Restoration of Historical Memory and Dignity for Victims of the Armenian Genocide

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 332-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Historical Memory ◽  
Armenian Genocide ◽  
New Developments ◽  
European Court

This article argues that United Nations human rights principles and new developments in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights suggest a route to provide effective reparation through restoration of historical memory and dignity for victims of the Armenian Genocide.

Art.20 Personal Mobility

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kovudhikulrungsri Lalin ◽  
Hendriks Aart
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
Personal Mobility ◽  
Cultural Activities ◽  
European Court ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines Article 20 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Personal mobility is a prerequisite for inclusion in a society. According to the European Court of Human Rights, to be mobile and to have access to transport, housing, cultural activities, and leisure is a precondition for the ‘right to establish and develop relations with other human beings’, ‘in professional or business contexts as in others’. The CRPD does not establish new rights for persons with disabilities. It is merely thought to identify specific actions that states and others must take to ensure the effectiveness and inclusiveness of all human rights and to protect against discrimination on the basis of disability. However, the fact that there is no equivalent of the right to personal mobility in any other human rights treaty makes it particularly interesting to examine the genesis and meaning of this provision.

6 Responsibility, 6.6 Agim Behrami and Bekir Behrami v France , App. No. 71412/01 and Ruzhdi Saramati v France, Germany, and Norway , App. No. 78166/01, European Court of Human Rights, 2 May 2007

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Villalpando Santiago
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Security Council Resolution ◽  
European Court ◽  
The United Nations

In 2007, the European Court of Human Rights issued a landmark decision on the admissibility of two applications (Behrami and Saramati) concerning events that had taken place in Kosovo subsequent to Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999). This note examines the two main legal findings of this decision, namely (i) that the impugned actions and omissions were, in principle, attributable to the United Nations, and (ii) that this attribution implied that the respondent states could not be held accountable for such actions and omissions under the Convention. The note deconstructs the reasoning of the Court on these points and assesses the legacy of this precedent in the field of the responsibility of international organizations.

scholarly journals Hard Protection through Soft Courts? Non-Refoulement before the United Nations Treaty Bodies

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-384
Author(s):  
Başak Çalı ◽  
Cathryn Costello ◽  
Stewart Cunningham
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Dimensional Analysis ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Individual Decision ◽  
Individual Decision Making ◽  
Original Dataset ◽  
European Court ◽  
The United Nations

AbstractThis Article comparatively analyses how the prohibition of refoulement is interpreted by United Nations Treaty Bodies (UNTBs) in their individual decision-making, where we suggest they act as “soft courts.” It asks whether UNTBs break ranks with or follow the interpretations of non-refoulement of the European Court of Human Rights. This investigation is warranted because non-refoulement is the single most salient issue that has attracted individual views from UNTBs since 1990. Moreover, our European focus is warranted as nearly half of the cases concern states that are also parties to the European Convention on Human Rights. Based on a multi-dimensional analysis of non-refoulement across an original dataset of over 500 UNTB non-refoulement cases, decided between 1990–2020, as well as pertinent UNTB General Comments, the Article finds that whilst UNTBs, at times, do adopt a more progressive position than their “harder” regional counterpart, there are also instances where they closely follow the interpretations of the European Court of Human Rights and, on occasion, adopt a more restrictive position. This analysis complicates the view that soft courts are likely to be more progressive interpreters than hard courts. It further shows that variations in the interpretation of non-refoulement in a crowded field of international interpreters present risks for evasion of accountability, whereby domestic authorities in Europe may favor the more convenient interpretation, particularly in environments hostile to non-refoulement.

scholarly journals The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and Fair Trial Rights: A Closer Look

1996 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 479-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Sloan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Recent Article ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
The Other ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Body System ◽  
European Court ◽  
Treaty Body

In a recent article lamenting the perception of partiality created by an activist judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), one commentator observed the general lack of scrutiny to which the ICTY is being held in its treatment of the rights of the accused. He noted that it “is a court without legal critics: no complaint about its conduct may be made to the Human Rights Committee in Geneva or to the European Court [of Human Rights], and human rights lobbies have tended to look the other way.” Indeed, it is in a position that many governments, fatigued by what many of them consider to be cumbersome reporting obligations and troublesome individual complaints procedures under the United Nations treaty body system, would envy.

Perinçek v. Switzerland (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 627-719 ◽  
Author(s):  
Uladzislau Belavusau
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Armenian Genocide ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Historical Fact ◽  
Grand Chamber

On October 15, 2015, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of Perinçek v. Switzerland. The judgment contested a criminal provision applied in Switzerland against a Turkish politician who had publicly denied a historical fact of the Armenian genocide. Notwithstanding variations in reasoning, the outcome in the Grand Chamber is similar to the previous decision of the Chamber on this case in 2013. The Swiss criminal provision applied in the context of the denial of the Armenian genocide was again found irreconcilable with freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The child’s voice in adoption proceedings: A European perspective

2013 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 590-615
Author(s):  
Claire Fenton-Glynn
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
European Perspective ◽  
Rights Of The Child ◽  
European Court ◽  
The World ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Right

The right of the child to be heard in adoption proceedings flows directly from the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by almost every country in the world. In this paper, the interpretation of this principle across European jurisdictions will be analysed, both in terms of children who are old enough to make a determinative decision concerning their future, and those who are younger yet still possess the right to be heard. The wide variety of practices in Europe highlight the lack of progress in this field of law, which is not assisted by the conservative jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document