A high-profile arrest and a major international celebration may seem unrelated, but both are in fact signs of a changed world. We have come to a time when one set of laws binds all people and involves all governments. PNS associate editor Walter Truett Anderson, author of "Evolution Isn't What It Used To Be" (W.H. Freeman), is a political scientist who writes widely on technology and global governance.

The recent arrest in England of Chilean General Augusto Pinochet and the coming celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights mark our entry into another world, a world with laws.


These laws apply to all people, presidents as well as migrant workers, and can be enforced by all governments.

This "new" world has been taking shape for many decades, beginning with the little-known Hague and Geneva war-crimes conventions in the first decade of this century, continuing in the post-World War II trials of war criminals, and most recently in a series of treaties which give the Human Rights Declaration the status of law.

Precedent counts for a lot in law, but there was no precedent available when the victorious Allies decided to convene an international tribunal to formally try German leaders instead of summarily executing or imprisoning them. The Nuremberg Tribunal seemed a daring innovation at the time but it is now cited as background to more recent tribunals, such as the one currently trying Yugoslavian cases in the Hague.

Genocide was not charged at Nuremberg -- it wasn't in the legal vocabulary yet -- but members of the United Nations remedied this deficit by negotiating the Genocide Convention of 1948, which specifically outlawed "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."

That same year -- just a half-century ago -- the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, affirming that all people are entitled to security of person, freedom from slavery and from arbitrary arrest, freedom of association and religion, and the right to marry and own property.

This was a declaration, not yet law. It took almost 30 years to 1996 to negotiate two major international covenants -- one on civil and political rights, one on economic, social and cultural rights -- and for the requisite 35 states to ratify them. At that point, the covenants' main provisions -- including rights to due process of law -- took on legal force.

And then, surprisingly, many nations actually began enforcing the new international laws. This happened in part because waves of migration began filling European and American countries with resident aliens whose rights were not always clear under domestic law, and because an exploding number of non governmental organizations made it their business to help people claim their rights.

So there has been a revolutionary change, both in theory and practice. The carrier of human rights now is the person, regardless of citizenship. Those rights are universal, not the privilege of any particular group. And the nation-states are taking on a new role as enforcers of international human rights.

In the process, national boundaries have become far less important -- especially in relation to major offenses. "International law says that any state can try perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes," Jerry Fowler of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights wrote recently. "There need not be consent from another nation or any connection of territory or nationality."

At the same time, another major edifice of international criminal law is being built. This summer in Rome, delegates from all over the world voted overwhelmingly to create a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC). It will go into effect when it is ratified by 60 nations. 

U.S. approval is unlikely. Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declared the treaty would be "dead on arrival" but, with or without U. S. participation, the ICC will probably open for business in a few years. It will have the power to deal with genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes and unlike the present International Court of Justice, will be able to deal with charges against individuals.

All this provides no guarantee of universal peace and justice, of course. Some nations are still outside the framework; some are far from enthusiastic about their roles as enforcers. There are political squabbles, ancient feuds, national jealousies -- and often reservations from ordinary people who aren't sure they want it. Cambodian villagers reportedly have grave doubts about an international tribunal coming in to try leaders of the Khmer Rouge. Similar concerns are being expressed by many people in Chile, who see their country becoming bitterly polarized again by the Pinochet case just when it seemed that the old wounds were beginning to heal.


Obviously, progress into a world with universal war crimes laws and human rights guarantees won't be either easy or peaceful. But it will happen. The strongest evidence for that is the fact that it's already happening.