This analysis explores the tension between monarchies and principles of international law, suggesting potential clashes with human rights norms.
The origin of public international law is strongly intertwined with monarchs and royal houses. From a traditional continental perspective, the concept of ‘sovereign States’ and of ‘sovereignty’ is traced back to the acquired autonomy and independence gained by kings over other sources of power. Despite this original connection, current international law studies seem to devote little attention to the relationship between monarchies and international law. The present work seeks to fill this gap and will analyse the possible conceptual clashes between the existence of monarchies and fundamental principles of international law, such as the prohibition of discrimination. The right to non-discrimination will be addressed both in light of the ‘external’ relations of royal houses, viz ‘commoners’, and ‘internal’ relations of the house, contextualising rules on the succession to the throne in the general framework of human rights protection. Furthermore, a juxtaposition of monarchies and the holding of a lifetime position with the principles of immunity will highlight the limits under which royals may enjoy such privileges under international law.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stefano Dominelli (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: