forms ( internal or international), remain as a "good tale".
The basis of Human Rights are " the conscience of mankind" and " the moral law", the basis, but nothing else, because on that basis should be binding the normative structure, normative building, by which these values could be implemented in the life, and which should be include the norms, which strictly could be define the mechanisms of implementation of structured principles of Natural Law. Natural Law is getting the power from Normativism.23 Human Rights Law is junction of " Natural Law" and " Pure Law", their dialectical entity. More over, it is necessary to distinguish Human Rights in the political sense and Human Rights in its Antrophological sense.“Antropological Normativizm” takes its form from “Pure Theory of Law” and its contents from “Natural Theory of Law”.
The Political and Moral obligations take over the juridical obligations in the International Law, which make it fragile and unstable, in particular relating protection of Human Rights, while the people could not follow up and could not entrust their fate to the constantly changeable political games played by state high officials.
Just the effectiveness of Human Rights demands on strictly and precisely systemized and structured juridical protection procedures, because in differ from people, the state can defend itself very easier. Only State has available power.
Normative weakness of International Law and predominance of " real politic" in it, turn International Law into " embryonic law" in fact. Many prominent scientists noted this character of International Law.24
International Law of Human Rights and Universal Human Rights Law are not same. International Law of Human Rights Law principally regulates relations among the states, but Universal Human Rights Law basically regulates relations between states and individuals. Very simple argument: when individual brings the claim against his/her own State and European Court of Human Rights considers the case, which are the parties? It’s very clear that parties are Individual and State. To be a party from the point of view of Jurisprudence Alphabet means to be a subject, not object, of Law disregard of: is the case considering by internal or international court.
More over, Universal Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Bill of Human Rights) are concentrated reflection of all branches of Law in whole; in other words, all rules of Law are accumulated in the Universal Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Universal Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are constituted the
highest point of hierarchy (pyramid) of the rules of law.25 From that point of view it is possible to convergence two opposite theories - «Natural Law» and «Pure Law», and to put forward a new theory named «Anthropological Normativism»26. This theory might be takes its structure from the Pure Theory of Law and its contents – from the Natural Theory of Law. The result of their junction is Universal Human Rights Law.
7. Not only International Law, but Law in whole is polluted (as well as Jurisprudence). It is necessary to save and rescue it from death through its purify from different masques of Materialism, including Politics. In short, Humankind needs in ”second” Kelsen! But why in second, if we have Kelsen?! Yes, Hans Kelsen was, is and will unrepeated embodiment of purity of Law and independence of Jurisprudence, protector of honor and dignity of Law Profession.
On the other hand, the most significant argument for the recognition of Individual's Universal legal personality proclaims the article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which entitles "everyone to the right on the International Order in which rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration can be fully recognized". This is the decisive principle of the Universality of Human Rights, which gains the upper hand over the International Law.
I am very convince in the future of World Law, but not in World State. World or Regional Federal State is a utopia. “Kelsen himself indicated and fervently hoped for when in 1944, in Peace through Law, he proposed the setting up of an international penal jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for war crimes for which they were responsible. This is just what the Hague Tribunal is doing, even if only for the formerYugoslavia. What we are seeing, then, is a trend towards constructing the international legal system no longer as an association among states, but as something that includes as subjects of law all the citizens of all states. This too corresponds to a prediction by Kelsen, in addition to being recognized in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for which individuals are also subjects of the international legal system. A part of the power of states over their citizens is thus removed from them and handed over to supranational institutions that see to protecting fundamental rights even against the authorities of the individual states. How in practice to achieve the international protection of human rights - by means of which judicial institutions, for instance - is a very delicate question, but this is not to deny that we are slowly moving towards a position where individuals will no longer be mere citizens of an individual state, but also citizens or subjects of supranational entities or even of a federal state of worldwide dimensions. This corresponds, for me, to Kant's ideal of `cosmopolitan law', the right of universal citizenship, on the basis of which all human beings as such are citizens of the world.”(D.Zolo-November 9, 1999). For example, concerning Europe, it would be talking about citizenship of European Civil Society, but not - European Federal State. The follower of Hans Kelsen – Prof. Koskenniemi argued for treating the State in Kelsen’s terms as a pure juridical form.
We are witnessing the beginning of era of triumph of Hugo Grotcius's Theory of "Humanitarian Intervention " in worldwide practice. This theoretical model has been successfully tested in the conflict relating to Iraq and Kuwait and has more recently been applied in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda. Even the United States and France, both countries with a long tradition of unilateral interventions in Latin America and Africa, have recently asked the Security Council for authorization before intervening in Haiti or in Rwanda, respectively. (Exclusion is a US’s intervention in Afghanistan). In some instances, the United Nations has engaged in `nation-building' in order to protect the domestic system against complete collapse. What we witness here is an astonishing reversal of the traditional view according to which the development of the international system was to be seen as a progressive gain of authority by international institutions at the expense of state sovereignty. Instead, we are witnessing the United Nations maintaining state authority.
Above mentioned events are evidencing that the era of primacy of International (Interstates) Law gradually is coming to the end, and accordingly the era of Universal Human Rights Law is beginning. In any country, where the Human Rights are systematically abused by the government, the principles of international law, particularly the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state are losing their meaning and sense.
The main purpose is to eradicate totalitarian and authoritarian regimes in any forms from the future of mankind through political emancipation in the framework of Human Rights Law.
In this article had been made an attempt to reconcile two contradicted theories: ”Natural Law” and ”Pure Law”. Globalization of Human Rights violations by the States, particularly in the developing countries, obliged scientists and NGOs' to think about the systematization and structurization of Natural Human Rights by means of application of Pure Theory of Law, especially –“ Stuphen Theorie” of H.Kelsen and A.Merkl. Reconciliation of those theories able to play decisive role for the substitution rule of States by rule of Human Rights as ”Grundnormen” on the basis of creation of “Code of Universal Human Rights”, which would be includes the sanctions against the Officials of the States for the violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms through the establishing of International Tribunal for Human Rights, like European Court of Human Rights.
I am convinced that as long as there is primacy not Universal Human Rights Law but International (Interstates) Law, which based exclusively on the power, Peace can never be assured.

