Which states parties should be held responsible for the implementation of positive obligations under the ECHR in sports-related disputes?

Human Rights Law ◽

State Party ◽

Human Right ◽

Human Rights Protection ◽

Rights Protection ◽

Legal Obligations ◽

State Actors

AbstractIn sports society, awareness of human rights protection has gradually developed and sports governing bodies, such as the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Fédération Internationale de la Football Association (FIFA), have striven to commit the implementation of human rights guaranteed by internationally recognised human right treaties in the international community. However, human rights law cannot directly impose any legal obligations on sports governing bodies because they are non-state actors established by domestic private law. In this situation, how can international human rights law apply to the private relationship between non-state actors? According to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), state parties must implement positive obligations to protect individuals against any violations caused by non-state actors within the jurisdiction. To implement the positive obligations under the ECHR, it is necessary to identify which state parties should be held responsible for the implementation in sports-related disputes because, in Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland, athletes claimed a violation of the ECHR against Switzerland on the ground that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is located in Lausanne, Switzerland. However, it should be considered that Switzerland is not be liable for all violations of the ECHR’s rights caused by another state party. In light of this, the purpose of this article is to identify a hypothetical standard for determining which state parties should be held responsible for implementing the positive obligations under the ECHR.

The Fallacy of Effective Human Rights Protection under Relevant Treaty Law when Armed Groups Commit Violations

10.1093/oso/9780198821946.003.0007 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Tilman Rodenhäuser

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Human Rights Violations ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Armed Groups ◽

Human Rights Protection ◽

Rights Protection ◽

Human Rights Treaties ◽

Chapter 5 adds to the contemporary discourse on human rights obligations of non-state armed groups by showing that in many situations, there is a clear legal need for these obligations. This chapter first engages in the debate on whether and to what extent certain human rights treaties address armed groups directly. Second, it shows that under the law of state responsibility, states are generally not responsible for human rights violations committed by non-state entities. Third, it recalls that under international human rights law, states have an obligation to protect human rights against violations committed by armed groups. However, it argues that because this cannot be a strict obligation but is one that depends on states’ capacities and the particular circumstances, often this framework cannot adequately protect individuals against human rights violations by armed groups. The result is a legal and practical need for human rights obligations of non-state armed groups.

Framing the Boundaries of European Human Rights Law

Global Jurist ◽

10.1515/gj-2014-0008 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 13 (2-3) ◽

Author(s):

Can Öztaş

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Case Law ◽

European Convention ◽

Court System ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Human Rights Protection ◽

Rights Protection

AbstractEuropean human rights protection, ensured by the European Convention and Court of Human Rights, is declared to be universal and inclusive, protecting not only citizens of Europe but also anybody residing within the jurisdiction of the signatory countries. This article challenges this declaration and argues, with the help of some examples from the case law, that European human rights protection is based on the defined concepts of European-ness that exclude the perceived non-European within the Convention and the Court system.

Human rights protection and state capacity: The doctrinal implications of the statist character of international human rights law

Human Rights in Times of Transition ◽

10.4337/9781789909890.00010 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 64-88

Author(s):

Mátyás Bódig

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

State Capacity ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Human Rights Protection ◽

Rights Protection ◽

9. International human rights law

International Law ◽

10.1093/he/9780198753018.003.0009 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Anders Henriksen

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Primary Sources ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Human Rights Protection ◽

Rights Protection ◽

Human Rights Treaties ◽

Protection Of Human Rights ◽

Enforcement Mechanisms ◽

Second World

This chapter discusses the system of human rights protection that has emerged since the end of the Second World War. It begins in Section 9.2 with the primary sources of human rights law before Section 9.3 discusses the different categories of human rights. Section 9.4 discusses the obligation on states to offer protection to individuals from the acts of other private individuals. Section 9.5 provides an overview of the enforcement mechanisms in the UN and Section 9.6 focuses on the regional protection of human rights. Section 9.7 discusses the territorial scope of human rights treaties and Section 9.8 concerns the application of human rights in times of public emergency.

Part VII Assessments, Ch.37 Compliance

The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law ◽

10.1093/law/9780199640133.003.0038 ◽

2013 ◽

Author(s):

Gori Gisella

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Conceptual Tool ◽

Human Rights Protection ◽

Rights Protection ◽

Protection Mechanisms ◽

This article examines the compliance of States with international human rights law. It explains the distinction between judicial and non-judicial compliance mechanisms, focusing on the United Nations (UN) in the context of non-judicial mechanisms and the Council of Europe and the Organization of American States (OAS) in the context of judicial mechanisms. It highlights the central role of the principle of subsidiarity in all international mechanisms for human rights protection and explains that this principle provides a conceptual tool for understanding the relation between the role of states in human rights protection and the role of the international human rights protection mechanisms that states create at the global and regional levels.

