The Cornerstones for a Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine

1997 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Genome ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Embryos ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Theoretical Possibility ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Recent Debate ◽  
The Creation

AbstractThe recent debate on the theoretical possibility of cloning human beings is urging society to develope a global legal barrier in order to prohibit the use of this technique on humans. Some national legislation, e.g. Germany, already bans the cloning of human beings. The European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine contains three articles which together form the cornerstones for a prohibition of cloning: Article 1 guarantees the identity of human beings, Article 18.2 explicitly prohibits the creation of human embryos for research purposes and Article 13 contains a prohibition on the modification of the genome of any decendants. The prohibition of cloning human beings in the Protocol on Embryo Protection foreseen by the Council of Europe seems a necessary consequence. Furthermore, the forthcoming UNESCO Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights should contain such an explicit prohibition.

scholarly journals Right of Access to Supreme Courts in Light of the Guarantees under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (civil aspect)

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (81) ◽  
pp. 69-90
Author(s):  
Nikolina Katić ◽  
Matea Bašić ◽  
Morana Briški
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Judicial Procedure ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

Abstract Right of access to a court, enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms forms one of the basis for reinforcement of the principle of rule of law. However, the right of access to a court may be limited by provisions of national legislation regulating the functioning of the judicial system and rules of judicial procedure. The higher the hierarchy of the court, the more limits may be placed on the right of access to it. The aim of this article is to examine the different modalities of organisation of supreme judiciaries in European countries (members of the Council of Europe) and mechanisms established in national legislation for filtering applications to those jurisdictions in civil cases, in light of the principles set forth in that regard by the ever evolving case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, and the effects of its judgments and decisions on national legal systems.

Council of Europe

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
European Committee ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Two Bodies

This chapter presents an overview of the adjudicative bodies of the Council of Europe—namely, the European Court of Human Rights (established by the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR)) and the European Committee of Social Rights—and outlines their mandates with regard to integrating UN human rights treaties. It analyses how these two bodies have cited the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The dataset was forty-five cases dealt with by the Court and two collective complaints decided by the Committee that cite the CRPD up to 2016. Notwithstanding the relatively small size of the dataset, the conclusions are that the Council of Europe system has yet to engage seriously in the CRPD’s jurisprudential opportunities. The reasons for this cannot be ascertained from a desk-based methodology, and further research is required.

Domestic Investigation and Prosecution of Atrocities Committed during Military Operations: The Impact of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 369-404
Author(s):  
Silvia Borelli
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Full Potential ◽  
Remedial Measures ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Proactive Approach ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Impact

The undeniable impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on the legal systems – and the wider society – of Member States of the Council of Europe would not have been possible without its unique monitoring system, centred around the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The present article assesses the extent to which the European Court's judgments that have found violations of the procedural obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention to investigate unlawful killings, disappearances, acts of torture or other ill-treatment have, in fact, led to an improvement in the capability of the domestic legal systems of states parties to ensure accountability for such abuses. On the basis of four case studies, it is concluded that the European Court's judgments, coupled with the supervisory powers of the Committee of Ministers, have the potential to make a very great impact on the capability of domestic legal systems to deal with gross violations of fundamental human rights, and have led to clear and positive changes within the domestic legal systems of respondent states. Nevertheless, this is by no means always the case, and it is suggested that, in order for the Convention system to achieve its full potential in the most politically charged cases, the European Court should adopt a more proactive approach to its remedial powers by ordering specific remedial measures, to include in particular the opening or reopening of investigations.

Bringing People Down

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 433-466
Author(s):  
John Vorhaus
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Corporal Punishment ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Relational Concept ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
As If

Under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, degrading treatment and punishment is absolutely prohibited. This paper examines the nature of and wrong inherent in treatment and punishment of this kind. Cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) as amounting to degrading treatment and punishment under Article 3 include instances of interrogation, conditions of confinement, corporal punishment, strip searches, and a failure to provide adequate health care. The Court acknowledges the degradation inherent in imprisonment generally, and does not consider this to be in violation of Article 3, but it also identifies a threshold at which degradation is so severe as to render impermissible punishments that cross this threshold. I offer an account of the Court’s conception of impermissible degradation as a symbolic dignitary harm. The victims are treated as inferior, as if they do not possess the status owed to human beings, neither treated with dignity nor given the respect owed to dignity. Degradation is a relational concept: the victim is brought down in the eyes of others following treatment motivated by the intention to degrade, or treatment which has a degrading effect. This, so I will argue, is the best account of the concept of degradation as deployed by the Court when determining punishments as in violation of Article 3.

The Common Core of European Administrative Laws and the Pan-European General Principles of Good Administration

2021 ◽  
pp. 21-34
Author(s):  
Ulrich Stelkens
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Common Core ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Institute Of Public Administration ◽  
German Research ◽  
The Common

This chapter examines a research project carried out at the German Research Institute of Public Administration and the German University of Administrative Sciences Speyer. This 'Speyer project' studies the development, content, and effectiveness of the written and unwritten standards of good administration drawn up within the framework of the Council of Europe (CoE), i.e. on the basis of its Statute (SCoE) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which is a sort of 'second pillar' of the CoE. These CoE standards are called 'pan-European principles of good administration'. This 'Speyer project' can be understood as a counterpart to the project carried out by Giacinto della Cananea and Mauro Bussani on the Common Core of European Administrative Law (CoCEAL) as it has a similar objective: to ascertain whether, despite many differences between European systems of administrative law, there are some connecting elements, or a 'common core', and, if so, whether such 'connecting elements' can be formulated in legal terms rather than as generic idealities. However, the methodological approach of the 'Speyer project' clearly differs from the 'factual approach' adopted in CoCEAL.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document