The Status of the Individual Under the European Convention on Human Rights and Contemporary International Law

1985 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 376-382
Author(s):  
P. T. Muchlinski
2007 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-256
Author(s):  
Cavid Abdullahzade

AbstractAs part of the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Azerbaijan Republic ended its protracted existence as one of the fifteen members of the Soviet Union and became an independent state. As a result, on 30 August 1991, she became a full subject of international law. Currently, Azerbaijan is a party to a number of international treaties, virtually all major human rights treaties registered with the UN Secretary-General, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as a number of related Council of Europe human rights agreements.A tendency towards internationalization and a general 'opening' to international law can also be seen in the Azeri Constitution, which was adopted by public referendum on 12 November 1995. Like many other former Soviet Republics, Azerbaijan, in its 1995 Constitution, has rejected the traditional Soviet dualist approach of the implementation of international law in the domestic legal system and has established a monist system within the context of a relationship between national and international law. This article discusses these changes in the Azeri attitude towards international law, in particular the status of international treaties, with special reference to those problems stemming from the implementation of international treaties in the domestic legal system of Azerbaijan.


2021 ◽  
pp. 151-165
Author(s):  
Halldóra Thorsteinsdóttir

AbstractThis article examines the status of international treaties in Iceland law and how Icelandic court practice has developed in recent years in that area. With regard to the relationship between domestic law and international law, Iceland adheres to the principle of dualism. This means that international law does not come into force as Icelandic law unless implemented by the legislator. As a result, Icelandic Courts will not, in general, apply provisions of international treaties unless they have been incorporated into Icelandic statutory law. However, this does not mean that international obligation are not fulfilled, as Icelandic Courts will seek to interpret domestic law in line with international obligation to the extent possible. If an international treaty has been implemented into Icelandic law, its provisions are binding like other domestic law. With regard to the EEA Agreement, Icelandic Courts will seek to interpret national law in accordance with EEA obligations and follow the judgments of the EFTA Court if the Icelandic provision in question is open to such an interpretation. With regard to the European Convention on Human Rights, Icelandic Courts will even go a step further, as recent judgments show that Icelandic Courts tend to interpret the human rights provisions of the Icelandic Constitution in line with interpretation laid down by The European Court of Human Rights, even in cases where such an interpretation does not exactly fit within the direct wording of the provision in question. This is due to a special connection between the human rights chapter of the Icelandic Constitution and the Convention, as one of the legislators’ main goals when amending the Constitution in 1994 was to bring the human rights chapter more in line with the Convention.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-127
Author(s):  
Lena Riemer

In the past decades, the European Union and its member states have increasingly relied on externalization and non-arrival strategies for migration control. One of the latest developments is the decision by Malta and Italy to unilaterally close their ports to vessels carrying migrants rescued at sea. The article examines the conformity of such practices with the international law of the sea and focuses especially on the customary port of safety principle. It also addresses the applicability of the European Convention on Human Rights in cases where the rejected vessels have not entered the territory of a member state. The paper provides a novel approach for the establishment of the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisdiction in such cases of extraterritorial migration control, arguing that the jurisdiction could be founded on the imputable-public-power-test. Based on the analysis of potential violations of rights guaranteed by the Convention and its Protocols, the respective practices may, depending on the individual cases, violate the non-refoulement principle and/or the prohibition of collective expulsion.


1974 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 440-453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Boyle ◽  
Hurst Hannum

The most distinctive feature of the European Convention on Human Rights is the optional procedure under Article 25, whereby an individual claiming to be a victim of a violation of one of the rights guaranteed by the Convention may present a complaint against his own (or another) government to the European Commission of Human Rights for investigation. Thus the individual is given direct access to an international tribunal and is recognized as having the standing necessary to pursue his rights under international law.


Author(s):  
Galina Shinkaretskaia

Unrecognized states are formations separated themselves from another state and had declared itself a new self-standing state. The inner structure of the formation does not differ from the structure of other states in that it possesses a constitution, legal system and state bodies. But such a formation is not recognized by the international community in the capacity of a subject of international law or is recognized by a minor number of states.Unrecognized states do not have interstate treaties with UN members, yet this does not mean that no international obligations are obligatory for them. General principles of international law and peremptory norms are obligatory notwithstanding recognition. Moreover, unrecognized state sometimes accept voluntarily international obligations of some treaties, still they are not recognized as parties thereof. The status of unrecognized states differ from the status of other actors not states in international relations: sometimes intrastate or even non-governmental organizations, e.g. European union, are accepted as parties to international treaties. Unrecognized states can never become parties to international treaties. Thus a situation of irresponsibility is created, when an unrecognized state has no partners who could question a responsibility in case of a breach of international law; neither the jurisdiction of treaty bodies created to monitor implementation of the treaty obligations.Transdnistrian Moldavian Republic is a good illustration here. Its Constitution contains a rule that the generally recognized principles and norms of international law and international treaties are a part of its legal system. The Republic does not have interstate treaties, but accepted some normative acts on the recognition of the most important human rights treaties. This is in fact a joining of the Republic to the treaties. Yet the Republic is not a party to them because the Vienna Convention on the law of international treaties 1969 allows only the subjects of international law to conclude international treaties which unrecognized Transdnistria is not. Thus the situation is created where the international community cannot submit a claim of failure to fulfill a treaty to Transdnistria.We submit that this is not so with generally recognized norms and principles because an obligation is emerging in the contemporary international law that all actors of international intercourse must fulfill those principles and norms. The events around the indictment of the former President of the Republic are a good example of breach of international law. The Republic broke the European Convention on human rights which diminished the acceptance of international law by the Republic.


2007 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luzius Wildhaber

AbstractThis article is an expanded and footnoted version of the lectur given at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law on Tuesday 21 March 2006, entitled ‘International Law in the European Court of Human Rights’.The article begins with some comparative comments on the application of the European Convention on Human Rights in monistic and dualistic systems It then discusses in detail the European Court's case law which confirms that the Convention, despite its special character as a human rights treaty, is indeed part of public international law. It concludes that the Convention and international law find themselves in a kind of interactive mutual relationship. checking and buildine on each other.


2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 193-199
Author(s):  
Sean D. Murphy ◽  
Claudio Grossman

Our conversation might begin by looking backward a bit. The human rights movement from 1945 onward has been one of the signature accomplishments of the field of international law, one that refocused our attention from a largely interstate system to a system where the individual moved in from the periphery to the center. Human rights champions point to numerous landmark treaties, numerous institutions, and the rise of NGOs as a critical vehicle for developing and monitoring human rights rules. Yet others look at the international human right system and still see the state as overly central, tolerating and paying lip service to human rights, but too easily discarding them when they prove to be inconvenient. The persistence of racism comes to mind. As a general matter, how would you assess the strengths and weaknesses of the system that was built essentially during your lifetime?


2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (04) ◽  
pp. 79-81
Author(s):  
Nargiz Nasimi Mammadova ◽  

Key words: human rights, positive obligations, right to life, international law


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document