A recognition by the individual human of his/her rights and duties within the world community itself. It implies that the individual enjoys and uses world empowerment politically, that is, in the structuring of society.


Law requires a legislative body to enact it, and an executive body to administer and enforce it. These institutions make up the essential governmental framework. So-called international law lacks these bodies, rendering it merely a matrix of multilateral treaties between equal and independent sovereign states. Neither the individual nor humanity itself is or can be represented by “international law,” as there is no body or institution that oversees the enforcement of these laws.

No, you can retain your national citizenship and still become a world citizen. In claiming your world citizenship, you symbolically transcend the state system, but you maintain the right to choose your own political allegiance. The laws governing your political identity do not forbid you from adding world citizenship to your lesser citizenships.

It is an institution that acts as a resource for those who wish to seek judicial review in response to instances of human rights abuse. The WCHR will review all submitted cases and will adjudicate accepted cases in accordance with UN human rights related conventions, the broader body of human rights related conventions, generally accepted human rights customs and practices, and all relevant case law. In so doing, the Court will thus create a comprehensive and consistent body of human rights laws.

No. Although we recognize the importance and effectiveness of the ICJ, this institution predominantly takes on cases that occur between and among nation states. There is no institutional resource for individuals or groups of individuals to seek legal redress in the event of human rights violations.

In accordance with general principles of public international law, it is fundamental that a treaty, when adopted in accordance the signatory nation’s treaty accession process, becomes the “law of the land,” fully enforceable by that nation’s domestic courts.  An additional insight into this question was offered by Chief Justice Carl Ashok Singh, of Guyana, at the 2013 Chief Justice conference in Lucknow.  His observation was roughly as follows: “Just because a decision of a court is not 100% enforceable, does notmean that it is worthless.”  This point is echoed by officials of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and other human rights NGOs.  Even though the world is still comprised of nation-states, and probably always will and should be, their national laws are constantly becoming more informed and inhabited by the growing body of public international law.  This is, in part, a byproduct of nation-states’ ever-increasing accession to treaties, and is in part a byproduct of the growing body of case law that emanates from the related judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, as they apply treaty-derived law to the cases before them.  In addition, in an increasingly interconnected world, where news travels faster and (for the most part) more freely all the time, “public shaming,” is a powerful force in educating the public and impacting the political process.