Complementary Protection and Encampment

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bríd Ní Ghráinne

Abstract A camp may be described as a temporary space in which individuals receive humanitarian relief and protection until a durable solution can be found to their situation. The camp environment is often riddled with contradictions—the camp can be a place of refuge while at the same time, a place of overcrowding, exclusion and suffering. This article asks to what extent removal of an individual from state A to state B, where he or she will have to live in a camp, is a breach of state A’s human rights law obligations. It argues that even if encampment in state B will expose the individual to terrible conditions, it is unlikely that they will be able to successfully challenge a removal decision before international human rights courts and/or treaty monitoring bodies.

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 329-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Poels

Although safeguards for the individual human right guarantees for protection against double jeopardy are strongly entrenched in international and domestic law as well as widely reflected in State practice, such protection is generally limited in scope and applicability to surrender or extradition procedures. Where criminal offenders face courts of a State after having been prosecuted and punished or acquitted by a court of another State, the absence of transnational non bis in idem protection constitutes a serious lacuna in international human rights law. Although legislative and judicial initiatives are being undertaken – notably under the aegis of the European Union – to remedy this lacuna, the international community must incontestably act upon this need for individuals' protection against abuses of power and breaches of due process through the amendment or complementing of the classical international human rights conventions.


2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lottie Lane

This article critically examines whether, and how, five United Nations human rights treaty monitoring bodies deal with situations in which human rights have been interfered with by non-State actors. The article uses the concepts of ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ horizontal effect of international human rights law. An in-depth comparative analysis reviews the monitoring bodies’ general comments and views on individual communications from the bodies’ establishment until August 2017. The analysis identifies very limited evidence of ‘direct’, and two main kinds of ‘indirect’ horizontal effect of human rights applied by the bodies. First, it finds that while the bodies do engage with the ways in which non-State actors can interfere with human rights, they predominantly focus on the positive and procedural obligations of States. Second, it finds that where non-State actors are sufficiently ‘State-like’ in their nature and actions, they may be re-categorised as public actors for the purposes of human rights.


2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 273
Author(s):  
Orides Mezzaroba ◽  
Vladmir Oliveira da Silveira

Even today concepts that should have been overcome are debated, for example, the belonging of an individual to a State and, consequently, to its laws. The process of globalization, and the constant immigration resulted thereof, have led to profound changes in the relationship between the individual and the State, and especially, in the field of international human rights law. This means that the human needs began to be manifested regionally and internationally, in order to achieve the principle of the dignity of the human being. Thus, this article intends to investigate the link between citizenship and human rights, from new perspectives, through literature studies and deductive method, in order to answer the following questions: what are the added values to the concept of citizenship? And what is the current dimensions of citizenship?


2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 349-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALICE EDWARDS

International human rights law has been the subject of much scrutiny by feminist scholars over the past two decades, principally because of the way in which it is seen as privileging the realities of men's lives while ignoring or marginalizing those of women. The international prohibition on torture is identified by feminist writers as a classic example of this ‘male’-gendered nature of human rights law. This article explores the extent to which key feminist critiques of the 1980s and 1990s are now reflected in the commentary and jurisprudence on torture of various international human rights bodies. It asks: have the critiques of international human rights law been satisfied by interpretations applied by international and regional bodies to this so-called ‘male’ right? It concludes by offering both caution and counsel – it cautions against the potentiality of new interpretations simply replacing old gender-based stereotypes with new ones and counsels international decision-makers to focus on the individual or personalized characteristics and circumstances of each claim, of which sex/gender may be but one factor.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document