Israel's Supreme Court and International Human Rights Law: The Judgement on ‘Moderate Physical Pressure’

2000 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
pp. 413-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Substantial Risk ◽  
International Human ◽  
Israeli Supreme Court ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Spiral Model

AbstractOn September 6, 1999, the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, handed down its latest judgement on the question of the use of ‘moderate physical pressure’. The lack of substantial references to international law in the Court's reasoning was notable. The present article examines the possible reasons for the reluctance to introduce international law and goes on to analyse the effects of this reluctance. The analysis finds that the reasons for leaving international human rights norms out are less than compelling and that keeping the necessity defence for interrogators using force against detainees leaves a substantial risk of abuse.The article goes on to place the judgement in the larger context of Israeli human rights practices. By applying the so-called ‘spiral model’, developed within international relations theory, it is possible to examine linkages between international norms and domestic change. The model allows for an evaluation of what progress has been achieved so far and for suggestions as to which measures are still needed. It is found that the judgement reasonably can be interpreted as a tactical concession and that further progress in efforts to eradicate the use of force against detainees is dependent upon a change in the attitude of the Israeli public. Future efforts should thus be aimed at influencing Israeli public opinion to ensure that torture is eliminated from Israeli interrogation practices.

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada of February 28, 2020, on Nevsun v. Araya: a “quiet revolution” in the assessment of the status of corporations under public international law?

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 25-39
Author(s):  
Vera Rusinova ◽  
Olga Ganina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
International Human

The article analyses the Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Nevsun v. Araya case, which deals with the severe violations of human rights, including slavery and forced labor with respect of the workers of Eritrean mines owned by a Canadian company “Nevsun”. By a 5 to 4 majority, the court concluded that litigants can seek compensation for the violations of international customs committed by a company. This decision is underpinned by the tenets that international customs form a part of Canadian common law, companies can bear responsibility for violations of International Human Rights Law, and under ubi jus ibi remedium principle plaintiffs have a right to receive compensation under national law. Being a commentary to this judgment the article focuses its analysis on an issue that is of a key character for Public International Law, namely on the tenet that international customs impose obligations to respect human rights on companies and they can be called for responsibility for these violations. This conclusion is revolutionary in the part in which it shifts the perception of the companies’ legal status under International Law. The court’s approach is critically assessed against its well-groundness and correspondence to the current stage of International law. In particular, the authors discuss, whether the legal stance on the Supreme Court of Canada, under which companies can bear responsibility for violations of International Human Rights Law is a justified necessity or a head start.

scholarly journals International Constitutional Law and Judicial Review of Domestic Human Rights Legislation

ICL Journal ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-118
Author(s):  
Laura-Stella Enonchong
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Domestic Sphere ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Regime ◽  
International Human ◽  
Human Rights Norms

Abstract This article discusses the idea of international human rights law as ‘constitutional law’. It applies the French concept of Le contrôle de conventionnalité des lois, to demonstrate the constitutional potentials of international human rights law in the domestic sphere. In most monist constitutional systems based on the French civilian model, international law takes precedence over acts of parliament and other domestic legislation. Due in part to that hierarchy, conventionnalité permits the courts to review domestic law for compatibility with international law. From that perspective, international human rights norms can be said to have assumed a ‘para-constitutional’ function. Using two case studies from francophone Africa, this article argues that conventionnalité has the potential to play a significant role in the domestic implementation of international human rights and ultimately contributing to a more comprehensive domestic human rights regime.

scholarly journals Reconciliation between the Islamic Human Rights and International Law: Prospects and Complications

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 609
Author(s):  
Siamak Karamzadeh ◽  
Massoud Alizadeh
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Historical Aspect ◽  
Historical Fact ◽  
International Human ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
The Relationship

The relationship between International Human Rights and Islamic Law has been always an arguable debate at the international level. This issue can be considered by jurists in two aspects. First, from National Law perspective, especially in the countries in which the law, to some extent is affected by Islamic rules. Second, by view of International Law to see that to what extent, there would be compatibility or likely contradiction between human rights norms and Islamic Law.Considering the historical aspect of the issue, this article is suggesting that although from the outset, International Law tried to separate religion from policy, but this historical fact would not prevent theoretical conciliation between religion and Human Rights rules. The review of the content of International Human Rights Law reveals that the rules in the systems in most part are compatible. However, in some cases the incompatibility between these two group pf rules is observed. The existence of different basis under Islamic Law and International Law makes the least difference unavoidable. The constant dialogue between Islamic scholars and publicists can decrease this difference in future.

Domestic Application of International Human Rights Norms and Universal Jurisdiction

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald C. Slye
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Domestic Law

Domestic courts play an important role in the adjudication of international law, including international human rights law. The relationship between international and domestic law has often been characterized as a continuum between monism and dualism. In a monist system, international law is automatically a part of domestic law, and a conflict between the two is resolved in favor of international law. In a dualist system, domestic law is superior to international law within the domestic legal system, while international law is superior to domestic law within the international legal system. A conflict between domestic law and international law is thus not always resolved in the same way in both systems. In addition, one of the areas with the most active use of international law in a domestic legal system is under a theory of universal jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction most often involves both the incorporation of international law into a domestic legal system and the assertion outward (extraterritorially) of domestic judicial system. Universal jurisdiction arose initially in the context of criminal prosecutions, but is also found to some extent in civil litigation, particularly in the United States. Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, a state may assert jurisdiction over an offender regardless of the nationality of the offender or victim, the place of commission of the wrongful act, or any other link to the state asserting jurisdiction.

