1


Sovereign Law Series

Independent System for International Law Sources

Introduction Report:

The Keys to Reclaiming International Law


June 2023 Edition


https://ignitaveritasunited.org


© 2020, 2023 Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ). All International Rights Reserved.

The 1979 “Berne Convention” fully protects this proprietary collection as a selection and arrangement of
works (Art. 2.5), and protects these documents as derivative works (Art. 2.3) and adaptations (Art. 12). All
unauthorized republication or distribution including online is illegal (Art. 9). “Fair Use” does not permit
infringement for unfair competition by another non-profit (17 USC 107), which is a criminal offense
punishable by 10 years imprisonment (18 USC 241; UK Copyright Act §107).




2


Introduction to Sovereign Law Series

The Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ) presents its “Sovereign Law Series”,
a proprietary system for accessible and effective use of international law sources by
private researchers and Rights Advocates, the Independent Legal Profession and
Independent Judiciary Profession, consisting of:

(1)
Curated collection of primary sources of conventional international law;

(2)
Copies of source texts specially formatted for researchers and Rights
Advocates, Barristers and Judges to best use this system, and

(3) Universal standardized reference system for citing international law
sources for practical use;

This “Sovereign Law Series” provides the primary sources of the modern framework of
“conventional international law”, which contains provisions to invoke historical
“customary international law”, which is the “Common Law”.

These selected sources are the operative instruments recognizing established doctrines
of fundamental rights and the Rule of Law internationally.

This presents the essential body of law for national sovereignty, which independent
States, intergovernmental organizations (IGO’s), and sovereign historical institutions
must rely upon, to assert and exercise their official authorities, while maintaining
independence from globalist establishment systems.

This is also the essential body of law for human rights and civil liberties, which the
People must know and rely upon to assert their rights, empowering individuals to invoke
the supra-governmental authority of international law for the People.




3


The Keys to Reclaiming International Law

Professor Matthew Bennett, Barrister
J.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., J.S.D., J.C.D.
King’s Counsel (K.C.), Privy Councillor (P.C.)
Royal Alliance of Independent States (RAIS)
Inspector General – Chief of Judiciary Security
Ignita Veritas United (IVU) Inter-Governmental Organization (IGO)


Exposing Problems & Revealing Solutions

The Problem Threatening Humanity

The past 75 years of propaganda (since 1945), promoted by establishment mainstream
media and career politicians, has misled humanity to closely associate international law
and human rights with the United Nations (UN), as a supposed source or protector of
rights. Meanwhile, the UN has increasingly discredited itself, by its own actions
progressively undermining the same law and rights which it claims to represent.

As a result, most of the People are discouraged from looking to the framework of
international law conventions, which are actually the best mainstream source for most
easily and effectively proving and invoking human rights and national sovereignty.

Perhaps the only real positive contribution of the United Nations, was that it served as
a forum for all territorial countries of the world to recognize and codify the universal
rules of international law into adopted conventions.

However, having established its reputation upon mainstream propaganda giving it
credit for the conventions restating real law and rights, the UN only proceeded to
persistently subvert and suppress that same body of law and rights, by its actions.

The Peoples of the Nations have watched the UN and its agencies systematically
dismantling all fundamental rights, basic freedoms, and national sovereignty, through
incessant “programs” and “initiatives” following “policy goals”, promoting “agendas” of
private political factions of elitist special interest groups, against the will of humanity.

While claimed to be supposed “guidelines” or “non-binding recommendations”, those
UN agendas are routinely made binding, forced upon the People as “mandatory”, by
national statutory legislation of the countries deceived by that propaganda.
4


The People have seen how those agendas, pushed through and implemented by
ignorant (or corrupt) politicians violating their constitutions, increasingly seek to control
all of humanity by a tyrannical “global governance”, a euphemism which is diametrically
(and diabolically) opposed to the conventions of true international law declaring the
rights of democratic self-governance of peoples.

The most insidious and destructive evil is always done in the name of good. Humanity
was warned about this by ancient Scriptures: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and
good evil” (Isaiah 5:20).

The 19th century Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach, Countess of Moravia (Czech), thus
reminded the world that “Little evil would be done in the world, if evil never could be
done in the name of good.” (Aphorisms 1880, Ariadne Press)

True to that warning, elitist political factions apparently controlling the UN have actively
misled the countries of the world, in the name of the “good” declared in the
international law conventions, to deceive them into forcing upon the People every form
of evil as “policies” of “globalism”, which flagrantly violate those same conventions,
which are abused as a mere distraction to camouflage evil as “good”.

Only as long as those conventions are wholly disregarded, can such “policies” continue
to dismantle all human rights and replace them with tyranny. However, if the
conventions are actually used, then such agendas will be forcefully stopped by the will
of the People.