III. Globalization, “Stufentheorie” and Normative Pluralism

Human Dimension of Pure Theory of Law

The article comprise the following problems: relationship between ‘globalization’ and ‘normative pluralism’, between ‘legal system’ and ‘legal order’, between 'legal monism' and 'legal pluralism' concerning an emerging European legal doctrine. Human Rights are announcing as the common legal language or meta-language between member-states of Council of Europe.

Generally known that ”Globalization” tend to make the world more legally interdependent and inter-related, but this does not mean that we are moving inexorably towards a single world government. Indeed, while the processes of globalization inevitably change the significance of national boundaries, the impact is not always in direction of centralization or the creation of larger units or even of homogenization, but in the direction of coordination and cooperation. Recognition of these processes has stimulated a new academic industry – “globalization theory”. 1
It is now widely accepted that relations, traditionally focused on relations between nation states (international relation), have expended to include non-state relations across frontiers (transnational relations) and the operation of the global system as a whole (global relations). But, of course, the web of relations is very much more complicated than that. 2
Globalization in modern world reflects such phenomenons which have never been exist in the history of mankind in widespread aspect: Islamofobia and Judafobia, European Union and NATO, World Bank and IMF, International Drugs Network and Terrorism, Internet and E-mail, Global Warming and Ozone Depletion, Minorities and Majority, Monopolization of World Economics and Extreme Poverty, Amnesty International and Greenpeace, Coca-Cola and Macdonald’s, Exhausting of Non-renewable Earth Resources and Neo-colonialism, International Trade Union Organizations and Transnational Woman’s Networks, ”Black Africa” and ”Yellow Asia”, Catholic Church and Russianfobia, Ethnic Conflicts and the vast herds of Displaced Persons, Council of Europe and Growth of Human Rights Law, and a cross-syntez of above mentioned realities. Each of them and their correlations need in the normative regulations on the International, Regional, national and Local levels from the Universal Human Rights’ point of view.
Globalization seemingly offers fundamental challenges to contemporary legal theory. This challenge operates in two main ways: municipal law can no longer be treated in isolation from outside influences, legal or otherwise. To take a familiar example, consider the daily impact of Universal Human Rights Law, the European Convention of Human Rights, Transnational Religions Laws on our internal legal relations between state and other legal persons. It is now widely accepted that public international law can not cope adequately with such problems as ecology, international crime and fundamental human rights at the global level and all above mentioned phenomenon (never have been exist until in a globe). They created new normative environment – new ’Normative Pluralism’.
Normative Pluralism has legal and social contexts. Normative Pluralism refers to the co-existence of multiple normative orders parallel with single legal system. In other words, we have single legal system and plural normative orders, which include legal orders and illegal orders. Normative pluralism and normative orders are synonyms.
If we compare Laws of different countries inside and/or outside “Grand Systeme Contemporaine”, we will found much more common then differences. Virtually, Principles of Roman Law live inside and/or outside “Grand Systeme Contemporaine”. In other words “Law in the books” has cosmopolitan character. For example, differences between Anglo-Saxon and Francophone legal systems have superficial not substantial character. For example, Fundamental Principles of Civil Law is common for both. (Above mentioned has been set forth in Manual “Theory of Law” by B. Savaneli (1993).
If we compare Legal Orders of different countries inside and/or outside “Grand Systeme Contemporaine”, we will found much more differences then common. In other words “Law in the action” have ethnocentric character disregard of Legal Systems (Anglo-Saxon or Francophone and etc).
Historically, Law and Legal Order never had been coincide each to other, and that is happiness, because such differences is a precondition of progress and prosperity. But for sustainable development it is necessary to create permanent checks and balances between them. If Law takes an advantage over Legal Order, we receive dictatorship, for example on the internal level. If Legal Order takes an advantage over Law, we receive anarchy, for example on the international level. The function of Legislator and Administration of Justice is to create permanent checks and balances between them on the both levels. Such point of view is necessary for the strengthening of Civilization and restoration of Democracy in Post-Soviet States!
A "ius humanitatis", a transnational "lex mercatoria", Islamic law, transnational Humanitarian and Universal Human Rights law, and in a different way, some new regional orderings are arguably more or less clear examples of new category "non-state law". Nation states have, of course, played a major role in the diffusion and imposing of Law in modern times, but so have immigration, informal networking and the globalization of communication. In theo-political aspect, universalisation of law ensures global democratization, but universalisation of statehood makes global bureaucratization in global despotism.
Normative pluralism includes multiple system of multiple normative orders, which are based on ’normative facts’, rather than on concept or school of law. In the broad sense normative pluralism comprises both state- and non-state orders. 3
