2022 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 4(2) granted the right to directly access diplomatic protection; they can, for instance, ‘prosecute their own claims before international tribunals, and in their own right, provided that states consent’.32 Second, since the establishment of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (‘ICSID’), individuals have also had the right to ask for arbitration in investment disputes if their country of nationality is a party to the ICSID.33 Third, today, individuals whose country of nationality is a member of the World Intellectual Property Organization are also granted intellectual property rights to enjoy the full worth of their inventions.34 Since the mid-1960s, international human rights law seems to have improved the position of individuals in international law the most. For instance, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’) declares in art 9 that ‘everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law’.35 Article 41, moreover, permits all countries that have ratified ICCPR to make complaints on behalf of anyone independent of nationality.36 With the establishment of the First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1976, individuals were also granted the ability to file violation complaints against contracting states themselves.37 Despite these improvements, legal positivists continue to defend the object theory. In regard to human rights law, they argue that the protection of individuals is constrained to the extent that countries must give their consent to the UN’s international legal protection regime.38 In other words, the process does ‘not result in binding judgments’.39 Whether individuals are successful in invoking art 41 and petitioning the United Nations Human Rights Council (‘UNHRC’) depends on states’ commitment to UNHRC and ICCPR. For example, if a British national’s human rights were violated by the French State, they could apply for redress at the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’) as France is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights and, therefore, subject to the ECtHR’s jurisdiction.40 However, British nationals are without such a possibility if the perpetrator is the United States since the country ‘does not recognise the competence of international human rights bodies’.41 In this case, the provision of protection is strictly limited to states on behalf of their own nationals. The changes in humanitarian law and criminal law, by contrast, do not actually grant any rights to individuals. While humanitarian law ‘establishes standards of treatment’42 rather than rights, criminal law merely imposes obligations on individuals. Although this is not the case with respect to international claims, 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Parlett (n 19) 122. Solomon E Salako, ‘The Individual in International Law: “Object” versus “Subject”’ (2019) 8(1) International Law Research 135. ibid 136. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered in force 23 March 1976) art 9. Higgins (n 22) 11. See Parlett (n 19) 316. Alexander Orakhelashvili, ‘The Position of the Individual in International Law’ (2001) 31 California Western International Law Journal 241, 254. Parlett (n 19) 320. See Orakhelashvili (n 38) 255. ibid. Parlett (n 19) 224. 242