Human Rights Limitations to Economic Enforcement Measures Under Article 41 of the United Nations Charter and the Iraqi Sanctions Regime

2001 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erika de Wet
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Unique Role ◽  
The Core ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
The Right ◽  
United Nations Charter

This article questions the legality of the extent of the Iraqi sanctions regime, due to its severe impact on human rights such as the right to life and the right to health. After examining whether the Security Council is bound by human rights, the article examines if and to what extent the Security Council may limit human rights norms when imposing economic sanctions. In the process it distinguishes between non-derogable and derogable human rights. With respect to the latter, it supports limitation in accordance with a proportionality principle that protects the core of the rights involved, while at the same time allows the Security Council the flexibility required by its unique role in the maintenance of international peace and security.

14. The use of force and collective security

2019 ◽  
pp. 346-374
Author(s):  
Gleider Hernández
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Collective Security ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Humanitarian Interventions ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
United Nations Charter ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter looks at the use of force and collective security. Today, the United Nations Charter embodies the indispensable principles of international law on the use of force. These include the prohibition on the unilateral use of force found in Article 2(4), and the recognition of the inherent right of all States to use force in self-defence found in Article 51. Finally, under Chapter VII, a collective security system centred upon the Security Council was established for the maintenance of international peace and security. A key debate over the scope of Article 2(4) is whether a new exception has been recognized which would allow the use of force motivated by humanitarian considerations. It is argued that these ‘humanitarian interventions’ would allow a State to use force to protect people in another State from gross and systematic human rights violations when the target State is unwilling or unable to act.

scholarly journals Non-lethal weapons

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 831-853
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Hoffberger
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Military Objective ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Military

If thinking about weapons, one generally thinks about lethal technology. However, an abundance of so-called non-lethal weapons, a technology not aimed at killing but merely incapacitating the human target or military objective, is also being deployed both within and outside the ambit of armed conflict. Since non-lethal weapons do not necessarily implicate a zero chance of mortality, but often lead to severe wounds and tremendous suffering, the use and deployment of such weapons raise strong humanitarian and human rights concerns. The prohibition to cause superfluous injuries and unnecessary suffering, as well as the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks are, amongst others, one of the most relevant provisions potentially having an influence on the deployment of nonlethal technology in armed conflict. However, the invocation of the principle of proportionality may lead to the justification of the use of non-lethal weapons on the grounds that the military advantage anticipated was greater than the human suffering caused. Insofar, one must ask whether there is a “red-line”; where the almost inflationary invocation of the principle of proportionality may defeat the object and purpose of the Geneva Conventions and therefore render the deployment and use of non-lethal technology illegal. Apart from the battlefield, non-lethal weapons are also being deployed in lawenforcement scenarios, where human rights law plays a pivotal role. In this regard, one must not look merely at the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading suffering and the right to life but also at the right to health, a presumably underestimated principle curbing and shaping the use of non-lethal technology outside the ambit of armed conflict.

Anticipatory Self-Defence in the Legislative History of the United Nations Charter

1991 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy L. H. McCormack
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Security Measures ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Right ◽  
United Nations Charter ◽  
Self Defence

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter states that:Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of selfdefense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.International lawyers are still arguing about the scope of the right of self-defence in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Most of the arguments focus on the semantics of Article 51. Those who argue for a “restrictive view” of the provision emphasise the qualifying phrase “if an armed attack occurs”.

The Right to Health

2003 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-33
Author(s):  
Dommen Caroline
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Trade Policy ◽  
World Trade Organization ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
Medical Services ◽  
Trading System ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
The Right

Does the global trading system operate to the detriment of human rights? Some people think so. Many argue that trade policy interferes with a nation's capacity to develop its own human rights policies in the areas of health, nutrition, and medical services. This article examines that contention by studying how World Trade Organization (WTO) rules limit a country's ability to uphold the right to health for its citizens and suggests ways that human rights norms and mechanisms can be employed as counterweights to socially harmful WTO polices. The author concludes that most commentators agree that human rights are inalienable and thus would prevail in a judicial setting and that human rights mechanisms have been underused by proponents of public health.