University Law Faculty courses in “International Law”, purporting to train “International
Lawyers”, typically teach extensive theoretical analyses of potential “sources of
international law”, and usually teach the UN mechanisms for administration of relations
between countries.

However, law schools rarely teach any of the actual conventions which have recognized
and codified the real universal rights and obligations of international law. Moreover,
law schools never teach how to effectively invoke and enforce such rights.

As a result, most Lawyers, and even most Judges (who generally come from the same
legal profession), are left wholly unprepared to uphold and defend human rights and
national sovereignty using the supremacy power of real international law.

Private Legal Research groups of academics have arisen and multiplied, to fill the void
left by the lack of access to Justice for individuals in the UN system, and the scarcity of
Lawyers qualified to use real human rights law in the Legal Profession.

5

Under escalating pressure of rampant human rights violations imposed by statutory
laws, and deprived of access to Lawyers capable of resisting, such groups pursue
“Common Law” theories to overcome unlawful practices of corrupt legal systems,
seeking some form of “sovereignty” to demand restoration of their Common Law
human rights.

However, such researchers feel discouraged from studying the conventions confirming
real international law, because propaganda has associated this with the discredited “UN
system”. This prevents them from discovering that Common Law rights are actually
reconfirmed in the universal conventions of international law, which all countries of the
world have already accepted as binding and enforceable.

As a result, even the most experienced Common Law research groups, are deprived of
the essential legal knowledge which would empower them to reclaim and restore the
individual benefits of human rights and national sovereignty.


The Solution Empowering Humanity

This “Sovereign Law Series” is provided by the Sovereign Court of International Justice
(SCIJ), an intergovernmental organization (IGO), revealing and giving the “Keys to
Reclaiming International Law”.

These “Keys” are a working system for using the necessary framework of real law and
rights, in the most concise format for real-world practical use, which all Lawyers, Judges,
Rights Advocates, researchers, and other individuals, can finally rely upon to demand
and compel meaningful enforcement of the Rule of Law.

Finally, for the first time in modern history since the medieval Magna Carta, instead of
corrupt politicians of countries imposing oppression and tyranny upon humanity, the
Peoples of the Nations can use these “Keys” to impose the true Rule of Law upon their
corrupt politicians, to reclaim their sovereign countries.


Escaping “Problem-Reaction-Solution”

The Weapon of Corrupt Agendas

The past decades of corrupt agendas, systematically dismantling human rights and
sovereignty, are primarily driven by a strategy called the “Hegelian Dialectic”. A
“dialectic” can be defined as essentially a strategy of applying logical arguments.

6

This particular strategy is named after the philosopher Georg Hegel, who actually
criticized it being used by his contemporary Immanuel Kant ca. 1800 AD (Walter
Kaufmann, Hegel: A Reinterpretation, Anchor Books, 1966, p.154).

The “Hegelian Dialectic” was classically described as the applied process of “Thesis –
Antithesis – Synthesis”, and is best and most popularly described, in modern political
terms, as a strategy of “Problem – Reaction – Solution”:

1.
“Problem” – First, government officials and mainstream media actively
promote a “Problem”. This can be an artificially manufactured crisis, a false-flag or
misrepresented crisis, or the result of government policies causing or enabling a crisis.
The Problem always creates a perceived need for some form of public safety;

2.
“Reaction” – Next, politicians and media promote the desired public
“Reaction”, in response to the promoted Problem. This Reaction can be a false
manufactured consensus, enforced by censorship of all dissent, supposedly demanding
that the government “do something” to resolve the crisis. The Reaction is always based
upon a presumed demand for some form of public safety;

3.
“Solution” – Finally, the government offers its own “Solution”, in response
to the promoted Reaction to the Problem. This Solution inevitably and invariably
consists of more statutory laws, creating more government powers for control, always
directly at the expense of the People, reducing them to fewer rights. The Solution is
always based upon some form of mandatory measures, requiring “compliance”, by a
loss of rights, all claimed to be necessary for public safety.

Precisely to call upon humanity to reject and oppose this Hegelian Dialectic strategy, the
18th century American statesman Benjamin Franklin famously warned: “Those who
would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither
liberty nor safety.” President Thomas Jefferson later restated this warning as: “He who
gives his freedom for safety gets none of them.”

The deception of the “Problem-Reaction-Solution” strategy is the most insidious
method of progressively imposing evil in the name of good:

The “Problem” is usually caused by the failed or purposely destructive government
policies of corrupt politicians. The “Reaction” is always manipulated and driven by
propaganda from the same politicians. The “Solution” is always the planned political
agenda of the same corrupt politicians who created the “Problem”.

This method follows the traditional motto of various elitist political factions,
documented in the historical record: “Order out of Chaos”.

7

That means to intentionally manipulate events to create a crisis, which is then used to
deceive and coerce the People to submit to a “New World Order” of global governance,
abandoning fundamental rights and freedoms, all for the false promise of security.