Developing Reinach-Naneisvili’s theory, normative pluralism is coexistence of different bodies of norms within the same social space of every day of our lives. These include private contracts and vast range of internal institutional rules, the rules of sport, the rules of logic and grammar, the rules of indoor and society games, good manners and etc. The most of them do not fixed and regulated by Public Law and its 'implementators'. It is simply impossible. Therefore, normative pluralism reflects normative pluralism of day by day lives of individuals’ and their groups, and ’production’ of legal rules by public bodies and their legal actions. Normative lives of individuals, groups and bodies form normative live of society in whole.
All societies have diversity of normative orders, of which state law is not only one, and necessarily the most powerful. The state has no monopoly of lawful power within appropriate country, except criminal law and administrative law, because many normative orders do not have discrete boundaries. They tend to be dynamic rather than static, and relations between them are extremely complex. For example, co-existing rest-normative and legal orders interact in complex ways. Sometimes they compete or conflict, sometimes they sustain or reinforce each other, and often they influence each other through interaction, imposition and transplantation. Often such influence is reciprocal.
Above mentioned is not unknown for lawyers. All lawyers working in European Union countries or involved with transnational transactions are operating in contexts of normative pluralism that typically involve non-state law as well public law. Concerning International Human Rights Law, particularly law of indigenous peoples, refugee law, law of the displaced persons, lawyers are increasingly involved in complex problems of ‘interlegality’.
Different levels of normative ordering are not neatly nested in hierarchies, nor are they impervious, nor are they static. They interact in complex ways. Moreover, to understand normative ordering, the study of norms is almost never enough. One also has to take account of values, facts, meanings, processes, structures, power relations, personnel and technologies. Thus, one of main challenges to contemporary jurisprudence is to accommodate the implication of globalization with the facts of ethical and cultural pluralism.
I believe that above-mentioned differences should be serve, particularly as starting-point for the follow up dialogue among different Cultures of West and East (for example, between Christians and Muslims life styles). Eternity of Principles of Law and inconstancy of Legal Orders is historical fact. Law consolidates, but Orders isolate. The goal is strengthening of Law and rapprochement of Orders of different Cultures.
General jurisprudence in Globalize world needs an adequate conceptual framework and cross-cultural meta-language than can international, regional or particular legal cultures. Such conceptual framework and Meta-language is ”Human Rights as common language of humanity”, as it had been named by the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action on the World Conference of Human Rights (1993). Jeremy Bentham refereed to himself as a Citizen of the World. 4 However this ”language” needs a legal (hierarchy) form.
From the philosophical point of view, distinctions between Natural Theory of Law and Pure Theory of Law concerning Human Rights are not substantial. Human Rights to fundamental economic, social, political and cultural goods are Natural Rights, because they affirm existence of Human Being. Human Rights to sue in case of violation of fundamental economic, social, political and cultural rights are Positive Rights, because they affirm necessity of protection of Human Being. Human Rights compile the substance of Law. Positive Rights is a stage of development of Natural Human Rights. Thus, legal obligations are only reflections of Human Rights.
However, if on the one hand, monism provides a challenge to ideas about legal pluralism and non-state law, on the other, form and structure of municipal legal system could be used for the systematization and codification Universal Human Rights Law, because only Human Rights can take off any distinction among state law, interstates law and non-state law, only Human Rights can take off any distinction among diversity of richness, complexity, elusiveness and variety of the phenomena of law. Monism and Pluralism are entire process, which establishes a new synthetic system of law in worldwide scale. The target is to move "Monism" and "Pluralism" each to other!
Virtually, Genocide, Crime against Humanity and War Crime are crimes against Human Rights, lesser than against International (Interstates) Law.
A global system of Universal Human Rights Law should be able to give a total picture of new phenomena of law in the modern world. For most purpose, this picture needs to include not only municipal legal systems and traditional public international law, but also global, transnational and local orderings as “normative facts” (Reinach-Naneishvili). This will involve addressing the phenomena of normative pluralism, both parallel and beyond municipal legal systems and different cultures and traditions of the West and East.
The idea, that Law is something which is being imposed on us and to which we have to submit, is not exact. Why us? “Us” means we, and we are the People, not a toy. Most likely, Law is something, which is being imposed on government and to which government has to submit! That Law is Universal Human Rights Law as Supreme Law.
The only way to make sense of the overlapping orderings in the modern world is to take refuge in picturing all states legal systems and international order and other orderings in a single monist or pluralist system. Monism and Pluralism are entire process, which establishes a new synthetic system of law in worldwide scale. Therefore, I sure that a Hierarchy of World Legal System has issued from Universal Human Rights as a peak of pyramid (Grundormen), which based on “Stufentheorie”.
Pluralist approach to law means investigation of diversity of Legal Orders. But it is a start. The task of such investigation is a discovery of common elements among them and then elaboration of “Consensual Laws” and ways of their rapprochement through “an intercultural approach to Law”. 5
Law is not a universal and permanent phenomenon, but Human Rights Law – is. Human Being without Human Rights turn itself into “instrumentum vocale”.

