scholarly journals Concurrent Responsibilities under the European Convention on Human Rights

Author(s):  
Samantha Besson

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.

2021 ◽  
pp. 68-73
Author(s):  
Ivanna Maryniv ◽  
Liubov Rudai

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.


Author(s):  
Sari Aurel

The judgment in the Al-Jedda case represents an important milestone in the evolution of the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence on the extra-territorial application of the European Convention on Human Rights. In Al-Jedda, the Court seems to depart from its earlier case-law and accept the prevailing view that ‘effective control’ constitutes the proper standard for allocating responsibility between contributing states and international organizations engaged in the conduct of multinational military operations. At the same time, the judgment also highlights the difficulties involved in allocating responsibility in this context and the continued confusion surrounding the concepts of jurisdiction and international responsibility in the Court’s jurisprudence.


Author(s):  
Iulia Motoc ◽  
Johann Justus Vasel

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.


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.


2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 863-885 ◽  
Author(s):  
ADAMANTIA RACHOVITSA

AbstractThis article discusses the contribution of the European Court of Human Rights to mitigating difficulties arising from the fragmentation of international law. It argues that the Court's case law provides insights and good practices to be followed. First, the article furnishes evidence that the Court has developed an autonomous and distinct interpretative principle to construe the European Convention on Human Rights by taking other norms of international law into account. Second, it offers a blueprint of the methodology that the Court employs when engaging with external norms in the interpretation process. It analyses the Court's approach to subtle contextual differences between similar or identical international norms and its position towards the requirements of Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). It concludes that international courts are developing innovative interpretative practices, which may not be strictly based on the letter of the VCLT.


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 197
Author(s):  
Zeynab Kiani ◽  
Zeynab Purkhaghan

Deportation and extradition have been one of the long-standing issues in international law. After proposing new human rights' issues in the development of international law and human role in international relations, sometimes the question of deportation and extradition is in conflict with European human rights concept. It should distinguish between extradition with similar concepts such as delivery, transfer and dismissal. The extradition is the process that reflects the country's international collaboration and cooperation in the implementation of more stringent standards of criminal justice. Its successful implementation requires the cooperation of different countries in extradition with no political and security excuses. European Court of Human Rights as a judicial organ of the European Convention on Human Rights has issued sentences in its practice regarding some of these conflicts. Researcher with knowledge of neglecting the debate in the Iranian legal system, insists to evaluate the performance of the Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights in relation to deportation and extradition and procedure that the European Court has dealt using analytical methods to review the extradition from different angles and it is hoped that open a step for progress in Iran's penal policy and the legal in the international arena.


2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 567-585
Author(s):  
Domenico Carolei

In April 2015, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Italian legislation is inadequate to criminalise acts of torture (Cestaro v. Italy). Following the ECtHR’s decision, the Italian Parliament approved the bill A.C. 2168 which aimed to introduce the crime of torture (Article 613-bis) in the Italian Criminal Code. The bill does not seem to comply with the definition of torture provided by international law, and also neglects the legislative guidelines outlined by the ECtHR in Cestaro v. Italy. The purpose of this article is twofold. On the one hand, it will assess the ECtHR’s decision focusing on Italy’s structural problem and its duty to enact and enforce efficient criminal provisions under Article 3 of the European Convention. On the other hand, it will analyse the normative content of Article 613-bis in order to highlight its weaknesses and propose, on each of them, suggestions for amendment.


2010 ◽  
Vol 79 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Rietiker

AbstractThe recent past has shown an ever-growing fragmentation of the international legal system where lawyers and judges are facing more and more the phenomenon of the same legal question being discussed in different fora. This is particularly the case in the field of human rights that entails the dispersal of responsibilities for interpretation of numerous instruments among various different judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, of both universal and regional nature. In order to secure coherence and legal certainty in the system, it is important to respect a set of principles and rules of general international law, in particular Articles 31–33 of the 1969 Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties (VCLT). The first goal of this article is to analyse whether the Court applies the rules of the VCLT to the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Secondly, assuming that the VCLT fully applies, it will be analysed whether Article 31(1) VCLT is flexible enough to allow nevertheless some leeway for the development of specificities, especially as a result of the particular nature of the ECHR. Thirdly, it will be shown that the Court has indeed developed a set of specific methods of interpretation, aiming to render the rights enshrined in the ECHR effective. From the author's point of view, they can all be regarded as sub-forms (or partial aspects) of the teleological interpretation. He distinguishes between four dimensions of the principle of "effectiveness".


2004 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-154
Author(s):  
ANNEMARIEKE KÜNZLI

In the Öcalan case the European Court of Human Rights found itself faced with several issues that asked for a new interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. It had to decide on the extraterritorial scope of the Convention, on the question whether Abdullah Öcalan was arrested lawfully or illegally abducted, and on the death penalty. This article analyzes the decisions taken by the Court and puts them in a perspective of international law beyond the European Convention.


2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cedric Ryngaert

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document