scholarly journals Human rights implications of the NonRefoulement & Development

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Imrul Sheikh
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Human ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Refugees And Asylum Seekers

States are obliged for protection of refugees under international law on account of their membership of United Nations and signature or accession to International Refugee Instruments as well as International Human Rights Instruments. The legal basis for this international protection may either be customary international law or conventional international law. The basic customary international laws applicable to them are those pertinent fundamental human rights found in the International Bill of Human Rights. Hence, it is submitted that all states should protect the fundamental human rights of refugees under customary international law. Principle of non-refoulement is one of them. The refugee regime has generated a serious body of law that elaborates basic human rights norms and has important implications in and beyond the refugee context. There are a number of universal, regional and domestic human rights instruments and mechanisms which can be employed to enhance the protection of refugees and asylum seekers. This research aims at finding out the role of principle of non-refoulement in protecting refugees and asylum seekers under international human rights law.

The Idea of International Human Rights Law

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Wheatley
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Moral Concept ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
International Human ◽  
Fragmentation Of International Law

International Human Rights Law has emerged as an academic subject in its own right, separate from, but still related to, International Law. This book explains the distinctive nature of the new discipline by examining the influence of the moral concept of human rights on general international law. Rather than make use of moral philosophy or political theory, the work explains the term ‘human rights’ by examining its usage in international law practice, on the understanding that words are given meaning through their use. Relying on complexity theory to make sense of the legal practice in the United Nations, the core human rights treaties, and customary international law, The Idea of International Human Rights Law shows how a moral concept of human rights emerged, and then influenced the international law doctrine and practice on human rights, a fact that explains the fragmentation of international law and the special nature of International Human Rights Law.

Germany

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentin Aichele
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Direct Effect ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Monitoring Mechanism ◽  
International Human ◽  
Human Rights Norms

This chapter analyses the use and interpretation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in sixty-nine decisions of German federal courts between 2009 and mid-2016. German courts’ failure to be proactive in demonstrating ‘friendliness towards public international law’ when dealing with international human rights norms has been criticised. The National CRPD Monitoring Mechanism addressed problems in the application of the law. This chapter investigates the courts’ understanding of basic CRPD concepts, judicial techniques, interpretation methods and specific CRPD provisions. The importance of the concepts of self-executing provisions and direct effect is discussed. In quantitative terms, German courts have referred to the CRPD more often than any other UN international human rights instrument. Furthermore, in qualitative terms, federal courts have become more receptive towards the CRPD. However, it is clear that much of the potential for courts to use the CRPD in the realisation of the rights of persons with disabilities remains untapped.

scholarly journals Governmental human rights focal points in federal contexts: The implementation of the Istanbul convention in Switzerland as a case study

2021 ◽  
pp. 092405192110169
Author(s):  
Matthieu Niederhauser
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Focal Points ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Federal States ◽  
International Human

The implementation of international human rights law in federal States is an underexplored process. Subnational entities regularly enjoy a degree of sovereignty, which raises questions such as whether they implement obligations of international law and how the federal level may ensure that implementation takes place at the subnational level. This article aims to answer these questions, using the implementation of the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Convention) in Switzerland as a case study. To implement the Convention at the cantonal level, federal actors decided to use networks of civil servants in charge of domestic violence issues, who act as governmental human rights focal points (GHRFPs). This article is based on original empirical data, on 25 interviews with State officials who participate in this implementation. The findings show how complex GHRFPs networks work in practice to implement the Convention and highlight the role played by numerous non-legal State actors in this process. As a result, the article argues that international human rights law implementation becomes more diversified both within and across federal States.

Diplomatic Assurances Against Torture – An Effective Strategy? A Review of Jurisprudence and Examination of the Arguments

2008 ◽  
Vol 77 (4) ◽  
pp. 319-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lena Skoglund
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
The State ◽  
Security Threats ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Actual Risk ◽  
Substantial Risk ◽  
International Human ◽  
Controversial Area

AbstractHuman rights organisations have warned repeatedly that basic human rights are being challenged in the so-called 'War on Terror'. One particularly controversial area is the use of diplomatic assurances against torture. According to international human rights instruments, the state shall not return anyone to countries in which they face a substantial risk of being subjected to torture. In the 'War on Terror', an increasing number of non-citizens are being deemed 'security threats', rendering them exempt from protection in many Western states. To be able to deport such 'threats' without compromising their duties under international law, states are increasingly willing to accept a diplomatic assurance against torture – that is, a promise from the state of return that it will not subject the returnee to torture. There is wide disagreement as to whether and/or when diplomatic assurances can render sufficient protection to satisfy the obligations of non-refoulement to risk of torture. Whereas the human rights society label such assurances as 'empty promises', others view them as effective, allowing states to retain their right to remove non-citizens without violating international law. This article reviews international and selected national jurisprudence on the topic of diplomatic assurances against torture and examines if and/or when such assurances might render sufficient protection against torture to enable removals in accordance with international law. The courts and committees that have reviewed the use of diplomatic assurances against torture have identified essential problems of using them, thus rejecting reliance on simple promises not to torture. However, they have often implied that sufficient protection might be rendered by developing the assurances. I argue that this approach risks leading the governments into trying to perfect a system that is inherently flawed – whilst, incidentally, deportations to actual risk of torture continue. Even carefully modelled assurances render only unreliable protection against torture. For this, and reasons connected to undesirable side-effects of their use, I argue that the practice should be rejected.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document