scholarly journals Hard Protection through Soft Courts? Non-Refoulement before the United Nations Treaty Bodies

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-384
Author(s):  
Başak Çalı ◽  
Cathryn Costello ◽  
Stewart Cunningham
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Dimensional Analysis ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Individual Decision ◽  
Individual Decision Making ◽  
Original Dataset ◽  
European Court ◽  
The United Nations

AbstractThis Article comparatively analyses how the prohibition of refoulement is interpreted by United Nations Treaty Bodies (UNTBs) in their individual decision-making, where we suggest they act as “soft courts.” It asks whether UNTBs break ranks with or follow the interpretations of non-refoulement of the European Court of Human Rights. This investigation is warranted because non-refoulement is the single most salient issue that has attracted individual views from UNTBs since 1990. Moreover, our European focus is warranted as nearly half of the cases concern states that are also parties to the European Convention on Human Rights. Based on a multi-dimensional analysis of non-refoulement across an original dataset of over 500 UNTB non-refoulement cases, decided between 1990–2020, as well as pertinent UNTB General Comments, the Article finds that whilst UNTBs, at times, do adopt a more progressive position than their “harder” regional counterpart, there are also instances where they closely follow the interpretations of the European Court of Human Rights and, on occasion, adopt a more restrictive position. This analysis complicates the view that soft courts are likely to be more progressive interpreters than hard courts. It further shows that variations in the interpretation of non-refoulement in a crowded field of international interpreters present risks for evasion of accountability, whereby domestic authorities in Europe may favor the more convenient interpretation, particularly in environments hostile to non-refoulement.

The European Court of Human Rights on the UN Individual Counter-Terrorist Sanctions Regime: Safeguarding Convention Rights and Harmonising Conflicting Norms in Nada v. Switzerland

2014 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Auke Willems
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Due Process ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Legal Contexts ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
Due Process Rights

This article analyses the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Nada v. Switzerland from the perspective of individual due process rights and the wider constitutional implications. In Nada v. Switzerland, the Strasbourg Court was asked to rule on the conformity of a State Party to the European Convention on Human Rights in its implementation of the United Nations individual counter-terrorist sanctions regime. The Court found violations of an applicant’s right to respect for private and family life and right to an effective remedy. What the Court did not do was rule on the wider questions of hierarchy, i.e. the relationship between the Convention and binding resolutions by the United Nations Security Council that have precedence over any other international agreement by virtue of Article 103 UN Charter. By choosing to harmonise norms originating in different legal contexts, the Court avoided this fundamental question. However, elements of pluralism and constitutionalism can be found in the judgment. By not giving precedence to the United Nations sanctions regime, the Court has implicitly made a statement about the question of hierarchy, while at the same time managing to uphold its primary task of safeguarding States Parties’ compliance with the Convention.

Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica v. Netherlands

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (4) ◽  
pp. 884-890 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob Katz Cogan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
European Convention ◽  
National Authority ◽  
European Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
The Right ◽  
Republika Srpska ◽  
Right Of Access

On June 11, 2013, in Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica, a chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found that the Dutch courts’ grant of immunity to the United Nations in a case brought by and on behalf of relatives of individuals killed by the Army of the Republika Srpska in and around Srebrenica in July 1995 did not run afoul of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention). Those provisions guarantee, respectively and among other things, the right of access to a court and the right to “an effective remedy before a national authority” if any Convention right is violated. Having found that the challenged decisions accorded with Dutch obligations under the Convention, the chamber declared the application before the Court inadmissible as “manifestly ill-founded” and “rejected” it pursuant to Article 35(3)(a) and 4. The chamber’s decision was unanimous.

9. Freedom from discrimination

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
European Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Nations Development

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter focuses on freedom from discrimination, beginning with an overview of equality as a contested concept as well as formal and substantive forms of equality, and then examines the United Nations’ development of specific treaty and charter mechanisms to protect individuals against discrimination. It then discusses Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which gives limited protection against discrimination but has been expanded by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in its case law and via Protocol 12. Finally, the chapter examines the consolidation and expansion of equality laws in the UK (except for Northern Ireland) under the Equality Act 2010.

