| The purpose of this dissertation is to examine, analyze, and determine the legitimacy in international law of the denial by nation-states of human rights to aliens and minorities by means of detention and/or internment of individuals or groups deemed to represent a threat to national security. Prior to 1945, discrimination against and mistreatment of aliens and minorities were common-place with little if any consensus in international law. The development of human rights law in the postwar era precipitated tension and conflict between the doctrine of Domestic Jurisdiction or claims of state sovereignty and the role of international law.; Through the auspices of the United Nations (U.N.) and other multilateral and regional agreements, the legal rights of aliens and minorities as subjects of international law have been recognized and guaranteed. An analysis of the domestic policies of certain states will determine to what extent they have attempted to modify their practices to comply with contemporary developments in international human rights law regarding detention and internment of aliens and minorities. Although most U.N. members have ratified many, if not all, of the international conventions guaranteeing the human rights of all individuals, this research has determined severe violations of the principles stated therein as the states studied have been reluctant to surrender any state sovereignty. The nation-states analyzed in this research are the U.S.S.R., China, Iran, Chile, Israel, South Africa, and Northern Ireland. Perceiving threats to national security by aliens and minorities, and adhering to Domestic Jurisdiction over international law, these states continue to detain and intern these individuals and groups.; The method of research has involved an in-depth study and analysis of documents and all international, regional, bilateral, and multilateral agreements relating to human right legislation.; To determine the presence of continued detention and internment of aliens and minorities, research into the states' policies, laws, and practices was undertaken. Much of the information was available in U.N. records, cases heard by the International Court of Justice, regional hearings, and Amnesty International reports. |