That philosophy was reportedly described by Winston Churchill ca. 1944, in connection
with formation of the United Nations (which was the planned “solution” to the
manipulated “problem” of World War II), as: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”

Most importantly, the results of every “Problem-Reaction-Solution” cycle always only
go in one direction: More power and control for government, and less rights and
liberties for the People.

To progressively impose complete tyranny, it is only necessary to repeat that cycle, by
causing or enabling a series of new crises, until the government has complete dictatorial
power, and the People are left with no human rights at all.

Moreover, once a government holds dominant power, it never voluntarily relinquishes
that power, nor restores the rights given up by the People for false promises.

Precisely to prepare humanity to resist such progressive tyranny, the 19th century
American Civil War statesman and slavery abolitionist Frederick Douglass warned:

“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out
just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure
of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till
they are resisted with either words or blows [violence], or with both. The limits of
tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”


Rule of Law as Defensive Weapon

Many patriot groups, individuals and independent media have explained the dangers of
“Problem-Reaction-Solution” as a political weapon for dismantling rights. However, no
research has ever explained how international law can be used as the defensive legal
weapon for restoring and preserving rights.

The time has come to reveal this here and now:

The “Problem” is usually artificially created by the State to advance a political agenda
against humanity, and creating such a Problem is almost always a major violation of
international law and rights.

8

Despite the cause already being illegal, the propaganda-driven “Reaction” is generally
to demand enacting more statutory laws giving the government more powers for
security, and the agenda-driven “Solution” is always for the People to give up more
rights for the false promise of security.

However, if the Reaction of the People is to reject the false propaganda, and instead
aggressively demand enforcing international law to stop the real underlying cause of
the Problem, then the claimed “Problem” can be eliminated, the false “Reaction” is
replaced by the Rule of Law, and the planned false “Solution” is prevented.

Therefore, the only correct Reaction – and the absolutely necessary Reaction – in all
cases must be to demand strict enforcement of international law and rights, to stop the
real cause of the original Problem, by the full force of the Rule of Law.

If the People repeatedly and reliably reacted by insisting upon the Rule of Law every
time, setting precedent establishing a deterrent, then all subversive agendas against
rights would effectively be destroyed.


Examples for Typical Situations

For the above counter-strategy of the real Reaction being to demand international law
and rights, we can identify several typical examples as illustrations:


Terrorism – If the “Problem” threatening a State is terrorism, then the real cause will
usually be State-sponsored mercenaries created and promoted by that same State as
the terrorists, which violates international law.

The promoted “Reaction” will be to demand more laws for security. The offered
“Solution” will be to enact laws treating all citizens as if they were terrorists, while
continuing to sponsor the actual terrorists.

However, if the real Reaction is instead to demand enforcement of international law
against the violating State for creating and supporting terrorism, then the citizens will
retain their rights.

Pandemic – If the “Problem” threatening a State is some form of medical pandemic of
a disease, then the real cause will usually be State-sponsored bio-weapons laboratory
development of that virus enabled and promoted by that same State as a pandemic,
which violates international law.

9

The promoted “Reaction” will be to demand laws supporting vaccines. The offered
“Solution” will be to enact laws quarantining all citizens unless they take mandatory
vaccines, while continuing to sponsor creating more viruses.

However, if the real Reaction is instead to demand enforcement of international law
against the violating State for creating bio-weapons, then the citizens will retain their
freedoms.

Mass Shootings – If the “Problem” is persistent “mass shootings” with firearms, then
the real cause will usually be the State creating the “shooters” by propaganda damaging
human relationships imposing mental suffering, promoting dangerous psychiatric
medications, and not enforcing laws which already make unlicensed guns illegal, all
violating international law.

The promoted “Reaction” will be to demand more “gun control” laws. The offered
“Solution” will be to enact laws abolishing all rights to self-defense, “banning” all
firearms for law-abiding citizens, while continuing to create more shooters who can
obtain unlicensed firearms illegally.

However, if the real Reaction is instead to demand enforcement of international law
against the violating State for creating dangerous mental patients and not enforcing
existing laws, then the citizens will retain their rights of self-defense.

Under-Population – If the “Problem” is national “declining population” from fewer and
smaller families, then the real cause will be the State promoting propaganda damaging
male-female relations while imposing intolerable economic conditions, thus preventing
marriages and establishment of families, all violating international law.

The promoted “Reaction” will be to demand laws for “open borders”. The offered
“Solution” will be laws mandating mass foreign “replacement migration”, while
continuing to sabotage marriage and families.

However, if the real Reaction is instead to demand enforcement of international law
against the violating State for depriving citizens of human rights, then new families will
form and thrive.

Over-Population –
If
the “Problem”
is perceived world “over-population”
disproportionate to resources, then the real cause will be States promoting propaganda
and economic oppression creating “artificial scarcity” of resources, violating
international law.

