Part III Security Governance Tools, Ch.38 National Security, Surveillance, and Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christakis Théodore ◽  
Bouslimani Katia
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Security ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Social Functions ◽  
European Court ◽  
Governance Tools ◽  
Restrictive Measures ◽  
Security Surveillance ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter reflects on the relationship between national security, surveillance, and human rights. The possibility to adopt restrictive measures in case of threats to national security is an essential component of the international legal system and one of those ‘adjustment variables’ that allow international human rights law to accommodate and ascertain its social functions. The abuse of these mechanisms, however, is also a major threat to the legal order, judicial security, and the rule of law. Domestic rulers and security agencies have often used ‘national security’ as a pretext to violate human rights and fundamental freedoms; to monitor political opponents; to conceal embarrassing or illegal behaviour; to bypass investigation by independent and democratic bodies; or to suppress political and social unrest. In a democracy, surveillance must be balanced with public liberties, and especially with privacy. The chapter looks at the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on national surveillance. It presents the three main criteria used by the Court to assess the compatibility of surveillance laws with the European Convention of Human Rights.

scholarly journals 4 The Court and Domestic and International Legal Systems

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nussberger Angelika
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Member States ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The One ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter assesses the relationship between the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and domestic and international legal systems. With the ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Member States accept to be bound by final judgments of the Court and to implement them in their domestic legal systems. The Convention system does not make any difference as to the set-up of the national legal system or to the hierarchical position accorded to the Convention in national law. This is in line with a purist international law perspective, summarized in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention of the Law on Treaties: ‘A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.’ However, from the constitutional law perspective of the Member States, the situation is much more multi-faceted and complex. While it is generally accepted that the Court's judgments are binding and have to be implemented, the relationship between the Convention and the national constitutions as well as between their respective guardians, the Court on the one hand and national constitutional or supreme courts on the other hand, is not seen as one-way and hierarchical, but nuanced and differentiated. Implementation of judgments is accepted to be a duty, but not necessarily without exceptions. The chapter then considers the relationship between the ECtHR and the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

14. Land Law and Human Rights

Land Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 593-629
Author(s):  
Chris Bevan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Land Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Rights Discourse ◽  
Human Rights Discourse ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines the relationship between land law and human rights. From a distinctly land law perspective, the human rights discourse has given rise to much debate, which continues to fuel much academic commentary including recent examination of the availability of horizontal effect in McDonald v McDonald in the Supreme Court and in the European Court of Human Rights. The chapter focuses chiefly on the two most pertinent provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) for land law; namely Art. 1 of the First Protocol and Art. 8 and reflects on the, at times, difficult relationship between land law and human rights.

scholarly journals Separating Normalcy from Emergency: The Jurisprudence of Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 1764-1785 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Greene
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Security ◽  
The State ◽  
European Convention ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Imminent Danger ◽  
European Court ◽  
Tight Rope ◽  
Legal Document

The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) is as much a political as it is a legal document. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) constantly walks the delicate tight rope between vindicating human rights and respecting the sovereignty of contracting states. This balancing act is particularly sensitive when a situation of “exceptional and imminent danger” exists. In such instances of national security the state may need to act in a manner beyond the parameters of normalcy in order to neutralize the threat and protect both itself and its citizens. Article 15 of the ECHR therefore allows states to derogate from its obligations under the convention when a state of emergency is declared. On foot of a notice of derogation, a state has more discretion and flexibility to act accordingly to respond to a threat without being constrained by its obligations under the treaty. However, it is also in these conditions that human rights are at their most vulnerable as the state's response may encroach severely on individuals' rights and the liberal-democratic order of the state.

scholarly journals Concept of abuse of procedural rights: general theoretical analysis (based on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights)

2021 ◽  
pp. 166-175
Author(s):  
Taras Pashuk
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Restrictive Measures ◽  
Procedural Rights

The author analyses the concept of abuse of procedural rights with reference to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In their applications to the ECtHR the applicants often claim that the violations the European Convention on Human Rights (the ECHR) were accompanied by various abuses by the domestic authorities. Such abuses may be of procedural nature and those matters are examined by the ECtHR quite often because the Convention is primarily aimed at protecting an individual from State arbitrariness. At the same time, the problem of abuse of procedural rights may arise before the ECtHR, when such acts were committed by an applicant. This aspect of the problem is being examined in the present article. In this regard the issue of abuse of procedural rights appears in the case-law of the ECtHR in the context of the complaints concerning the alleged violations of rights under the ECHR. This may happen when the State measures to address such a negative phenomenon (for example, penalty for the abuse of procedural right) may at the same time affect the fundamental rights under the Convention. Apart from that, this issue may arise in the context of the application of restrictive measures by the ECtHR itself due to applicants’ abuse of their right of individual petition to the ECtHR. The main features of the abuse of procedural rights arising from the case-law of the ECtHR are the following: (1) using the procedural right contrary to its purpose (in view of multiple purposes of human conduct, this condition implies the need to establish a dominant purpose in the procedural conduct of the person); (2) the presence of damage resulting from such procedural conduct; (3) the exceptional nature of such procedural conduct (implying the necessity to focus on the explicit and obvious facts of procedural abuses). The combination of these features should be used cumulatively in order to determine correctly the limits of applicability of this concept and distinguish it from other related concepts, such as legitimate use of procedural right, refusal to use the procedural right, good-faith mistake in procedural conduct. In addition, the lack of legislative regulation of this institution in the law on criminal procedure of Ukraine calls for the development of judicial practice under Article 185-3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of Ukraine as regards the administrative liability for contempt of court. It is argued that the provisions of Article 185-3 of that Code, if given appropriate judicial interpretation, can cover a wide range of procedural abuses. Keywords: abuse of procedural right, realisation of subjective right, contempt of court.

