La exigencia de responsabilidad penal individual que comporta el Derecho penal internacional requiere una discusión sobre el destinatario de las normas jurídicas, que, en este caso, son fuentes del Derecho internacional. La vinculación directa del individuo a estas normas ha sido objeto de debate en la discusión en las primeras versiones del monismo y en los inicios del Derecho internacional; y en el debate sobre una comunidad jurídica cosmopolita y su crítica. Se aborda el examen de estas posiciones en sus fundamentos (VITORIA y SUÁREZ; KANT; HEGEL y sus seguidores) y de las visiones recientes que recuperan la cuestión (HABERMAS y GÜNTHER; FABRE). Se propone una solución sobre la base del pensamiento del derecho natural clásico (guerra justa y bellum contra tyrannum) que permite resolver el problema planteado, aunque se confronta con algunos aspectos que pueden constituir contradicciones del propio sistema (la fractura del paralelismno entre responsabilidad del Estado y responsabilidad individual y el carácter selectivo interno).

—

Subject and Norm in International Criminal Law

The requirement of individual criminal responsibility entailed by international criminal law calls for a discussion of the addressees of legal norms, which, in this case, are sources of international law. The direct binding of individuals to these norms has been the subject of debate both in the early versions of monism and at the origins of international law, and in the debate over a cosmopolitan legal community and its critics. The examination of these positions is undertaken on the basis of their foundations (VITORIA and SUÁREZ; KANT; HEGEL and his followers), as well as of recent approaches that have revived the issue (HABERMAS and GÜNTHER; FABRE). A solution is proposed on the basis of classical natural-law thought (just war and bellum contra tyrannum) that makes it possible to resolve the problem at hand, although it is confronted with certain aspects that may constitute contradictions within the system itself (the rupture of the parallelism between State responsibility and individual responsibility, and its internally selective character).