UN Targeted Sanctions, Legal Safeguards and the European Convention on Human Rights

2003 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iain Cameron
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Qualitative Change ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The One ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
The Right ◽  
Ec Law ◽  
Legal Mechanism

AbstractThe introduction of Security Council targeted financial and travel sanctions against individuals involves a qualitative change in Security Council sanctions policy, which has previously been directed against governmental entities. Targeted sanctions can be a useful weapon in the international community's attempts to pressurize repressive regimes into accepting change. However, there is a problem in using against individuals, a powerful international law mechanism designed for pressurizing states. Individuals' rights under domestic and international law can be severely affected by such sanctions. The blacklists created under Resolutions 1333 and 1390 cause particular problems, as these are quasi-criminal in nature and in practice entail an allegation that the targeted persons are terrorists or terrorist associates. However, there is no international legal mechanism for checking or reviewing the accuracy of the information forming the basis of a sanctions committee blacklisting or the necessity for, and proportionality of, measures adopted. The implementation against non-governmental or quasi-governmental entities of targeted Security Council sanctions in European states is almost certainly contrary to European human rights norms, in particular, the right of access to court under Article 6 ECHR. There is thus a conflict between obligations under the United Nations Charter (UNC) on the one hand and the ECHR (and for EU states, EC law) on the other. Mechanisms can, however, be created which provide a broadly similar level of protection to that provided by Article 6 ECHR while maintaining whatever effectiveness targeted sanctions possess, so there is no logical incompatibility between obligations under the ECHR and Security Council sanctions.

scholarly journals Disability, Deprivation of Liberty and Human Rights Norms: Reconciling European and International Approaches

2017 ◽  
Vol 2016 (22) ◽  
pp. 76
Author(s):  
Eilionóir Flynn
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Font Size ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
International Human ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Article 5

<p><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica',sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">Persons with disabilities are subject to unique forms of deprivation of liberty, often justified by reference to the need to protect their right to life, right to health, and to protect the human rights of others. This paper examines disability-specific forms of deprivation of liberty, particularly those authorised in mental health and capacity law, in light of their compliance with European and international human rights frameworks. It explores the apparent tension between Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which permits deprivation of liberty of ‘persons of unsound mind’ in certain circumstances, and Article 14 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which states that ‘the existence of a disability shall in no case justify a deprivation of liberty.’ The challenges in attempting to comply with both provisions are illustrated through reference to developments in England and Wales. This paper also seeks to offer a way forward for States Parties to both Conventions, in order to protect the rights of persons with disabilities.</span></p>

scholarly journals Provision of Peace and Right to Health through Sanctions: Threats and Opportunities

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (4Suppl1) ◽  
pp. S43-S48
Author(s):  
Reihaneh Dastafkan ◽  
Hadi Salehi ◽  
Mohammad Mehdi Hooshmand
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Proper Time ◽  
Theoretical Data ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
The United States ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
International Peace ◽  
The Right ◽  
Initial Objective

According to the purposes for the formation of the United Nations, sophistication of institutions like the Security Council must be evaluated based on the provision of peace and how they guarantee human rights. Therefore, in case Security Council does not follow these two mentioned factors, its function would be itself a threat to the international peace and security. This analytical research is based on collecting library theoretical data related to different field studies which investigated the effects of sanctions issued by the Security Council, the United States and the European Union on citizens’ health and tried to assess both their efficiency and legitimacy. The right to health is connected with the right of living. In case enough drugs, appropriate treatment and medical equipment are not provided at the proper time, both physical and mental health might be threatened and this can cause death of a large number of people. Considering the Security Council as an institution which is expected to take into account the citizens’ basic rights and not to ignore its own initial objective, the present paper was an attempt to provide explanations for the above concepts and their relationships and to analyze the findings of previous field studies. The paper concluded that sanctions issued by the Security Council and the United States are potentially functioning as threats to the international peace and so these sanctions are violating the citizens’ right to health.

The Grounds of Climate Justice

2019 ◽  
pp. 41-57
Author(s):  
Alix Dietzel
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Climate Justice ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Right To Food ◽  
The Right

Chapter Two defines the grounds of climate justice. Defining the grounds of justice is a key task for any climate justice account because it allows readers to understand what must be normatively prioritised. The grounds of justice in this sense represent the moral underpinnings of the climate justice account, a normative subfloor that must not be crossed. The chapter makes the case for using the human right to health as the non-relational moral minimum that grounds the climate justice position. Chapter Two puts forward that the human right to health provides a strong foundation for a climate justice because it captures the threats climate change poses to humans more comprehensively than other key human rights, including the right to food and water, the right to life, and the right to free movement.

Risk Regulation and the European Convention on Human Rights

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 733-749
Author(s):  
Letizia Seminara
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Risk Regulation ◽  
European Regulation ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
The Right

AbstractEuropean law of risk regulation is commonly intended to be limited to the European regulation in the internal market. However, risk is also regulated in Europe by human rights law, which is often left aside in this area. In fact, disregard for the risk entailed by certain manmade activities as well as by natural events, may imply restrictions to, inter alia, the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. This article aims at studying the manner in which this Convention regulates risk through human rights norms. It provides an overview of the standards set by the European Court of Human Rights in this field.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document