It is signficant for the international community to watch after the way different states response to its agreements and conventions on human rights. The protection of the human rights is the core value which prevents countries from repeating the inhumane actions of the past. However, there are still cases which prove that the international community has to develop advanced way to regulate the states in relation to human rights. Mr. Khashoggi’s case is a proof that people still lose their human right to live because there are states which ignore its ideas. While the case is criminally complicated, it correlates with the state responsibility, personal liability, and human rights laws differently. The major suspect is the Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. His subordinates have to respond for the committed crime either. While the state has failed to follow the guidelines of the international agreements on human rights, it has let its high officials to steal a life of the innocent person. Despite the aggressive politics and traditions in the Kingdom of Saui Arabia, Mr. Khashoggi’s case violates a load of international agreements on human rights.
1. State Responsibility
Cases like Mr. Khashoggi’s killing cannot past without calling for the state responsibility from the country of the criminal. In this case, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has to to acknowledge its duty to respond for the violated human rights of the representative of the other country as long as its own representative has crossed the line of the legal acts. Even his kidnapping would provoke the investigation under the international laws. For example, an international human rights law can observe such situations which consist of the actors from different countries or who have different citizenships (Human Rights Council, 2019). The international laws do not focus on the attempt to search for the original criminal, even though the guilty personality can remain obvious during the investigating process or trials. They require identifying the murder which has been committed on the basis of the international conflict. It causes the need to address the laws of the both countries at the same time. However, the objectives of the international human rights law stays in priority to the others as long as it is a powerful tool of control for the law regulation throughout the international community. The fact that there could be an entire group which could order Mr. Khashoggi’s killing cannot become the central question for the international law either in case it is clear that all of the figures of the criminal act belong to concrete countries.
It is also crucial to underline that this perspective cannot observe the case which has to identify the initial purpose of the criminal act (Human Rights Council, 2019). For example, there could be a try of kidnapping a person which has gone wrong for some reasons. It could also be an order to murder Mr. Khashoggi from the very beginning of the violation of his peaceful existence. The international laws have to address the idea of the world-wide understanding of the human rights which goes beyond the legal acts of the particular countries. These laws remain the factor which helps to prevent the countries from messing with different ideological views. The state responsibility question cannot pay primary attention to the source of the plan to attack Mr. Khashoggi which could come from the officers’ personal desire to turture him either. Overall, his killing violates international agreements on human rights by the fact that the representatives of the particular country have used the resources of their homeland to kidnap the representative of the other country.
It is essential to admit that the case constitutes a violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. For example, the situation implies that there has been the extra-territorial use of force. The force of this type must not be applied bluntly during the period of peaceful international relations among the countries, even though it would be stated as a criminal action in any case. To deep into this aspect of the murder, the customary law and UN Charter can be applied as supporting materials. One of the most drastic violations of the case which calls for the state responsibility from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is its actions against the freedom of speech (United Nation 2001). As long as Mr. Khashoggi was a journalist and had provoked the aggression of his murderers due to his professional work, it means that the Kingdom of the Saudi Arabia had ignored the tenet of the United Nations. While the international society has to provide defense for the initiators of the freedom movements and support those who fight for the truth, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has committed an opposite action by preventing a person from doing it and killing him for his struggle.
2. Personal Liability
The ignorance of the international human rights standards can complicate the part of the individual liability in the case of Mr. Khashoggi’s killing. For example, he still has probably passed through tutures which relates to the violation of the terms of the Convention Against Torture. Saudi Arabia cannot make away with ratifying every socially vulnerable aspect of the international cooperation with other countries. The most difficult aspect of the case is Mr. Khaggoshi’s disappearance. It is complicated for the investigators to identify his location during the entire term of the case despite other signs of the committed criminal actions. Nevertheless, the case refers to the questions of the individual liability too (Human Rights Council 2019). The Special Rapporteur has put effort to examine this aspect of the case which can claim particular country guilty. It has gathered a range of the significant proofs which can bring more life to the investigation of this case despite Mr. Khaggoshi’s enforced disappearance (Milanovic, 2019). It explains the importance of observing the individual liability of the Saudi Officials of the highest social statuses in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. For example, the central figures include the Crown Prince beyond others. According to the Special Rapporteur, the emphasis on the individual liability of those who had ordered Mr. Khashoggi’s murder remains disproportinate.
The individual liability dilemma has to identify the ones who have ordered the murder. The officers can face various challenges with this task due to its difference from the ordinary attempt to find the owner of the gun or other element of the criminal act. This case is more sophisticated in terms of the individual liability because to refers to the search for justice which broadens its complexity at the moral and material scales at the same time. The Crown Prince can stand out as the major suspect due to his power to give different orders (Kirby 2019). He could be the main one to blame. Even though he probably could not act by himself, the investigation has to find his subordinates which are responsible for the committed crime as well. However, the Crown Prince would still be the most violent figure among all of them as long as it was his will to make some group attack Mr. Khaggoshi. If he would not have negative intentions towards Mr. Khashoggi, no one would probably touch him. The criminal groups rely on the orders of the leader of the murderous plan usually.