-------------______________________________________________________________________________

II. Universal Human Rights Law Instead of Degrading International Law
1 M. Siotto Pinto. Le sujets de droit international autres que les Etats. Vol.41,1932,p.255-256. A. Heffter. Le droit international de l, Europe. 4ed. Paris, 1983,p.45-46.
2 L.Mingazov. Social value of international law. In Soviet Yearbook of International Law. M. 1986, p.p. 80-81. S. Chernichenko. The individual and international Law. M. 1987, p.197-198.
3 G. Scelle. Precis du droit des gens. Vol. I, 1940,p.9. J. Scott.Law,State and International community. New-York 1939, vol. I,p25-26. M. Garcia-Mora. International Law and Asylum as a human Right. Washington,1955,p. 8-9 .H. Jesup, International law, New-Haven,
1956, p. 3. A. Mohamed and M. Macbride. International protection of human Rights. Oceanea Publications. N.Y,1968,p.52-53. Near this theory staying the conception of Prof. Weil, Prof. Baxter, Prof. Schlachter, Prof. Bothe, Prof. Castenada, Prof. Pellet and others, who name the International Law as "soft" ",embrionic", "quasi-legal" Law.
4 Ch.Fenwick. International law. New-York,1948,p.129-135. M. Korowicz. Introduction to international law. The Hague, 1959,p.329. A.Verdross. Volkerrecht. Vienna, 1955,p.8.P. Drost. Human Rights as Legal Rights, Leiden,1951,p.121.
5 P.Guggenheim, Traite' de droit Internetional Public. 2- d ed. 1967.
6 P. Weil, Towards Relative Normativity in International Law? In the American Journal of International Law. VD. 77 ( 1983 )
7 Baxter, International Law in " Her Infinite Variety", 29 INTL and Comp. L.Q. (1980).Schachter, The Twilight Existence of Non-Binding Agreements, 71 AJL (1977). Bothe, Legal and Non-Legal Norms, 9 NETH. INTEL (1980). Weill, Le Droit international economique: myth ou realite. In " Aspects du Droit International Economique, Eds (1972).
8 Castaneda, Legal effects of United Nations Resolutions 176 (1969). Nguen Quoc Dinh, P. Dalier, A. Pellet , Droit international Public 338 (1980); A. Pellet, Droit de development 63 (1978).
9 Op. cit. p. 416, 417, 442.
10 See, Gormley, Peremptory Norms of Jus Cogens. In the right to life in International Law 120, 125-126 (B. Ramcharan 1985).
11 P. Weil, Towards Relative Normativity in International Law? In the American journal of International Law. Vol. 77 (1983).
12 Hauer v. Land Rheinland - Pfalz, 1979 ECR 3727, 3744-45,29 common MKT. L.R. 42, 64, 1980.
13 See, Paul Sieghart, The Lawful Rights of Mankind. Oxford University Press, New-York, 1986.
14 Word conference on Human Rights. The Vienna Declaration and program of Action. June 1993. UN, NY, p.11.
15 OP. cit.,p.8.
16 OP. cit.,p.14.
17 See, «Human Rights», 50-th Anniversary of UN. Documents, N.Y.1995. I agree with some scholars that it is necessary to separate two groups of Human Rights : first - the Civil and Political freedoms (from the state), second - the economic, social and cultural rights (to the state). In connection with different natures of these groups, in Europe it was adopted two acts - European Convention on Human Rights and European Social Charter, accordingly which later was adopted two International Covenants.
