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.

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.

State responsibility and positive obligations in the European Court of Human Rights: The contribution of the ICJ in advancing towards more judicial integration

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 177-187
Author(s):  
Rosana Garciandia
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Law ◽  
Broad Interpretation ◽  
International Law Commission

AbstractThe European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) follows its own rules regarding the responsibility of states, although the international law of state responsibility enshrined in the International Law Commission (ILC) Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) remains, as general international law, relevant to its decisions. However, case law of the ECtHR shows that the Court is departing from certain ARSIWA principles as it adopts a broad interpretation of rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) giving rise to positive obligations.1Exploring those trends in the state responsibility regime of the ECHR, this article argues that, by clarifying certain ARSIWA provisions, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) can play an important role by contributing to a higher degree of judicial integration on the law of state responsibility. It is desirable that the ICJ takes any upcoming opportunity to provide greater clarity on the challenges and nuances of the applicability of the law of state responsibility, in particular as it relates to positive obligations. That would contribute to a more systematic use of those rules by regional courts such as the ECtHR, and ultimately to guaranteeing a greater protection of human rights.

scholarly journals Non-pecuniary damages before the European Court of Human Rights: Forget the victim; it’s all about the state

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-369
Author(s):  
Veronika Fikfak
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The State ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
Individual Justice

AbstractThis article studies how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, the Court) adjusts damages for human rights violations. The article empirically analyses 13 years of ECtHR’s case law in relation to Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (torture, inhuman and degrading treatment), and 5 (arbitrary detention) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, the Convention). The goal is to understand whether the statements made by the Court about the aims pursued through just satisfaction are confirmed in practice. Through an empirical quantitative study relating to non-pecuniary damages, the article analyses the practice of the Court in awarding non-pecuniary damages for human rights violations and compares it to the competing visions of the ECtHR’s function. In particular, I am interested in determining whether just satisfaction is aimed at redressing the suffering of the victim, her circumstances and vulnerability, or whether the focus is more on the respondent state, its conduct and its past human rights record. The answers to these questions will contribute to the debate whether the ECtHR’s role is one of delivering ‘individual justice’ or whether the Court is – as an international court enforcing an international treaty – focused on the ‘state’.

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.

El-Masri v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 558-622
Author(s):  
Christina M. Cerna
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Republic Of Macedonia ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
Yugoslav Republic ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
First Time ◽  
Modern War

On December 13, 2012, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) issued a final judgment in the case of El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It found that Macedonia, as a State party to the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention), was responsible for torturing El-Masri while he was in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYRM) The El-Masri judgment is the first time in which an international court has ruled on the U.S. practice of secret forced renditions. It follows the rationale of Soering v. United Kingdom, that a State can be held responsible for facilitating a violation by a State outside the Council of Europe, and places it in a modern war on terror context.

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.

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.

scholarly journals A Prisoner’s Right to be Released or Placed on Parole: A Comment on Öcalan v Turkey (No. 2) (18 March 2014)

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-92
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
Or Practice ◽  
The Right ◽  
First Time ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
African Commission

Abstract The European Convention on Human Rights does not provide for a prisoner’s right to parole and no international or regional human rights instrument provides for this right. However, recently, in the case of Öcalan v Turkey (No. 2), one of the judges of the European Court of Human Rights interpreted the European Convention on Human Rights as providing for a prisoner’s right to parole. This is the first time that a judge of this court, and to the author’s best knowledge, a judge of a regional or international court, has expressly held that a prisoner has the right to parole. The author assesses this holding in the light of the jurisprudence or practice on the right to parole from the Human Rights Committee, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. In order to put the discussion in context, the author also highlights jurisprudence emanating from the European Court of Human Rights relevant to the relationship between parole and other human rights. The author recommends that the time has come for the right to parole to be recognised in human rights instruments.

The European Convention on Human Rights and International Law

2007 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luzius Wildhaber
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Mutual Relationship ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Special Character ◽  
British Institute

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.

Fragmentation of International Law Revisited: Insights, Good Practices, and Lessons to be Learned from the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 863-885 ◽  
Author(s):  
ADAMANTIA RACHOVITSA
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Good Practices ◽  
European Court ◽  
Interpretation Process ◽  
Fragmentation Of International Law

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document