10

The promoted “Reaction” will be to demand laws for “population control”. The offered
“Solution” will be laws mandating “population reduction” by imposing conditions
adverse to health and restricting access to effective medical care, while continuing to
artificially suppress resources.

However, if the real Reaction is instead to demand enforcement of international law
against the violating State for suppressing abundant resources, then a growing
population will be well supported.


The logic of these examples compellingly proves that the most strategically effective
and powerful defensive legal weapon, as the remedy for the incessant escalation of
statutory laws eroding human rights and sovereignty, is the strict and forceful
application of real and existing international law, by and for the People.


Real Sources of International Law

For learning the most effective practical use of international law, to assert and enforce
rights and sovereignty, it is necessary to begin with awareness of only the following
basic definitions of the primary sources of international law:

“Customary international law” is the body of over 5,000 years of historical “customs”
(since ca. 3,000 BC), used and practiced by countries and also by non-territorial States
(such as historical sovereign institutions), evidencing legal and historical precedents
proving rules of international law and rights;

“Common Law” is the body of over 800 years of jurisprudence (since the Magna Carta
ca. 1215 AD), established as “common” to the Peoples of the Nations, evidenced by legal
scholarship and Judiciary precedents proving universal doctrines of law and rights, all
based upon customary international law;

“Conventional international law” is the body of the past 75 years of modern
“conventions” (since ca. 1945 AD), adopted and accepted by modern countries as
territorial States, recognizing and codifying rules of customary international law, which
are also doctrines of the Common Law.

As a result, the primary source of the modern framework of international law is
“conventional” law of the international “conventions”, which recognize the rules of
“customary law” of historical “customs”, which also establish Common Law rights.

11

For these reasons, the present collection of conventional law, with Judiciary
commentary on customary law and Common Law, is named the “Sovereign Law Series”.

The concept of “Sovereign Law” expresses the reality that these sources of international
law embody the universal law and rights which establish the legal sovereignty of
territorial and non-territorial States, and also the moral “sovereignty” of the People as
individuals with inalienable human rights in natural law.


Reclaiming Law & Rights for the People

Independence from the United Nations

The United Nations (UN) is not a “world government”, and has no authority for any type
of “global governance”:

The UN was established with an inherently limited role, required to uphold “rights of
self-determination of peoples” (UN Charter, Article 1.2) and “sovereign equality” of
States (Article 2.1), and is specifically prohibited “to intervene in… the domestic
jurisdiction of any State” (Article 2.7).

Indeed, conventional law recognizes that “the rule of law applies… equally… [to] the
United Nations” which is “accountable” 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) has a limited role, only as a forum for States to declare
their sovereign recognition of “international law and its codification”, confirming
customary doctrines of “international cooperation… human rights and fundamental
freedoms” (UN Charter, Article 13.1).


12

International Law Belongs to the People

The UN has no authority to “own” or “control” international law:

All conventions and declarations are actually created by the “Negotiating States”, such
that the UN is only a “Depositary” (1969 Law of Treaties, Articles 1(e), 76.1). For UN
Member States, “every international agreement” is merely “registered” with the UN
only to be “published by it” and to “invoke” it within UN forums (1969 Law of Treaties,
Article 80; UN Charter, Article 102).

The resulting agreements thus belong to the Peoples of the Nations, constituting a
public record in the public domain, such that the UN does not hold copyrights. The UN
confirms that “With regard to treaties and conventions… each individual text is in the
public domain”, and thus only a formatted and curated “collection” can be subject to
copyright (UN Shop: Rights & Permissions).

Conventions of international law are not “enacted” as “laws”, thus cannot be
“repealed”; Related rights are not “granted”, thus cannot be “revoked”; Rights once
“recognized”, can never be “un-recognized”:

Declared “rights” in a convention thus “may not be revoked or modified” (1969 Law of
Treaties, Articles 36.1, 37.2), and “become binding upon” all States, including non-
signatories, as a “customary rule of international law” which is “recognized” by that
convention (Article 38).

Therefore, all law and rights evidenced in international conventions belong to the
Peoples of the Nations, and can be invoked by the People and enforced by the
Independent Judiciary Profession, in perpetuity.


Common Law Rights as Customary Law

Know Your Rights to Use Not Lose Them

For rights to be enjoyed and preserved, they must be used: This is perhaps best
expressed by the folk wisdom saying “Use it or lose it”.

The modern dominance of national statutory laws has obscured and distracted from
many millennia of true jurisprudence of Common Law rights and the Rule of Law in
“customary international law”. This has caused even the legal profession to forget how
to defend fundamental rights, and has misled the People to forget which inalienable
natural rights they actually have.
13


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).

