The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Cases, Materials and Commentary. By Sarah Joseph, Jenny Schultz and Melissa Castan. xxxvi + 745pp.  75. Cases and Materials on the European Convention on Human Rights. By Alastair Mowbray. xxxv + 846 pp. Paperback  24.95

2003 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 367-369
Author(s):  
J. G. Merrills
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey

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 of assembly and association, which is dealt with together in Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) but separately in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It looks at the various forms of an assembly, and considers forms of association such as political parties, other interest groups, and trade unions, and how a state must justify any restriction on Article 11(1) given the extremely narrow margin of appreciation when it comes to political parties. The chapter also discusses public order and protest that has led to litigation in England and Wales to determine what is meant by imminent breach of the peace, the limits on processions and assembly, and the proportionality of state measures under Article 11 (with Articles 10 and 5).


Author(s):  
David Harris ◽  
Michael O’Boyle ◽  
Ed Bates ◽  
Carla Buckley

This chapter discusses Protocols 4, 6, 7, and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Protocols 4 and 7 protect a selection of civil and political rights not covered by the main Convention text and which make up for the substantive deficiencies of the Convention when compared to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Protocols 6 and 13 concern the abolition of the death penalty in peacetime and in war, respectively.


2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 283-296
Author(s):  
Yaël Ronen

AbstractThis article analyses the way in which the use of the rights to family life and to private life has evolved as a bar to the deportation of immigrants. The analysis focuses on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) with respect to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which uses a rights-based framework; and of the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) with respect to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which uses a status-based framework. It notes the interaction between the two bodies and the attempt in each forum to modify its normative framework to follow the other's. The article further considers the implications of each normative framework for both integrated immigrants and other immigrants.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Broderick

The traditional dichotomy of rights between civil and political rights, on the one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights, on the other hand, has been increasingly eroded in scholarly and judicial discourse. The interdependence of the two sets of rights is a fundamental tenet of international human rights law. Nowhere is this interdependence more evident than in the context of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD or UN Convention). This article examines the indivisibility and interdependence of rights in the CRPD and, specifically, the positive obligations imposed on States Parties to the UN Convention, in particular the reasonable accommodation duty. The aim of the paper is to analyse, from a disability perspective, the approach adopted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or ‘Strasbourg Court’) in developing the social dimension of certain civil and political rights in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), namely Articles 2 and 3 (on the right to life and the prohibition on torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, respectively), Article 8 (on the right to private and family life) and Article 14 ECHR (on non-discrimination). Ultimately, this paper examines the influence of the CRPD on the interpretation by the Strasbourg Court of the rights of persons with disabilities under the ECHR. It argues that, while the Court is building some bridges to the CRPD, the incremental and often fragmented approach adopted by the Court could be moulded into a more principled approach, guided by the CRPD.


SEEU Review ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-78
Author(s):  
Arta Bilalli

Abstract Interrogations are a very specific component of any criminal investigation. The answers gained through interrogative process provides information that are considered as direct evidences. In contemporary criminal procedure, the court is not absolved from gaining other evidences, even in cases when the defendant confesses his/her guiltiness. This is a mechanism for excluding the inquisitorial approach for extracting compulsory confessions. The modern procedure uses a variety of mechanisms to guarantee that the defendant will not be compelled to confess guilt. Those mechanisms are part of most important international conventions as International Convention for Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, the Statutes of International Tribunals (i.e. International Tribunal for ex-Yugoslavia, International Tribunal for Rwanda) and part of different constitutional and legal acts of modern states. A very interesting “highlight” remains the right to silence which guarantees that the defendant might remain silent and it will not be interpreted against him. The defendant, even in cases with direct evidences, can remain silent and cannot be forced to answer given questions. Another “highlight” is that one that appears from the privilege against self-incrimination that allows the defendant to not answer a question, if by answering, he/she may confess guilt or incriminate him/herself. How deep is this privilege? Are there, maybe questions, that he/she are obliged to answer (i.e. disclosure of identity?) The article will focus in interrogations and the right to silence by most important international acts and domestic acts of different countries (USA, France, Germany, Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia) and upcoming specifics in the relation interrogations vs. remaining silent.


2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 351-375
Author(s):  
Marloes van Noorloos

This article deals with the role of criminal law in dealing with defamatory expressions about religion or belief. Defamation of religion and belief is a form of indirect defamation ‘via identification’ which, as the discussion about the Dutch group defamation law shows, stretches up the notion of ‘group defamation’ — a crime which requires that (groups of) persons are insulted because they belong to a religious group. This contribution investigates whether European states can legitimately criminalise (certain forms of) defamation of religion and belief, in light of the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations framework (particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) and legal theoretical considerations. The article shows how problematic it is for the criminal law — in light of the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion, as well as the ultima ratio principle — to combat such speech.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-282
Author(s):  
Louise Reyntjens

In response to Islamic-inspired terrorism and the growing trend of foreign fighters, European governments are increasingly relying on citizenship deprivation as a security tool. This paper will focus on the question of how the fundamental rights of individuals deprived of their citizenship are affected and which protection is offered for them by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’). In many countries, these new and broader deprivation powers were left unaccompanied by stronger (procedural) safeguards that protect the human rights they might affect. Unlike the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the ECHR does not provide for an explicit right to citizenship. The question therefore rises what protection, if any, is offered by the ECHRsystem against citizenship deprivation and for the right to citizenship. Through a case study of the Belgian measure of citizenship deprivation, the (implicit) protection provided by the Convention-system is demonstrated.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document