190 Access to Redress for Stateless Persons Under International Law and not creating direct access for the individual. Due to the fact that international human rights law, as a field, has developed into a legal domain of its own with a large body of jurisprudence on access to redress, it is logical to conclude that human rights law is a completely separate area of law from diplomatic protection, despite their common focus on rights protection and redress for violations of rights.87 While diplomatic protection in the field of protecting an individual’s rights is no longer as necessary as it was in the past due to the significant developments in the domain of human rights, it remains relevant regarding the protection of economic interests. Finally, it is important to note that often the perpetrator of human rights abuses is the state of nationality or habitual residence. States have often committed internationally wrongful acts against their own nationals, and international human rights law has developed, historically, into norms that protected the rights of individuals not only from other states, but from violations committed by their own states.88 Today, human rights law provides that the victim does not need to rely on his/her state of nationality or habitual residence in order to obtain redress before international legal mechanisms.89 As a matter of fact, in many cases victims are bringing claims of human rights abuses against their state of nationality or habitual residence.90 The IACtHR has made a statement on this, affirming in one of its advisory opinions that ‘the object and purpose of the Convention is not the exchange of reciprocal rights between a limited number of states, but the protection of the human rights of all individual human beings within the Americas, irrespective of their nationality’.91 In conclusion, this discussion has shown that diplomatic protection was in the past the only channel through which an individual could seek redress for harm incurred as a result of an internationally wrongful act. The right to exercise diplomatic protection was an exclusive right of the state, through the doctrine of the “legal fiction”, which is anchored in nationality.92 This continues to be true to some extent. While it is true that to this day only states can exercise diplomatic protection over individuals, it is undeniable that the role of the state as the exclusive link between individuals and their ability to access to redress is no longer absolute. This is especially true regarding access to redress through international legal channels, like the mechanisms selected in this article, which will be discussed in more depth in section 4. 4 Case-studies: The United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the International ­Criminal Court 4.1 The United Nations Compensation Commission 4.1.1 Background and process The UNCC93 was created by the UN Security Council (UNSC) following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 that resulted in the Gulf War. The UNCC was set up to manage approximately 2.7 million claims94 of victims who suffered violations resulting from Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990.95 The violation of Kuwait’s territorial 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 the Nationality of Claims in the Context of Diplomatic Protection and International Dispute Settlement’ (2000)15(2) ICSID Review, at 4–5. Adding to this idea, according to Bederman, ‘diplomatic protection is largely indifferent to human rights claims; it is more concerned with the property interests of a national who is situated in a foreign state’. See DJ Bederman, ‘State-to-State Espousal of Human Rights Claims’ (2011) 1 Virginia Journal of International Law 3, at 5. F Orrego Vicuña, ‘Changing Approaches to the Nationality of Claims in the Context of Diplomatic Protection and International Dispute Settlement’ (2000)15(2) ICSID Review, at 5. after the atrocities committed during WWII—where Germany committed atrocities against its own Jewish population—became a matter of concern for the entire international community, as it became clear that states would not always protect and guarantee the rights of people within their jurisdiction. Prior to WWII, human rights were primarily addressed at the domestic level; the development of international human rights law began post-WWII. See Ed Bates, ‘History’, in D Moeckli, S Shah, D Harris, & S ­Sivakumaran (eds), International Human Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2nd, 2014). Including (regional) human rights courts, international criminal law mechanisms, and other semi-judicial mechanisms available internationally. See D Shelton, Remedies in International Human Rights Law (2nd, Oxford University Press, 2005). Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-2/82, ‘The effect of reservations on the entry into force of the American Convention on Human Rights (arts. 74 & 75) (ACtHR, 1982), para 27. International Law Commission (ILC), Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection with commentaries (2006), 2 YBILC, A/61/10, at 25. Up until 2012, the UNCC had received approximately 2.7 million claims. In C Evans, The Right to Reparation in International Law for Victims of Armed Conflict (1st, Cambridge University Press, 2012), at 141. CL Lim, ‘On the Law, Procedures and Politics of United Nations Gulf War Reparations’ (2000) 4 Singapore Journal of International and Comparative Law 435. By the year 2000, the UNCC had ‘awarded more than US$34 billion in compensation and has disbursed through claimant governments more than US$11 billion. The amount sought in the remaining claims is almost US$215.5 billion’. As cited in CL Lim, ‘On the Law, Procedures and Politics of United Nations Gulf War Reparations’ (2000) 4 Singapore Journal of International and Comparative Law 435.