As for the Crown Prince’s subordinates, they will still have to take responsibility for violating the human rights of Mr. Khashoggi. For example, there is a range of the criminal activities which could have been committed during the kidnapping process. Torturing and kidnapping is a matter of the individual liability of the attacking group. Making him disappear while he was a free person without any governmental or criminal obligations makes the group responsible too. The toughest aspect still inclines to the fact of the murder, which would be impossible to make away for those who complete the orders from the official of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Even if they had failed to fulfill their duty related to the murder and had missed some instructions, it does not make the process easier for any of the participants of the criminal action. The Crown Prince cannot be stated less or more guilty in case his subordinates had lost their control over the situation. The Crown Prince’s subordinates will be responsible for their own decisions first of all. While it is possible to make the judgment less strict to them in case they had been under the pressure themselves, it had still been their own choice to get involved with the murder.
3. Human Rights
International human rights law refers to the numerous aspects of the social well-being which has to be equal throughout the countries which want to cooperate on the legal basis. To violate the terms of the international human rights law means to offend the international society and provoke its most strict reactions and actions in response. The law requires the State to protect its citizens which has to start from the establishment of their human rights as a primary value of the governmental policies (Oguz et al. 2018). While Mr. Khashoggi could not belong to the citizens of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, there still was no option for the state to act towards him in such a brutal manner. It means that this formulation excludes the uniqueness of the states as long as it means a State as a protective organ which serves its citizens. This statements relates to the obligation of the State to ensure citizens’ safety from the destructive influence of the Third Party. Mr. Khashoggi’s have been absolutely violated in the perspective of the international moral standards which are engraved in the range of conventions, agreements, and laws. He could not even ask for protection due to the complicated circumstances.
It is impossible to deny that the right to live has to be primary in comparison to all other human rights. The Human Rights Committee also refers to this notion which means that even among the subjective system of morals in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, its state has still committed a crime against the international moral standards (Anderson 2018). The right to live is a condition of the peaceful community which is essentially influential at the international level. The international laws and conventions emphasize the need to support human rights as long as it can save the countries from the collapse in wars. The Committee also summarizes general views on the conditions of the human rights which are the main value of the governmental policies. The efficiency and legacy of the governmental policies can be reflected in the ability of the state to handle violative challenges properly. While the international community is also willing to comfort each other to reach a higher level of the human rights protection, the case of the Mr. Khashoggi’s kidnapping can play as a provocative element. It can be a sign of the inability of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to respect universal norms which will make other countries be less loyal to it either.
There is also a General Comment 36 which can clarify the objectives of the hinternational human rights law towards the case of the Mr. Khashoggi’s murder. It implies the need to establish various law institutions with the adequate procedures. While they would remain in power throughout the state, they would have an influential impact on the actions of such high officials as the Crown Prince too (United Nations Human Rights 2019). The parties have to introduce specific measures which would respect human rights at the numerous levels of the social hierarchy. The Committee works for the unlawful deaths prevention. It demands states to be aware of the committed crimes on their territories as well as to provide full information which can save the situation. If the harm towards Mr. Khashoggi had been foreseeable, it means that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had ignored the General Comment 36 and the entire purpose of the Human Rights Committee. While the other countries cannot make the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to represent a proper image of the international player, they receive a full right to blame the state for losing Mr. Khashoggi’s life and letting the criminal group violate his human rights.
In conclusion, the case can be addressed through multiple international agreements on human rights. The international human rights law cannot ignore the issue which allows some modern state act in such an illegal way. The Human Rights Committee does not make any exclusions for the countries with strict traditions. If the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia believes it is higher than international morality objectives, than it does not deserve to be treated as an equal partner by other countries. If to refer to the the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, it will be possible to conclude that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not identify its decisions as those which have to be considered. The case combines the complicated moments with the state responsibility and individual liability. While the state remains responsible for letting its citizens act like this, there would be a number of the uncertain figures among the list of suspects. The Crown Prince remains the major suspect along with his potential subordinates. The fact that his subordinates could make his will come true without his presence does not make him less guilty in front of the law. His subordinates cannot be judged less strictly because of implementing his orders either.
Human Rights Council, 2019. Annex to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions: Investigation into the unlawful death of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi. Human Rights Council.
United Nations, 2001. Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries. United Nations.
Milanovic, M, 2019. The Murder of Jamal Khashoggi: Immunities, Inviolability and the Human Right to Life – Part I: Introduction. Ejil: Talk. https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-murder-of-jamal-khashoggi-immunities-inviolability-and-the-human-right-to-life-part-i-introduction/.
Kirby, J., 2019. UN report: “credible evidence” links Saudi crown prince to Khashoggi’s murder. Vox. https://www.vox.com/world/2019/6/19/18691225/un-report-khashoggi-saudi-arabia-mbs-evidence.
United Nations Human Rights, 2019. Preliminary observations of the human rights inquiry into the killing of Mr. Kashoggi following the country visit to Turkey. United Nations Human Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24143&LangID=E.
Oguz, A, et al., 2018. The Killing of Jamal Khashoggi. The World Research Center. https://researchcentre.trtworld.com/images/files/info-packs/TheKillingofJamalKhashoggi.pdf.
Anderson, S, 2018. What International Law Tells Us About the Khashoggi Investigation. Law Fare. https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-international-law-tells-us-about-khashoggi-investigation.