18 The International Court of justice in the Barcelona Traction case enounced: " Basic rights of human person create obligations ergo omnes for states only." 1970, Judgement Feb. 5.
19 I had a pleasure to look through the article of Professor of Law and Director of the International Human Rights Clinic at the American University in Washington - Mr. Richard J.Wilson, in which I had discovered a new case law arguments for defending of my position. See, Richard J. Wilson. Using International Human Rights and Machinery in Defending Borderless crime cases. Fordham International Law Journal. Vol. 20, N5, June 1997.
20 Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case no IT 94-1-AR72). Oct. 2, 1995, 105 L. L.R. 453, 35 I. L. M. 32.
21 Above mentioned conclusions set forth in "Cases, documents and teaching materials on contemporary practice in International Humanitarian Law" by Marco Sassoli and Antoine Bouvier, ICRC, Geneva 1999, p. 73-74.
22 Saito, Humanity Transcends Sovereignty, in American Journal of International Law, 21, 1997, p. 70-71
23See, H. Kelsen. Pure theory of Law. Translation from the second German edition by Max Knight. University of California Press. Berkley, 1967. H.Kelsen was Publicist. Accordingly, we separate Public Human Rights and Private Human Rights. More over Kelsen was Pacifist, therefore Kelsen’s idea of the primacy of International Law over State’s Law is not contradicted to the idea of primacy of Universal Human Rights Law over International Law.
24See, for example, Prosper Weil, Towards relative normativity in international law (1983).
25 See, Theodore Meroon, On a hierarchy of International Human Rights, The American Journal of International Law. Vol. 80, 1986.
26 See, B. Savaneli. Pure Theory of Law. 2-d ed. Tbilisi, 1997, p.p. 109-110, 130-132,172,206,228.

III. Globalization, “Stufentheorie” and Normative Pluralism

1 Jan Nederween Pieterse, Globalization as Hybridization, in M. Featherstone S. Lash and R. Roberston, Global Modernities, 1995, p. 77.
2 Boaventura de Santos, “Towards a New Common Sense: Law, Science and Politics in Paradigmatic Transition”, 1995, at p.262. Santos contrasts the ideas of localized globalize and globalize localism with two “counter – hegemonic” trends, cosmopolitanism and the common heritageof mankind; see at p.263-264.
3 B. Savaneli, Interaction between Positive Law and Normative Order from the point of view of Sense of Law. Doctoral Dissertation Essays. Tbilisi, 1992. This work is subsequent development of Reinach-Naneishvili’s conception about normative facts concerning processes having developed after World War II.

Responses:

1. Re: Humanitarian Intervention and the UN Charter - Some Remarks hiwa 02/08/03 (0)
2. Re: Humanitarian Intervention and the UN Charter - Some Remarks hiwa 02/08/03 (0)
3. Re: Humanitarian Intervention and the UN Charter - Some Remarks hiwa 02/08/03 (0)

© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law
All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster
This site is part of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European Law at the European University Institute.
This file was last modified: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 12:23AM