Territorial Jurisdiction and Positive Obligations of an Occupied State

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ganna Yudkivska
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
Occupied State ◽  
New Development ◽  
Occupied Territories ◽  
High Degree

The international law of occupation—as it has developed since the nineteenth century—traditionally regulates the conduct and obligations of occupying forces. Very little is said about the obligations of an occupied State, or a ‘victim’ State. This chapter focuses on a limited practice of the European Court of Human Rights in developing some principles in this respect. The main emphasis is put on the landmark judgment Ilascu v Moldova and Russia, in which, for the first time, the Court has found that a State, which lost effective control over a part of its territory and was unable to exercise its jurisdiction there, still had some positive obligations deriving from its de jure jurisdiction. It is argued that the Court’s approach represented a new development in international law, which traditionally considered human rights obligations to be primarily triggered by an effective territorial control. It is further discussed that it might be quite difficult to reconcile positive obligations towards people remaining in occupied territories with a State’s obligation to refrain from supporting separatist regimes. Substitution of effective control for the concept of ‘positive obligations’ necessitates a very delicate assessment of different political, diplomatic, judicial, and other measures, which requires a high degree of sensitivity on the part of the international court. The scope of the positive obligations of an injured State vis-à-vis the positive obligations of an occupying State needs to be elucidated further.

The ECHR and Responsibility of the State: Moving Towards Judicial Integration

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iulia Motoc ◽  
Johann Justus Vasel
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
First Time

This chapter discusses the recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), reaching the conclusion that the Court’s approach evolves towards judicial integration. After analysing the notion of lex specialis with regards to the question of responsibility and jurisdiction, as (implicitly) proposed by the ECtHR in the Catan judgement, the chapter considers the question of the attribution of conduct introduced for the first time in the Jaloud judgment. The chapter draws a parallel between the notion of effective control used in the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ’s) Nicaragua case and the Chiragov case. It argues that the Courts ruling in Chiragov is closer to the criteria of effective control imposed by the ICJ. The analysis will display that, in both recent decisions, the Court is moving towards judicial integration in the sense of a reasoned difference between the responsibility of human rights and general international law. It is evident that the European Convention of Human Rights is no self-contained regime.

The End of the Road for the Prince? Sixty Years after the Czechoslovak Confiscation of Liechtenstein Property

2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 441-458
Author(s):  
BART DELMARTINO
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Nazi Germany ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The Road ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Obligations

In 1945 Czechoslovakia confiscated Liechtenstein property as reparation for the damage done by Nazi Germany. Private claims failed before the courts of Czechoslovakia, and international law did not provide Liechtenstein with a means of action against Czechoslovakia. When the property was on loan in Germany, a private case for recovery was declared inadmissible by the German courts, in line with Germany's international obligations. The European Court of Human Rights accepted these decisions. Liechtenstein, on the other hand, considered them to violate its sovereignty. In 2005, the International Court of Justice decided that it lacked temporal jurisdiction to rule on the issue.

scholarly journals Apportioning Responsibility between the UN and Member States in UN Peace-Support Operations: An Inquiry into the Application of the ‘Effective Control’ Standard after Behrami

2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cedric Ryngaert
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
Member States ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Current Article ◽  
And Control ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Dutch Court

There is a tendency among the judiciary to apply the standard of ‘effective control’ as the applicable yardstick for apportioning responsibility for wrongful acts between the United Nations and the member states contributing troops to UN peace-support operations. This is evidenced by recent decisions in the cases of Srebrenica (Dutch Court of Appeal, 2011), Al Jedda (European Court of Human Rights, 2011) and Mukeshimana (Belgian First Instance Court, 2010), which appear to repudiate the ‘ultimate authority and control’ standard espoused by the European Court of Human Rights in Behrami (2007). This process may have been set in motion by (the current) Article 7 of the ILC's Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, which may in due course reflect customary international law. From a policy perspective, the application of an ‘effective control’ standard is highly desirable, as it locates responsibility with the actor who is in a position to prevent the violation.

scholarly journals Specyfika odpowiedzialności za naruszenia Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka związane z działalnością nieuznawanych reżimów – analiza orzecznictwa

2020 ◽  
pp. 27-66
Author(s):  
Szymon Zaręba
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
International Responsibility

The aim of the article is to compare the way in which the issue of responsibility for violations related to the acts of unrecognized authorities claiming to be States is treated by the European Court of Human Rights and other international courts, particularly the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The article considers in detail the relations between jurisdiction and responsibility, responsibility of parent States (including the concept of “positive obligations”) and responsibility of States which provide assistance to unrecognized regimes (with emphasis put on the concept of “effective control”). The results of the study indicate that the jurisprudence of the European Court differs in several important aspects from decisions of other international courts. These differences, while undoubtedly enhancing the protection of human rights in Europe, contribute to the process of fragmentation of the law of international responsibility.

scholarly journals The problem of applying reservations to international human rights agreements

2021 ◽  
pp. 68-73
Author(s):  
Ivanna Maryniv ◽  
Liubov Rudai
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
International Human