For rights to be enforced, they must first be known, and then actively asserted:

A doctrine of customary law holds that “Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura
subveniunt”, or “Law serves the vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights”
(Bouvier’s Law 1914, 3rd, V.1, “Equity”, p.1063).

This doctrine is the basis for the rule “Non ultra petita”, or “Not beyond the request”,
by which a Court usually cannot uphold rights which are not invoked (2002 ICJ Congo v.
Belgium, §43).

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”.


Invoking Customary and Common Law

The timeless doctrines of jurisprudence since ancient times, which became Magna Carta
rights, enshrined as the Common Law, appear to be mostly forgotten in modern times.
However, 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 “rules… to which they [are]
subject under international law independently of [a] convention” (1969 Law of Treaties,
Articles 3(b), 43), and as “other sources of international law” (1945 UN Charter,
Preamble: ¶3).

14

Therefore, all of the nations of the world have already reconfirmed and accepted
Common Law rights of customary law as binding upon all countries.

As a result, the People, and competent independent Lawyers, can invoke and demand
enforcement of those rights, by quoting and citing the above conventional law
recognizing customary law.


Establishing Rules of Customary Law

“International Law” is defined as “The customary law… The system of rules and
principles, founded on treaty, custom, [and] precedent… which civilized nations
recognize as binding upon them” (Black’s Law 2nd 1910: “International Law”, p.649).

The rules of customary law are those which are established “According to custom or
usage” (Black’s Law 2nd 1910: “Customary”, p.310).

Therefore, any legal doctrines and rights which can be proven, by either legal or
historical precedent, constitute rules of “customary law” as Common Law.


Establishing Doctrines of Common Law

“Common Law” is defined as “distinguished from [statutory] law created by…
legislatures”, comprised of “the body of those principles and rules… from usages and
customs of immemorial antiquity, or from… courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing
such usages and customs… [as] ancient unwritten law” (Black’s Law 2nd 1910: “Common
Law”, pp.226-227).

Therefore, any legal doctrines and rights which can be proven, by either legal or
historical precedent, constitute rules of Common Law as “customary law”.


All Countries Bound by International Law

Countries Exist by International Law

In modern times, government officials often attempt to ignore and deny rights and
obligations of international law, by claiming “sovereignty” as an excuse to reject
international law being applied to their country.

15

However, this argument is mistaken, and self-destructive, as the claimed “sovereignty”
itself is only protected by precisely that same body of international law which is
wrongfully denied. Essentially, countries only exist by effect of international law:

The framework of conventional international law is relied upon by all countries,
specifically and especially, to enforce the customary law “principle of non-interference
in sovereign affairs of States” (1945 UN Charter, Articles 2.1, 2.4; 1970 Law of
Cooperation of States, 3rd Principle; 1974 Economic Rights of States, Articles 1, 2.1; 1981
Internal Affairs of States, Article 1; 2004 Immunities of States, Preamble: ¶1).

Therefore, for a government to reject the rights of others under international law,
necessarily means to renounce one’s own rights of sovereignty under that same body
of international law, in effect abdicating that sovereignty.

Most countries, if they denied the protections of international law, would thereby cause
their own declarations of independence and constitutions to be denied, and would
immediately have to revert to their former status as a colony or territory of some other
country.


No Exception for Defect of Legitimacy

Many Common Law theories present compelling evidence of various defects of legal
legitimacy of modern governments, for many countries. Such theories also indicate that
such defects give many government officials a secret pseudo-moral justification to
disregard real law and rights, using illegitimacy to operate outside of real law.

Such theories and evidence may give a lawful basis for the People to dismantle a false
government and restore a genuine constitutional government. However, such defects
do not allow an illegitimate government to escape the rules, rights and enforcement
mechanisms of conventional international law.

Even when proven true, defects of legitimacy are not an exception, and not any excuse,
for a State government to evade or disregard international law.

Every modern territorial State, no matter how corrupt or illegitimate it may be, still
holds a seat in the United Nations, and still must engage in diplomatic relations to
function in international affairs. All of these roles and functions are wholly dependent
upon the codified rules of the framework of conventions of international law.

Therefore, every State, regardless of its form or legitimacy of government, in fact is still
reliant and dependent upon the conventions of international law, to assert its claimed
sovereignty in all its dealings with other States.
16


Any country, even with an illegitimate government, if it denied the rules of international
law, would thereby cause its own claim or appearance of governance of the country to
be denied, and thus would immediately abdicate its diplomatic status and authority to
represent the country.


No Denying Law on Which Relying

By the legal doctrine of “Estoppel”, customary law “bars” one from “alleging or denying”
legal rights or facts, when one has contradicted that claim by one’s own “previous
conduct or admission” (Black’s Law 2nd 1910: “Estoppel”, p.442).

Thus, a State which asserts its own sovereignty as protected by the framework of
international law, is legally barred from denying rights or obligations which are
mandated by that same body of international law.

