The Lawful Detention of Unauthorised Aliens under the European System for the Protection of Human Rights

2011 ◽  
Vol 80 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-218
Author(s):  
Peter Langford ◽  
Ian Bryan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Criminal Charge ◽  
European System ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Migration Flows ◽  
Article 5

AbstractThis article evaluates the protections against 'arbitrary' and 'unlawful' detention aff orded to nonnationals on having entered the territory of a State party to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Focussing on Article 5 ECHR and the various permissible exceptions therein, the article examines leading decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and, in so doing, illuminates and explores tensions arising from the juncture at which Contracting States' capacity to detain entry-seeking non-nationals, without criminal charge or trial, intersects with the requisites of Article 5(1)(f ) ECHR, as construed by the ECtHR. It argues that the ECtHR's interpretative standpoint regarding the 'lawful' administrative detention of 'unauthorised' non-nationals gives disproportionate preference to Contracting States' interest in managing migration flows. It also argues that in consequence States' obligations in international human rights law, the strictures of Article 5 ECHR and the credibility of the Strasbourg Court itself are enfeebled.

The European Convention on Human Rights and General International Law

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Feedback Loop ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Courts ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights is one of the main players in interpreting international human rights law where issues of general international law arise. While developing its own jurisprudence for the protection of human rights in the European context, it remains embedded in the developments of general international law. But the Court does not always follow general international law closely and develops its own doctrines. Its decisions are influential for national courts as well as other international courts and tribunals, thereby, at times, influencing general international law. There is thus a feedback loop of influence. This book explores the interaction, including the problems arising in the context of human rights, between the European Convention on Human Rights and general international law. It contributes to the ongoing debate on fragmentation and convergence of International Law from the perspective of international judges as well as academics. Some of the chapters suggest reconciling methods and convergence while others stress the danger of fragmentation. The focus is on specific topics which have posed special problems, namely sources, interpretation, jurisdiction, state responsibility, and immunity.

scholarly journals The United Kingdom’s Coronavirus Act, deprivations of liberty, and the right to liberty and security of the person

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Pugh
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5

Abstract In response to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic the UK government has passed the Coronavirus Act 2020 (CA). Among other things, this act extends existing statutory powers to impose restrictions of liberty for public health purposes. The extension of such powers naturally raises concerns about whether their use will be compatible with human rights law. In particular, it is unclear whether their use will fall within the public heath exception to the Article 5 right to liberty and security of the person in the European Convention of Human Rights. In this paper, I outline key features of the CA, and briefly consider how the European Court of Human Rights has interpreted the public health exception to Article 5 rights. This analysis suggests two grounds on which restrictions of liberty enforced some under the CA might be vulnerable to claims of Article 5 rights violations. First, the absence of specified time limits on certain restrictions of liberty means that they may fail the requirement of legal certainty championed by the European Court in its interpretation of the public health exception. Second, the Coronavirus Act’s extension of powers to individuals lacking public health expertise may undermine the extent to which the act will ensure that deprivations of liberty are necessary and proportionate.

scholarly journals Non-Universal Arguments under the European Convention on Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-126
Author(s):  
Tilmann Altwicker
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Individual Freedom ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Institutional Legitimacy ◽  
Difference Making ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Made In

Abstract It is popular to view international human rights law as universal. In a normative sense, human rights universality refers to certain qualities of human rights norms. These qualities have long been under attack, most recently by what is called here human rights nationalism. The main point made in this article is that some of the criticism levelled against normative human rights universality can be accommodated through interpretation. To this end, non-universality of human rights is judicially created (argumentative non-universality). This article offers an analysis of argumentative non-universality in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It shows that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) operationalizes argumentative non-universality through a conception of asymmetric protection, by using context as a difference-making fact and by allowing, in certain cases, for a decentralized interpretation of rights under the ECHR. As argued here, resorting to argumentative non-universality sometimes makes sense because non-universality takes seriously the fact that individual freedom is, to some extent, socially and politically conditioned. Furthermore, non-universality allows for reasonable interpretive pluralism, and it contributes to the institutional legitimacy of the ECtHR. In conclusion, the ECtHR is, rightly so, an ‘interpreter of universality’ (as quoted by Judge Pinto de Albuquerque) as it is an interpreter of the non-universality of convention rights.

Reconciling the rules of international humanitarian law with the rules of European human rights law

2015 ◽  
Vol 97 (900) ◽  
pp. 1295-1311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Landais ◽  
Léa Bass
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
European Court ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

AbstractStates party to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms that engage in military operations abroad face an increased risk to be held responsible for violations of the Convention, given the relatively recent case law adopted by the European Court of Human Rights. This article examines some of the issues raised by the concurrent applicability of international humanitarian law and European human rights law. It also seeks to identify ways to reconcile these two different, but not incompatible, branches of international law.

