The law derives its content or subject matter from material sources.

In the 1970s, a “third generation” rights emerged with the predominant support of the developing countries. In contrast to the individual’s rights (i.e., the first two generations rights), these are collective or  group rights such as the right to development, right to healthy human environment, right to peace, and right to self-determination. Therefore, the correct option is B.

Another approach to human rights is legal positivism. Under the positivist theory, the source of human rights is to be found only in the enactments of law with sanctions attached to it. Jeremy Bentham and John Austin were its chief proponents. They considered the natural law to be vague and meaningless. They believed in freedom and equality; however, they did not base these values on natural law. A sovereign can define the scope of liberties of its subjects. It is the principle of utility that helps the state in deciding the limits of civil liberty. Under this theory, rules of international law are merely rules of positive morality. According to positivists, the individual has no status in international law. Therefore, the correct option is C.

Death penalty and imprisonment were imposed in both tribunals and few were acquitted.

The treatment of aliens (foreign nationals) has been a controversial subject under international law. There are two principal approaches in this respect:

• international minimum standard of treatment which must be accorded to aliens by all states, irrespective of how they treat their own nationals; and
• national treatment, that is, treatment equal to that given by the concerned state to its own nationals must be accorded to aliens.

The first reference of personal liberties is found in the Magna Carta of 1215 in England.

"In principle, the presence of Article 2 of the Draft will entail the international responsibility of a state. This has been affirmed by the Court in a number of cases. However, the respondent state may justify its action by claiming self-defense or force majeure for its non-performance."

In criminal matters also, the “substantial connection” between the alleged offender or the offence with the state exercising jurisdiction is necessary. The state practice discloses four general principles on the basis of which states generally claim criminal jurisdiction. First, the territorial principle, that determines jurisdiction by reference to the place where the offence is committed. Second, the nationality principle, which determines jurisdiction by reference to the nationality either of the persons committing the offence even with respect to events occurring entirely abroad or with reference to the nationality of the person injured by the offence. Third, the protective principle that refers to jurisdiction according to the national interest of the state injured by the offence. Fourth, the universality principle that provides jurisdiction by reference to the nature of the crime.

The Draft Articles deal only with the responsibility of states.

Article 7 defines crimes against humanity as acts when “committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.” Under this, it lists the following acts:

• murder;

• extermination;

• enslavement;

• deportation or forcible transfer of population;

• imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

• torture;

• rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

• persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law;

• enforced disappearance of persons;

• the crime of apartheid;

• other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

1945

After the Second World War, revolutionary changes came in this area. The Allied powers set up two International Military Tribunals (Nuremberg Tribunal in 1945 and Tokyo Tribunal in 1946) to try the criminals who committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, and conspiracy to commit these crimes.

At the Nuremberg Tribunal, 22 leaders of the Third Reich were tried. The Tokyo trials were conducted against 28 persons. The Charter of these tribunals had four counts of offences:
• Crimes against peace, i.e., beginning a war of aggression by planning, preparation or initiation, or in violation of treaties, such as the Hague Conventions of 1899, 1907, the Treaty of Versailles, violation of Mutual Non-aggression Pact by Germany with France, Belgium and Poland, and the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact.
• War crimes, i.e., crimes under the laws of war, which included violation of customary and conventional rules and regulations relating to warfare.
• Crimes against humanity, i.e., inhuman treatment (murder or persecution) on racial or religious grounds during war and in occupied territories.
• Conspiracy to commit these crimes. 

Therefore, the correct option is C.

While the focal point of Marxism is to recognize the contextuality of human rights in terms of the conditions of a society, conceiving human rights chiefly in a materialistic frame has been one of its significant weaknesses. Therefore, the correct option is C.

The Cold War conditions made the establishment of an international criminal court politically unrealistic.

Head of the government to conduct State affairs.

The Registry is responsible for the non-judicial aspects of the administration and servicing of the Court. The Registrar is elected by the judges by an absolute majority through secret ballot, taking into account any recommendation by the Assembly of States Parties. If the need arises, in the same manner the judges can elect a Deputy Registrar upon the recommendation of the Registrar.

An “act of aggression” has been defined as “the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations” (Art. 8bis (2))

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group is considered as genocide.

The Human Rights Council is a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly. Unlike the CHR, which was a subsidiary body of the ECOSOC and reporting to the ECOSOC, the Human Rights Council reports to the General Assembly. “The Council is made of 47 Member States, which are elected by the members of the General Assembly of the United Nations through direct and secret ballot

The legality of these trials and the judgments were widely criticized on the following
grounds: the trials were in violation of the principle of nullum poena sine lege (no punishment without law), trials were an imposition of ex post facto law, giving retrospective operation to a crime that was not punishable at the time of its commission, the tribunals were constituted by the victorious powers, whose impartiality in delivering the judgments was doubtful, consisting mainly of judges from the victorious States was in violation of the principle of nemo judex in causa sua (no one can be a judge in his own case), the plea of superior orders has great relevance in the discipline of the armed forces, and it was rejected by the Tribunals without any concrete reason.