For these reasons, 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).


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).

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.


17

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 have been increasingly used to
impose government policies which actually subvert and violate the conventions of
international law.

The Rule of Interpretation of Treaties is that in applying a treaty, it “shall be taken into
account… any relevant rules of international law” (1969 Law of Treaties, Article 31.3).
When any provision of a treaty “leads to a result which is… unreasonable” by violating
international law, it must be interpreted differently to comply with international rights
and obligations (Article 32).

The Rule of Preemptory Norms is that “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 (1969 Law of Treaties, Article 53).

By invoking either of the above Rule of Interpretation or Rule of Norms: “The validity
of a treaty… may be impeached”, and the treaty thereby declared invalid, for being
unlawful (1969 Law of Treaties, 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).

As a doctrine of customary law, any “contract… is restricted by law” if its provisions are
“against public policy”, in which case “the law refuses to enforce or recognize them, on
the ground that they have a mischievous tendency”, or impose any “illegality or
immorality” (Black’s Law 2nd 1910: “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 (Black’s Law 2nd 1910: “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.


18

Statutes can be Stricken as Unlawful

The modern dominance of national statutory laws by legislatures has essentially
displaced and suppressed many millennia of true jurisprudence of Common Law rights
and the Rule of Law in customary law. Statutory laws have been increasingly used to
impose government policies which actually subvert and violate the conventions of
international law.

It is an established doctrine of customary law, that when any “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
legislative 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.


Reference System for International Law

It is incorrect to reference international agreements as supposed “United Nations”
conventions, because they actually belong to the Peoples of the Nations, developed and
adopted by their sovereign States.

Also, the popularized practice of referring to such documents only as a so-called
“Geneva Convention” or “Paris Declaration”, etc., is ineffective, because dozens of
agreements were adopted at each such city.

Therefore, for such codifications recognizing international law, legal and academic
citations of source references should use the following format, as a universal
standardized reference system:

• “[City]” indicates to label the reference with the place where the document was
adopted;

• “[Year]” means to label with the year when it was first adopted;

• “[Type]” means to label with the type of agreement, i.e. “Convention”,
“Declaration”, etc.

19

• The Title should be written either in “Quotes” (in legal documents) or Underlined
(in academia), to indicate that it is the proper name of the Source document.

• Inline citations should be in (Parentheses).


Long-Form Reference:


[City] [Type] Longest Formal Official Title of [Year]

i.e. – New York Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and
Abuse of Power of 1985.

Short-Form Reference:


[Year] [Type] Shorter Working Title

i.e. – New York Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power of 1985

In-Line Micro Reference:


([Year] Shortest Title)

i.e. – (1985 Justice for Abuse of Power, Article [#])


This system will provide the most reliable and effective references clearly identifying
international agreements, even on the smallest documents with space limitations.



20


Collection of International Law Sources


Law Directly Protecting Human Rights

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.


Long-Form Reference
Short-Form Reference
In-Line Micro Reference
Link
Paris “Universal
Declaration of Human
Rights” of 1948
1948 “Declaration of
Human Rights”
(1948 “Human
Rights”)
PDF
Geneva “Convention
Relating to the Status
of Refugees” of 1951
1951 “Convention on
Status of Refugees”
(1951 “Status of
Refugees”)
PDF
New York
“International
Convention on the
Elimination of All
Forms of Racial
Discrimination” of 1965
1965 “Convention on
Racial Discrimination”
(1965 “Racial
Discrimination”)
PDF
New York
“International
Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights” of 1966
1966 “Covenant on
Civil & Political Rights”
(1976 “Civil & Political
Rights”)
PDF
New York
“International
Covenant on Economic
Social and Cultural
Rights” of 1966
1966 “Covenant on
Economic Social &
Cultural Rights”
(1976 “Economic &
Social Rights”)
PDF
New York “Convention
on the Rights of the
Child” of 1989
1989 “Convention on
Rights of the Child”
(1989 “Rights of the
Child”)
PDF
21

“Declaration on the
Right and
Responsibility of
Individuals Groups and
Organs of Society to
Promote and Protect
Universally Recognized
Human Rights” of 1998
1998 “Declaration on
Right to Protect
Human Rights”
(1998 “Right to
Protect Human
Rights”)
PDF
New York “Declaration
on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples” of
2007
2007 “Declaration on
Rights of Indigenous
Peoples”
(2007 “Rights of
Indigenous Peoples”)
PDF
UN Human Rights
Council Resolution
“The Right to
Education” of 2008
2008 UN-HRC
Resolution “Right to
Education”
(2008 UN-HRC “Right
to Education”)
PDF



Law Indirectly Affecting Human Rights

This collection is the 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.