The Legal Personality of Individuals in International Human Rights Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Astrid Kjeldgaard-Pedersen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
European Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
International Human ◽  
International Legal Personality

Following a summary presentation of some key events in the history of international human rights law before the Second World War, Chapter 7 concentrates on one prominent example within the field of international human rights law, namely the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Section 7.2 deals in turn with three core issues. First, Section 7.2.1 describes the evolution of the procedural status of individuals before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and assesses the role of the concept of international legal personality in that regard. Section 7.2.2 studies the Court’s practice concerning the interpretation of the ECHR, including the margin of appreciation doctrine. Finally, Section 7.2.3 analyses the practice of the ECtHR as regards the place of the Convention in the international legal system.

scholarly journals Access to Abortion in Cases of Fatal Foetal Abnormality: A New Direction for the European Court of Human Rights?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bríd Ní Ghráinne ◽  
Aisling McMahon
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Positive Aspect ◽  
The Past ◽  
Sensitive Topics ◽  
European Court ◽  
Degrading Treatment

ABSTRACT In contrast to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has not yet found that a prohibition of abortion in cases of fatal foetal abnormality violates the prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We argue that the ECtHR is on the verge of aligning itself with the Committee because, first, recent ECtHR jurisprudence is broadening its interpretation of rights within the abortion context; second, the ECtHR frequently uses international law as an interpretative tool; and, third, moving in the direction of the Committee would not be as controversial as it may have been in the past. More broadly, we view the proliferation of international and regional human rights' treaty regimes as a positive aspect of international human rights law and demonstrate how a body established to adjudicate on human rights disputes can, with some ingenuity, broaden its approach on sensitive topics by engaging with views of other human rights courts and treaty monitoring bodies.

Hassan v. The United Kingdom (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

2015 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Stubbins Bates
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
Article 5

On September 16, 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) gave its judgment in the case of Hassan v. United Kingdom.This is the Court’s first explicit engagement with the co-applicability of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in relation to detention in international armed conflicts. The judgment is significant for its rejection of the government’s argument that international humanitarian law operates as lex specialis to displace international human rights law entirely during the “active hostilities phase of an international armed conflict.” It is also noteworthy for the majority’s ruling that provisions on detention of prisoners of war and the internment of protected persons in the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949 could be read into Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the European Convention), creating a new ground for detention under Article 5(1) in international armed conflicts and modifying the procedural guarantees in Article 5(4).

scholarly journals Criteria for Assessing the Violation of the Right to a Trial Within a Reasonable Time

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Miodrag Simović ◽  
Marina Simović
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Reasonable Time ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Charges ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5

The well-known sentence in English Justice delayed is justice denied confirms historical awareness of the value of a speedy court decision. The right to a fair trial within a reasonable time applies to both civil and criminal proceedings. In a criminal trial, the issue of adjournment may also be regulated under Article 5 paragraph 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms when a person is detained. The rationale for the principle, in criminal proceedings, is “based on the need to allow the accused not to remain for too long in a state of uncertainty as to the outcome of criminal charges against him” (Kart v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, 2009). Furthermore, the variability of criminal proceedings that take too long - generally damages the reputation of the alleged offender. The European Court of Human Rights explained that “the reason for the verdict in so many lenghty proceedings is that certain contracting parties have not complied with the ‘reasonable time’ requirement under Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention and have not prescribed a domestic remedy for this type of appeal” (Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], 2006-V).

scholarly journals Contra la normalización de la ilegalidad: la protección judicial de los extranjeros frente a las expulsiones colectivas y las devoluciones “en caliente” | Against the Normalization of Illegality: the Judicial Protection of Foreigners Facing Collective Expulsions and Police “Push-Backs”

2017 ◽  
pp. 195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ángeles Solanes Corella
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Migration Flows ◽  
Judicial Protection

Resumen: Las expulsiones colectivas de extranjeros, aun estando prohibidas por el derecho internacional, son una práctica que sistemáticamente se ha aplicado en el ámbito del control de los flujos migratorios. En el caso de España, en su frontera sur terrestre, se han generalizado las denominadas “devoluciones en caliente”. Las vulneraciones de derechos que conllevan estas medidas son incompatibles con el Convenio Europeo para la Protección de los Derechos Humanos y de las Libertades Fundamentales, del que derivan obligaciones concretas para los Estados parte. Este trabajo, propone un análisis crítico de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos para delimitar cuándo se produce una expulsión colectiva. Con ello se pretende evitar la aparente normalización de una medida que es ilegal e insistir en los mecanismos garantistas de los derechos de los extranjeros. Abstract: The collective expulsion of foreigners, although prohibited by International Law, is a practice that has been systematically applied in the field of control of migration flows. In the case of Spain, on its southern land border, the so-called police "push-backs" have become widespread. The violations of rights entailed by these measures are incompatible with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, from which obligations derive for the States Parties. This paper proposes a critical analysis of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights to delimit when a collective expulsion occurs. This is intended to avoid the apparent normalization of a measure that is illegal and to insist on mechanisms that guarantee the rights of foreigners.

scholarly journals EVOLUTIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS: POSSIBILITIES AND LIMITS. THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AS A SUBJECT OF INTERPRETATION OF LAW

2016 ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Анатолий Ковлер ◽  
Anatoliy Kovler
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
European System ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

The article analyses a so called “evolutive interpretation” of the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights creating its case-law. Doing so the Court as a subject of this interpretation has a legitimate competence in the light of the Article 32 of the Convention. The problem is how wide could be this interpretation taking in account the principle of subsidiarity of the european system of the protection of human rights and doctrine of the “margin of appreciation” of the contracting States.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document