Art.20 Personal Mobility

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kovudhikulrungsri Lalin ◽  
Hendriks Aart
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
Personal Mobility ◽  
Cultural Activities ◽  
European Court ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines Article 20 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Personal mobility is a prerequisite for inclusion in a society. According to the European Court of Human Rights, to be mobile and to have access to transport, housing, cultural activities, and leisure is a precondition for the ‘right to establish and develop relations with other human beings’, ‘in professional or business contexts as in others’. The CRPD does not establish new rights for persons with disabilities. It is merely thought to identify specific actions that states and others must take to ensure the effectiveness and inclusiveness of all human rights and to protect against discrimination on the basis of disability. However, the fact that there is no equivalent of the right to personal mobility in any other human rights treaty makes it particularly interesting to examine the genesis and meaning of this provision.

6 Responsibility, 6.6 Agim Behrami and Bekir Behrami v France , App. No. 71412/01 and Ruzhdi Saramati v France, Germany, and Norway , App. No. 78166/01, European Court of Human Rights, 2 May 2007

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Villalpando Santiago
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Security Council Resolution ◽  
European Court ◽  
The United Nations

In 2007, the European Court of Human Rights issued a landmark decision on the admissibility of two applications (Behrami and Saramati) concerning events that had taken place in Kosovo subsequent to Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999). This note examines the two main legal findings of this decision, namely (i) that the impugned actions and omissions were, in principle, attributable to the United Nations, and (ii) that this attribution implied that the respondent states could not be held accountable for such actions and omissions under the Convention. The note deconstructs the reasoning of the Court on these points and assesses the legacy of this precedent in the field of the responsibility of international organizations.

scholarly journals Canada Should Retain Its Reservation on the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

2018 ◽  
Vol 63 (12) ◽  
pp. 809-812
Author(s):  
Mathieu Dufour ◽  
Thomas Hastings ◽  
Richard O’Reilly
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Psychotic Disorders ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
Not Criminally Responsible ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Right

The United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in 2006. When Canada ratified the CRPD, it reserved the right to continue using substitute decision making schemes even if the CRPD was ‘interpreted as requiring their elimination’. This was a prescient decision because the CRPD Committee, which is tasked with overseeing the interpretation and implementation of the CRPD, subsequently opined that all legislation supporting substitute decision making schemes contravene the CRPD and must be revoked. The CRPD Committee insists that every person can make decisions with sufficient support and that if a person lacks capacity to make a decision, we must rely on their ‘will and preferences’. Many international legal scholars have called this interpretation unrealistic. We agree and, in this article, describe how this unrealistic approach would result in extensive harm and suffering for people with severe cognitive or psychotic disorders. The reader should also be aware that the CRPD Committee also calls for the elimination of all mental health acts and the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights for the abandonment of the not criminally responsible (NCR) defence.

scholarly journals Are inspections conducted by selected administrative bodies compliant with the Constitution of the Slovak Republic and the European Convention on Human Rights?

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-79
Author(s):  
Lucia Smolková
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Slovak Republic ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Related Case ◽  
European Court

This paper analyses the case law of the Slovak Constitutional Court and the Slovak Supreme Court dealing with inspections conducted by selected Slovak administrative bodies – especially by the administrative bodies in the area of foodstuffs administration – where inspected companies complain that their rights guaranteed by the Slovak Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, namely the protection of their business premises, have been violated. The paper thus also deals with and analyses the related case law of the European Court of Human Rights and its (non)-application by the Slovak judicial bodies in their decision-making practice.

scholarly journals Deprivation of Liberty and Human Dignity in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Spano
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Penal Policy ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Life Sentence

In its landmark 2013 judgment of Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that a life sentence which is not de jure and de facto reducible amounts to a breach of the prohibition of inhuman and degrading punishment, as enshrined in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The author, a judge of the Strasbourg Court, analyses the Vinter judgment both as it stands alone as well as how it fits into and, now, influences the Court’s case-law on Article 3 and 5 of the Convention, before reviewing the procedural requirements laid down by the Court for a ‘Vinter review’ of life sentences. In doing so, the author examines the underlying tensions between the conception of penal policy as falling within the exclusive domain of domestic decision-making and the individualistic and dignitarian notion of human rights in which the Convention system is firmly grounded. The article is based on the 2016 Bergen Lecture on Criminal Law and Criminal Justice which the author gave on 26 October 2016 at the Faculty of Law, University of Bergen. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document