scholarly journals Non-Universal Arguments under the European Convention on Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-126
Author(s):  
Tilmann Altwicker
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Individual Freedom ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Institutional Legitimacy ◽  
Difference Making ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Made In

Abstract It is popular to view international human rights law as universal. In a normative sense, human rights universality refers to certain qualities of human rights norms. These qualities have long been under attack, most recently by what is called here human rights nationalism. The main point made in this article is that some of the criticism levelled against normative human rights universality can be accommodated through interpretation. To this end, non-universality of human rights is judicially created (argumentative non-universality). This article offers an analysis of argumentative non-universality in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It shows that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) operationalizes argumentative non-universality through a conception of asymmetric protection, by using context as a difference-making fact and by allowing, in certain cases, for a decentralized interpretation of rights under the ECHR. As argued here, resorting to argumentative non-universality sometimes makes sense because non-universality takes seriously the fact that individual freedom is, to some extent, socially and politically conditioned. Furthermore, non-universality allows for reasonable interpretive pluralism, and it contributes to the institutional legitimacy of the ECtHR. In conclusion, the ECtHR is, rightly so, an ‘interpreter of universality’ (as quoted by Judge Pinto de Albuquerque) as it is an interpreter of the non-universality of convention rights.

9. Fundamental rights in the European Union

2020 ◽  
pp. 243-282
Author(s):  
Eleanor Spaventa
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines fundamental rights in the EU. It begins by analysing the historical background and the development of the case law on fundamental rights. It then examines the main Treaty provisions relating to fundamental rights protection, before turning to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Finally, it looks at the relationship between the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including the extent to which the European Court of Human Rights agrees to scrutinize EU acts. It also considers the plan for the EU to accede to the ECHR.

Present and Future Relations between the ECJ and the ECtHR

ICL Journal ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosmarie Doblhoff-Dier ◽  
Sandra Kusmierczyk
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
The Road ◽  
European Court ◽  
On The Road ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractBy acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the EU’s role as supranational player in the complex human rights architecture of Europe will be finally recognized. On 5 April 2013, the negotiators of the accession procedure of the European Union to the ECHR agreed on a package of draft accession instruments. Constituting a mile­stone on the road to accession, the now revised Accession Agreement still leaves vast room for discussion. By critically scrutinizing some of its modalities, this article will evaluate its impact on the human rights jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Eu­ropean Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the relationship between both courts. To this end, it will address the somewhat disproportionate involvement of the European Union in the future jurisdiction of the ECtHR and in the decision making of the Council of Europe in matters linked to the ECHR. Furthermore, it will focus on the compatibility of the Draft Agree­ment with the principle of autonomous interpretation of European Union Law: a highly rel­evant discussion for the ECJ’s future Opinion under Article 218 (11) TFEU on the compatibil­ity of the finalized draft agreement with the Treaties - the next hurdle for accession.

The Soering Case

1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (1) ◽  
pp. 128-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard B. Lillich
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Capital Murder ◽  
To Come

The unanimous judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Soering case, handed down on July 7, 1989, holds that Great Britain’s extradition of the applicant to the United States to stand trial for capital murder, an offense punishable under the applicable Virginia law by “death, or imprisonment for life,” would violate the prohibition against “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” in the European Convention on Human Rights. Aside from its effect on the future ability of the United States (and many other countries) to obtain the extradition from Council of Europe countries of persons charged with offenses carrying the death penalty, the judgment in Soering has implications of a far wider nature for international criminal law, the law of state responsibility, the jurisprudence of the European Convention, and international human rights law in general. Some of these implications are obvious and immediate; others are more speculative and long range. Like the proverbial pebble thrown in the pond, Soering will cause ripples for some time to come.

The Relationship Between the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights: an Originalist Analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 482-511
Author(s):  
Stephen Brittain
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Relationship

European Convention on Human Rights and the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights: relationship – Teleological method of interpretation of the European Court of Justice: meaning, justifications, and criticisms – Originalist method of interpretation: meaning, justifications, and criticisms – Original meaning of Article 52(3) of the Charter: text, drafting history, case law – Conclusion: case law of European Court of Human Rights not strictly binding on the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Religious Associations as a National Security Threat: The Russian View in Light of European Standards

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 101-133
Author(s):  
Olga Kudriashova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Security ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Security Threat ◽  
Traditional Religions ◽  
European Court ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
Religious Associations ◽  
European Standards

This article focuses on the Russian practice of suppressing non-traditional religious associations under the guise of protecting national security. Russian legislation and case law are discussed in light of European standards concerning limitations of human rights, including the principles of legal certainty and proportionality. The author concludes that despite the declaration of the principle of ideological diversity and religious freedom in the Constitution of the Russian Federation (hereinafter, “the rf Constitution”), Russian lawmakers and the judiciary are wary of non-traditional religions, regarding them as a national security threat. This tendency is demonstrated by an analysis of registration requirements, as well as the country’s anti-extremism law and the relevant case law. The author examines the following problems of Russian regulation: the vagueness of the law on which the limitations are based and the weak argumentation of judicial decisions by which limitations are imposed. The author concludes that Russian legislation and the relevant case law strongly deviate from the standards set in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (echr) and in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Meanwhile, according to the rf Constitution, the echr is part of the Russian legal system and prevails over Russian laws. The author’s aim is to outline the space provided in Russian law for the abuse of non-traditional religions by Russian authorities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document