Long-Form Reference
Short-Form Reference
In-Line Micro Reference
Link
Geneva “Universal
Copyright Convention”
of 1971
1971 “Universal
Copyright Convention”
(1971 “Copyright
Convention”)
PDF
Paris “Berne
Convention for the
Protection of Literary
and Artistic Works” of
1979 [Research & Use]
1979 “Berne
Convention for
Protection of Works”
(1979 “Berne
Convention”)
PDF
Paris “Convention for
the Protection of
Industrial Property” of
1979 [Trademarks]
1979 “Convention on
Industrial Property”
(1979 “Industrial
Property”)
PDF
22

Hague “Convention on
the Law Applicable to
Trusts and on Their
Recognition” of 1985
1985 “Convention on
the Law of Trusts”
(1985 “Law of Trusts”)
PDF



Law Protecting Sovereignty and Humanity

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.


Long-Form Reference
Short-Form Reference
In-Line Micro Reference
Link
Paris “Convention on
the Prevention and
Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide” of
1948
1948 “Convention on
Crime of Genocide”
(1948 “Convention on
Genocide”)
PDF
“Declaration on
Principles of
International Law
Concerning Friendly
Relations and
Cooperation Among
States” of 1970
1970 “Declaration on
Law of Cooperation of
States”
(1970 “Law of
Cooperation of
States”)
PDF
“Principles of
International
Cooperation in the
Detection Arrest
Extradition and
Punishment of Persons
Guilty of War Crimes
and Crimes Against
Humanity” of 1973
1973 “Principles of
Crimes Against
Humanity”
(1973 “Crimes Against
Humanity”)
PDF
23

New York “Charter of
Economic Rights and
Duties of States” of
1974
1974 “Charter of
Economic Rights &
Duties of States”
(1974 “Economic
Rights of States”)
PDF
“Declaration on the
Inadmissibility of
Intervention and
Interference in the
Internal Affairs of
States” of 1981
1981 “Declaration on
Interference in
Internal Affairs of
States”
(1981 “Internal Affairs
of States”)
PDF
“International
Convention Against the
Recruitment Use
Financing and Training
of Mercenaries” of
1989
1989 “Convention
Against the Use of
Mercenaries”
(1989 “Convention on
Mercenaries”)
PDF
World Summit
Outcome on
“Responsibility to
Protect” of 2005
[Security Council]
2005 World Summit
“Responsibility to
Protect”
(2005 “Responsibility
to Protect”)
PDF
UN Security Council
Resolution “Protection
of Civilians in Armed
Conflict” of 2006
2006 UN-SC
“Protection of Civilians
in Armed Conflict”
(2006 UN-SC
“Protection of
Civilians”)
PDF



Law Protecting Diplomatic Status

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).


24

Long-Form Reference
Short-Form Reference
In-Line Micro Reference
Link
“Charter of the United
Nations” of 1945
1945 “United Nations
Charter”
(“UN Charter”)
PDF
UN Resolution 377
“Uniting for Peace” of
1950 [Security Council
Override]
1950 UN Resolution
“Uniting for Peace”
(1950 UN “Uniting for
Peace”)
PDF
Vienna “Convention on
Diplomatic Relations”
of 1961
1961 “Convention on
Diplomatic Relations”
(1961 “Diplomatic
Relations”)
PDF
Vienna “Convention on
Consular Relations” of
1963
1963 “Convention on
Consular Relations”
(1963 “Consular
Relations”)
PDF
New York “Convention
on Special Missions” of
1969
1969 “Convention on
Special Missions”
(1969 “Special
Missions”)
PDF
Vienna “Convention on
the Law of Treaties” of
1969
1969 “Convention on
Law of Treaties”
(1969 “Law of
Treaties”)
PDF
International Court of
Justice “Congo v.
Belgium” Judgment of
2002 [Diplomatic
Immunity]
2002 ICJ “Congo v.
Belgium” Judgment
(2002 ICJ “Congo v.
Belgium”)
PDF
New York “Convention
on Jurisdictional
Immunities of States
and Their Property” of
2004
2004 “Convention on
Jurisdictional
Immunities of States”
(2004 “Immunities of
States”)
PDF



25

Law Empowering Judiciary & Legal Professions

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.