A problem statement. Human rights law, as a branch of public international law, to date, is mainly codified and consists mainly of treaty rules contained in universal and regional conventions. At the same time, in most cases, the parties to these agreements make reservations of both a substantive and procedural nature that apply to all generations of human rights. The question arises as to the legitimacy of the reservations declared by states to international acts on human rights and freedoms. Аnalysis of research and publications. Many international lawyers deal with the issue of reservations to human rights treaties and their validity. Thus, the works of E.S. Alisievich, are devoted to this issue, I.I. Lukashuk, V.G. Butkevich, V.L. Tolstoy, M.V. Buromensky and others. However, there are a number of problems with the legal regime of reservations to human rights treaties. The main thesis that reveals their essence is that there is no mechanism for effective control over the legitimacy of such reservations. The main text. The article considers the concept of reservations to international treaties, examines the problem of issuing reservations to international human rights treaties. The application of the institution of reservations is studied on the example of certain international treaties in the field of human rights, such as: the European Convention on Human Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the application of reservations to the European Convention on Human Rights is studied. Conclusions. Today, the sovereign right of every state to stipulate international treaties is firmly established in international law, but there is no clear legal regulation of this institution that would prevent abuses by states in this area. We see the need to further study the institution of reservations to human rights treaties, its development and the development of general principles, procedures, and control over their legitimacy.

scholarly journals Concurrent Responsibilities under the European Convention on Human Rights

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Besson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Shared Responsibility ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Responsibility

This chapter discusses how one should articulate the concurrent effective control, and hence jurisdictions, of different States under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), how one should specify and allocate their concurrent duties stemming from this concurrence of jurisdiction, and, finally, how one should attribute and then allocate their concurrent responsibilities when concurrent duties have been violated. It discusses how much of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR’s) practice has promoted, and could promote even further, the development of the still largely underexplored regime of concurrent, or shared, responsibility in general international law. It argues that the few basic principles and conditions of concurrent responsibility available in general international law are such that the ECHR is the only context in which they could actually be fulfilled. All this makes it even more important, therefore, for the ECtHR to actively monitor developments on concurrent jurisdictions, duties, and responsibilities in its regime of international responsibility.

scholarly journals Uprootedness and the protection of migrants in the International Law of Human Rights

2008 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-168
Author(s):  
Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Global Level ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Turn Over

The article attempt to demonstrate the evolution of international law in connected to the subject of the forced immigrants'. The author supported by several texts, cases and resolutions of the regional level, through interamerican court and European court, and the global level, through the international court. It's shown the evolution that occurred in international law in millennium turn over, which recognize the immigrants' rights. However, it's stressed the necessity of the development of those laws connected to the theme e the recognition, from the States; the importance of law's that effort to ensure the respect to human rights relative to the immigrants and their families.

Wyrok ETPC jako precedens wiążący quasi de iure a efektywność porządku Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka (perspektywa teoretycznoprawna)

2017 ◽  
pp. 7-29
Author(s):  
Bartosz Liżewski
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Stare Decisis ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The One

In the system of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or the Convention), the basic formula for creating standards for the protection of human rights is to define their understanding of and possible modifications or changes as a result of a law-making interpretation of the provisions of the Convention. The substantive rules of the Convention since its inception, not only have not changed (they were amended or derogated), but in addition are very general. This causes, that the way their understanding sets the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR or tribunal) forming in a legislative standards for the protection of human rights. That raises the interesting question of theoretical, since in public international law on the one hand the judgment of an international court is recognized as an auxiliary source of international law (art. 38 sec. 1 point d Statute of the International Court of Justice), while not applicable rule of stare decisis, meaning legally bound judgment precedent of other courts in similar cases. If, however, a violation of well-established case law of the ECHR by the national authorities is the reason for the judgment of the committee of three judges without a hearing (art. 28 paragraph. 1 point b ECHR). Judgments of the Court (the monopoly of interpretation of the ECHR) must be respected and enforced in order of national law (Art. 46 paragraph. 1 and 2 of the ECHR). This raises the natural question of the scope of their precedensowości for the tribunal and law enforcement organs in the national legal system. It is with this problem both theoretical and practical. The obvious fact is that the decision of the ECHR does not create a precedent in the sense of how suitable term in common law. However, its decisions affect application of the law on domestic, not only in reality, but partly also legal, so that it can be concluded that the judgment has the power of the normative and, to some extent binding. But what is the scope of the precedent character of this sentence? The answer to this question is the subject of considerations to be taken in the paper.

Comparative Views on the Right to Vote in International Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shai Dothan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Right To Vote ◽  
The Right ◽  
Democratic Elections ◽  
The Way

There is a consensus about the existence of an international right to vote in democratic elections. Yet states disagree about the limits of this right when it comes to the case of prisoners’ disenfranchisement. Some states allow all prisoners to vote, some disenfranchise all prisoners, and others allow only some prisoners to vote. This chapter argues that national courts view the international right to vote in three fundamentally different ways: some view it as an inalienable right that cannot be taken away, some view it merely as a privilege that doesn’t belong to the citizens, and others view it as a revocable right that can be taken away under certain conditions. The differences in the way states conceive the right to vote imply that attempts by the European Court of Human Rights to follow the policies of the majority of European states by using the Emerging Consensus doctrine are problematic.

A Moving Target

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippa Webb
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Moving Target ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Right Of Access ◽  
National Practice

The last 50 years have seen significant changes in the law of immunity. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has, over the past 15 years in particular, played an influential role in the law applicable to this ‘moving target’. This chapter examines three approaches of the ECtHR to the identification of general international law: (i) the ECtHR looking to the International Court of Justice; (ii) the ECtHR looking to national practice; and (iii) the ECtHR looking to the work of the International Law Commission and the provisional application of treaties. Although the ECtHR strives to locate itself within general international law, it necessarily approaches the immunities of States, officials, and international organizations through the lens of Article 6 ECHR and whether the immunity in question constitutes a legitimate and proportionate restriction on the right of access to court. This has, at times, taken the Court down a different path to other judicial bodies and we can identify the emergence of a ‘European approach’ to the role of immunity in employment disputes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document