Human rights obligations in military occupation

International Review of the Red Cross ◽

10.1017/s1816383112000367 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 94 (885) ◽

pp. 317-337 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Noam Lubell

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Military Occupation ◽

Contextual Approach ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Human Rights Protection ◽

Rights Protection ◽

Legal Challenges

AbstractThis article examines the applicability of international human rights law in situations of military occupation. Proceeding from the position that human rights obligations can exist in these circumstances, the article provides an analysis of the precise modalities of application. It examines the tests for the determination of human rights applicability, and how these are linked to the concept of occupation. Finally, it recognizes the practical and legal challenges to the implementation of human rights obligations, and argues for a contextual approach that provides for human rights protection while recognizing the realities of military occupation.

9. International human rights law

10.1093/he/9780198869399.003.0009 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 163-185

Author(s):

Anders Henriksen

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Legal Protection ◽

Primary Sources ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Human Rights Protection ◽

Rights Protection ◽

Protection Of Human Rights ◽

Enforcement Mechanisms ◽

Private Actors

This chapter discusses the system of human rights protection that has emerged since the end of the Second World War. It begins in Section 9.2 with the primary sources of human rights law before Section 9.3 discusses the different categories of human rights. Section 9.4 discusses the obligation on states to offer protection from acts of private actors. Section 9.5 provides an overview of the enforcement mechanisms in the UN and Section 9.6 focuses on the regional protection of human rights. Section 9.7 discusses the territorial scope of human rights treaties and Section 9.8 concerns the application of human rights in times of public emergency. Section 9.8 provides an overview of the international legal protection of refugees.

10. Substantive rights—general comments

10.1093/he/9780198843672.003.0010 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 171-184

Author(s):

Rhona K. M. Smith

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Human Rights Protection ◽

Rights Protection ◽

International Human ◽

Almost All

This chapter discusses the reality of human rights protection within States. It addresses the limitations of various rights and the extent to which States can deviate from responsibility in terms of international human rights law. It covers issues such as State discretion in selecting and applying rights, particularly through derogations, reservations, declarations, and denunciations. These are issues which impact on almost all human rights and almost all States in some way.

Human Rights Protection the ASEAN Way: Non-Intervention and the Newest Regional Human Rights System

International Human Rights Law Review ◽

10.1163/22131035-00102003 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 1 (2) ◽

pp. 276-311 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Daniel Aguirre ◽

Irene Pietropaoli

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Human Rights Protection ◽

Rights Protection ◽

Structural Problems ◽

Civil Society Participation ◽

International Human ◽

Human Rights Standards

The Association of South East Nations (ASEAN) is a regional body working towards the integration of disparate states. The creation of a human rights mechanism, a critical part of this integration, confronts the central philosophy of ASEAN: deference to conservative notions of sovereignty and non-interference, often referred to as the ASEAN Way. This doctrine has been necessary to promote cooperation and trust between these neighbours but may prove incongruent with a human rights body that attempts to monitor and enforce international human rights law. This article looks at the challenges posed by the ASEAN way and how they developed in section 2. Section 3 follows with an examination of the ASEAN Way’s impact on the development of the regional human rights bodies. Section 4 addresses structural problems arising from the ASEAN Way: the limited human rights mandate; the lack of civil society participation; and the lack of common human rights standards among ASEAN states. Overall, this article examines the central irony that the while the ASEAN Way is necessary, it undermines the regional human rights body.

Protection against Expulsion in the Law of European Convention on Human Rights

Polish Review of International and European Law ◽

10.21697/priel.2017.6.2.01 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 6 (2) ◽

pp. 9

Author(s):

Elżbieta Hanna Morawska

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Critical Analysis ◽

Geneva Convention ◽

European Convention ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

State Party ◽

The Status ◽

The purpose of this article is to conduct a critical analysis of the premises of protection of an alien elaborated by the ECHR against arbitrary and ECHR-incompatible expulsion from the territory of the State Party to the ECHR. The scope of the institutionalization of the individual’s right of asylum in international human rights law was first discussed so as to provide the background of this prohibition. Subsequently, the article presents the process of an inclusion of the issue of expulsion of aliens to the scope of the prohibition of ill-treatment. Thanks to this extensive interpretation of the prohibition of ill-treatment, the ECtHR has developed a particular mechanism of protecting aliens from expulsion, both in the material and procedural dimension. As a result, protection against expulsion under Article 3 of the Convention is outlined more broadly than protection under the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.