Ignita Veritas United (IVU) inter-governmental organization (IGO) is dedicated to promoting, upholding, defending and enforcing basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. Its namesake internationally licensed governmentally accredited Ignita Veritas University, and its Law Faculty the Crown Institute of Law and Justice, advance this humanitarian mission for the benefit of world civilization, through its licensed international law firm Magna Carta Bar Chambers (MCBC), and its Think Tank Council on Alternative Policy Studies (CAPS). IVU and its University actively support this priority mission through the autonomous IGO official body Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ), a licensed international Court of Law of the independent Judiciary concentrating on human rights.
The Sovereign Law Series – This page is a short summary of the “Sovereign Law Series”, presented by the Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ), as a proprietary system for standardized reference and effective use of international law sources. It provides primary sources of the modern framework of “conventional international law”, which contains provisions to invoke “customary international law” which is the “Common Law”.
These materials are published here, as resources for human rights victims and advocates, Barristers and Judges, and non-profit organizations which are in a position to advance human rights, to help restore the Rule of Law.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights warns that “it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse… to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law” (1948 Human Rights, Preamble: ¶3). For this purpose, it emphasizes that “a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance” (Preamble: ¶7).
Therefore, the People, and especially members of the Independent Legal Profession, must read and learn the conventions in this “Sovereign Law Series”, which recognize customary international law, to know and demand enforcement of Common Law rights, from the super-governmental level of “conventional international law”.
Download the Law Series – While the Sovereign Law Series is summarized (with links below) on this page, the collection is packaged, and best delivered and saved, as a central Introduction and Index (with tables and links), as a PDF document. This full package, featuring the educational report “The Keys to Reclaiming International Law”, is available for Download here:
Click Here for the Sovereign Law Series Report with Links
(This Series uses the EDocr service. On each document webpage, Click the Tools icon to access the Print and Download buttons.)
Independence from the UN – The United Nations (UN) is not a “world government”, and has no authority for any type of “global governance”: The UN is prohibited to interfere with self-determination of peoples or sovereignty of States (UN Charter, Articles 1.2, 2.1, 2.7), and is liable for any of its own violations of international law and rights (2012 Declaration on Rule of Law, Article 2).
The UN is not a “world parliament”, and has no authority to enact any form of “legislation”: The UN General Assembly (GA) is only a forum for States to codify and declare general recognition of rights and doctrines of international law (UN Charter, Article 13.1).
Reclaiming Law and Rights – The UN has no authority to “own” or “control” international law: All the conventions actually belong to the Peoples of the Nations, and the UN is only authorized to register and publish them (1969 Law of Treaties, Articles 1(e), 76.1, 80; UN Charter, Article 102).
Once a convention recognizes “rights”, those “may not be revoked or modified” (1969 Law of Treaties, Articles 36.1, 37.2), and “become binding upon” all States as “customary rules of international law” which are “recognized” by that convention (Article 38).
Therefore, all law and rights evidenced in conventions belong to the People, and can be invoked by the People and enforced by the Independent Judiciary, in perpetuity.
Invoking Common Law Rights – “Common Law” is defined as “distinguished from [statutory] law created by… legislatures”, comprised of “rules… from usages and customs… [as] ancient unwritten law” (Black’s Law 2nd 1910: “Common Law”, pp.226-227), which is the definition of “customary law” (“International Law”, p.649, “Customary”, p.310). Therefore, any legal doctrines and rights which can be proven, by either legal or historical precedent, constitute rules of Common Law as “customary law”.
The modern framework of “conventional international law” itself codified universal recognition of historical “customary international law”, which includes the Common Law:
Many of the most important conventions declare that the “rules of customary international law continue to govern”, and are thus enforceable in all countries (1961 Diplomatic Relations, Preamble: ¶5, Article 47.1; 1963 Consular Relations, Preamble: ¶6; 1969 Special Missions, Preamble: ¶8; 2004 Immunities of States, Preamble: ¶5; 1969 Law of Treaties, Preamble: ¶8, Article 38; 2005 Remedy for Human Rights, Article 1). The doctrines of customary law are also enforceable as “other sources of international law” (1945 UN Charter, Preamble: ¶3).
Therefore, all of the nations of the world have already reconfirmed and accepted Common Law rights of customary law as binding upon all countries. The People, and competent independent lawyers, can thus invoke and demand enforcement of those rights, by quoting and citing the above conventional law recognizing customary law.