Long-Form Reference
Short-Form Reference
In-Line Micro Reference
Link
New York “Convention
on the Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign
Arbitral Awards” of
1958
1958 “Convention on
Enforcement of
Foreign Arbitral
Awards”
(1958 “Enforcement of
Foreign Awards”)
PDF
New York “Convention
on the Prevention and
Punishment of Crimes
Against Internationally
Protected Persons” of
1973
1973 “Convention on
Internationally
Protected Persons”
(1973 “Internationally
Protected Persons”)
PDF
“Declaration of Basic
Principles of Justice for
Victims of Crime and
Abuse of Power” of
1985
1985 “Declaration of
Justice for Crime &
Abuse of Power”
(1985 “Justice for
Crime & Abuse of
Power”)
PDF
Milan “Basic Principles
on the Independence
of the Judiciary” of
1985
1985 “Principles on
Independence of
Judiciary”
(1985 “Independence
of Judiciary”)
PDF
Havana “Basic
Principles on the Role
of Lawyers” of 1990
1990 “Principles on
Role of Lawyers”
(1990 “Role of
Lawyers”)
PDF
Havana “Guidelines on
the Role of
Prosecutors” of 1990
1990 “Guidelines on
Role of Prosecutors”
(1990 “Role of
Prosecutors”)
PDF
26

“Basic Principles and
Guidelines on the Right
to a Remedy and
Reparation for Victims
of Gross Violations of
International Human
Rights Law” of 2005
2005 “Principles on
Right to Remedy for
Human Rights
Violations”
(2005 “Right to
Remedy for Human
Rights”)
PDF
New York “Declaration
on the Rule of Law at
the National and
International Levels” of
2012
2012 “Declaration on
Rule of Law at
International Levels”
(2012 “Declaration on
Rule of Law”)
PDF
Hague “Convention on
the Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign
Judgments in Civil or
Commercial Matters”
of 2019
2019 “Convention on
Enforcement of
Foreign Judgments”
(2019 “Enforcement of
Foreign Judgments”)
PDF



Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Declarations

This is a collection of the most important Declarations of the Non-Aligned Movement
(NAM), an inter-governmental alliance of 120 Member States supported by 17 Observer
States (consisting of 71% of the UN General Assembly).

These Declarations are ratified at NAM Summits of Heads of State every three years,
recognizing principles and rules of international law, thus comprising a supplementary
body of conventional international law.

The NAM, originally founded for developing countries to deal with the Cold War,
adapted its modern focus to directly dealing with the problem of Globalism as a threat
to Nationalism. These are the essential Declarations proving the original NAM founding
principles, and the continuing forward directions of the alliance.


27

Long-Form Reference
Short-Form Reference
In-Line Micro Reference
Link
Bandung “Asian-African
Conference” of 1955
[Founding Principles]
1955 NAM “Bandung
Asian-African
Conference
1955 NAM “Bandung
Conference”
PDF
Belgrade “Declaration
of the 1st Summit of
Heads of State of the
Non-Aligned
Movement” of 1961
1961 NAM “Belgrade
Declaration of 1st
Summit”
1961 NAM “1st
Summit Declaration”
PDF
Kuala Lumpur
“Declaration of the 13th
Summit of Heads of
State of the Non-
Aligned Movement” of
2003
2003 NAM “Kuala
Lumpur Declaration of
13th Summit”
2003 NAM “13th
Summit Declaration”
PDF
Havana “Declaration of
the 14th Summit of
Heads of State of the
Non-Aligned
Movement” of 2006
2006 NAM “Havana
Declaration of 14th
Summit”
2006 NAM “14th
Summit Declaration”
PDF
Margarita “Declaration
of the 17th Summit of
Heads of State of the
Non-Aligned
Movement” of 2016
2016 NAM “Margarita
Declaration of 17th
Summit”
2016 NAM “17th
Summit Declaration”
PDF


Customary Law & Common Law Sources

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.


28

Long-Form Reference
Short-Form Reference
In-Line Micro Reference
Link
United Kingdom
“Crown Office Act” of
1877 [Sovereign
Decrees]
1877 United Kingdom
“Crown Office Act”
(1877 UK “Crown
Office Act”)
PDF
Henry Campbell Black,
“Black’s Law
Dictionary” (1891), 2nd
Edition, West
Publishing Co. (1910)
“Black’s Law
Dictionary” (2nd Ed.)
1910
(“Black’s Law” 2nd
1910)
PDF
John Bouvier,
“Bouvier’s Law
Dictionary and Concise
Encyclopedia” (1839),
3rd Revision, West
Publishing Co. (1914),
Volume 1 (A-E)
“Bouvier’s Law
Dictionary” (3rd Rev.)
1914, Vol.1
(“Bouvier’s Law” 3rd
1914, V.1)
PDF
John Bouvier,
“Bouvier’s Law
Dictionary and Concise
Encyclopedia” (1839),
3rd Revision, West
Publishing Co. (1914),
Volume 2 (F-M)
“Bouvier’s Law
Dictionary” (3rd Rev.)
1914, Vol.2
(“Bouvier’s Law” 3rd
1914, V.2)
PDF
John Bouvier,
“Bouvier’s Law
Dictionary and Concise
Encyclopedia” (1839),
3rd Revision, West
Publishing Co. (1914),
Volume 3 (N-Z)
“Bouvier’s Law
Dictionary” (3rd Rev.)
1914, Vol. 3
(“Bouvier’s Law” 3rd
1914, V.3)
PDF