Fully Binding Upon All Countries – The rights and obligations of international law are fully enforceable upon all countries, as “rules… to which they [are] subject under international law independently of [a] convention” (1969 Law of Treaties, Articles 3(b), 43), “becoming binding upon” even non-signatory countries, “as a customary rule of international law, recognized as such” by any convention (Article 38).
The universal mandate of conventional law is clear, that a State “may not invoke… its internal law as justification for its failure” to comply with international law (1969 Law of Treaties, Article 27). “[T]he rule of law applies to all States equally”, “all… are accountable”, and “impunity is not tolerated” (2012 Declaration on Rule of Law, Articles 2, 22).
Therefore, no country can circumvent human rights law by “opting out” of a convention, nor by ratifying it with “reservations”. Such tactics are only evidence of intent to disregard international law, and thus do not evade – but rather escalate – full liability for violations.
Treaties can be Stricken as Unlawful – There is an important difference between “Conventions”, which recognize and codify universal rights and doctrines of law, and mere “Treaties”, by which countries agree to cooperate in particular matters of governance.
Treaties are subject to all “relevant rules of international law” (1969 Law of Treaties, Article 31.3), and any provision which “leads to a result which is… unreasonable” by violating international rights is invalid (Article 32). “A treaty is void if… it conflicts with a preemptory norm of general international law”, meaning if it violates any prohibitions protecting human rights or national sovereignty (Article 53). “The validity of a treaty… may be impeached”, and the treaty thereby declared invalid, for being unlawful (Article 42.1). Such treaty “which is in conflict” with international law thus automatically “becomes void and terminates” (Article 64).
In customary law, a “Treaty” is defined as merely an “agreement… or contract” between States (Black’s Law 2nd 1910: “Treaty”, p.1170). Any “contract… is restricted by law” if its provisions are “against public policy”, having “a mischievous tendency”, or imposing any “illegality or immorality” (“Policy, Public”, p.910). A Court can thus declare a contract as “void” for being “unlawful”, if it violates “public policy” of international law or rights (“Unlawful”, p.1187).
Therefore, just as a Civil Court can strike down the whole or parts of a private contract which violates law or rights, a properly formed International Court of the Independent Judiciary can strike down a treaty as a contract which violates international law.
Statutes can be Stricken as Unlawful – As a doctrine of customary law, when any country legislative “statute [is] passed in violation of law, that is, of the fundamental law or [a] constitution… it is the prerogative of Courts… to declare it void… to declare it not to be law.” (Black’s Law 2nd 1910: “Law” §2, p.700)
Therefore, just as a national Supreme Court can strike down the whole or parts of a statute which violates constitutional law or rights, a properly formed International Court of the Independent Judiciary can strike down a statute which violates international law.
This collection represents the central body of international law directly establishing the primary human rights, as codified rules which are universally recognized as enforceable natural rights in Common Law, which are protected and enforceable under international law.
This collection is a body of international law which indirectly affects human rights, addressing areas of law which are increasingly abused or misapplied to suppress freedom of speech and other human rights. Analysis and proper application of the original rules in these conventions can thus help to restore certain human rights.
This collection is the body of international law prohibiting genocide, covert warfare, destabilization of countries, propaganda war, and economic war, establishing that such violations of sovereignty are actually crimes against humanity. These conventions essentially prove that human rights are the basis for rights of national sovereignty, and that attacks against sovereignty are violations of human rights.
This is the core body of international law requiring the respect and protection of diplomatic status, which prohibits states from violating diplomatic privileges and immunities in furtherance of committing violations of human rights and other international law. These conventions also substantially define and prove the official powers and authorities of non-territorial states, such as sovereign historical institutions and inter-governmental organizations (IGO’s).
1950 UN Resolution “Uniting for Peace” [Security Council Override]
2002 ICJ “Congo v. Belgium” Judgment [Diplomatic Immunity]
This collection is the body of fundamental international law requiring the respect and protection of Judiciary status, the absolute independence of the Judiciary, and privileges and immunities of Judges, prosecutors and lawyers. These prohibit government officials from interfering in the independent role of lawyers and Courts in furtherance of committing violations of human rights and other international law. Several key human rights related to Justice and due process of law are included within these conventions.
This is a collection of a few authoritative sources, which reliably prove the existence and definition of doctrines of customary law, to establish rights of Common Law. It is necessary to prove legal principles and rights from these antique editions, which strictly applied full scholarship to preserve detailed knowledge, before such reference books were progressively edited to suppress such knowledge after ca. 1915.
You cannot copy content of this page