Increase Judicial Cooperation among Countries under South-South Cooperation and Boost the Development of Global Human Rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 225-232
2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442199593
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Schomburg ◽  
Anna Oehmichen ◽  
Katrin Kayß

As human rights have increasingly gained importance at the European Union level, this article examines the remaining scope of human rights protection under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. While some international human rights instruments remain applicable, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union did not become part of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). The consequences, especially the inapplicability of the internationalised ne bis in idem principle, are analysed. Furthermore, the conditionality of the TCA in general as well as the specific conditionality for judicial cooperation in criminal matters are discussed. In this context, the risk that cooperation may cease at any moment if any Member State or the UK leave the European Convention of Human Rights is highlighted. Lastly, the authors raise the problem of the lack of judicial review, as the Court of Justice of the European Union is no longer competent.


2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boštjan Zalar

AbstractThe author identifies the initial challenging questions that will be posed to judges in relation to the application of implementing act and the Procedures Directive. The arguments put forth are directed towards the need for interpreting the transposition act and the minimum standards from the Procedures Directive in a way that would be consistent with the international and constitutional human rights law standards. The actual situation and prospects of this challenge for the case of Slovenia are examined from the period before and after the adoption of the Procedures Directive through the analysis of administrative practice and jurisprudence in relation to the grounds for abuse of the asylum procedure within the accelerated procedure, the procedural requirements for the use of country of origin information and the right to free legal assistance. In the section on the main challenges for the protection of fundamental rights in relation to the Procedures Directive, the author focuses on methods of interpreting Community law, the question of the scope of Community law, the concept of judicial cooperation for the protection of human rights, conditions for annulling Community provisions due to violation of fundamental rights, and the effects of international law standards on the protection of fundamental rights under Community law.


Author(s):  
Mikaela Heikkilä ◽  
Elina Pirjatanniemi

Numerous terrorist attacks both within and outside the European Union (EU or the Union) have prompted the Union to increasingly act in the field of counter-terrorism. Since the adoption of the Union’s counter-terrorism strategy in 2005, the Union’s action in relation to counter-terrorism has been based on four connected pillars: to prevent, to protect, to pursue, and to respond. A general trend in the Union’s counter-terrorism action has been a move towards a pre-emptive approach, where the focus lies on countering terrorism threats in advance. The aim of this chapter is to discuss whether the adoption of these pre-emptive measures strengthen the security landscape of the Union. The chapter thus takes a closer look at how the Union strives to detect persons planning or preparing terrorist offences, and to hinder actual attacks from taking place. In particular, attention is paid to the EU’s police and judicial cooperation, general surveillance, the criminalisation of preparatory terrorist offences, and cooperation with third states and international organisations. A central objective is also to assess how the various counter-terrorism measures concur with international human rights law, including the Union’s legal framework on data protection.


2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 955-977 ◽  
Author(s):  
NOREL NEAGU

AbstractAs a result of the extension of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union over the former third pillar (Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters), several cases were referred to the Court for interpretation, inter alia, of the dispositions of the Schengen Convention dealing with criminal matters, especially the ne bis in idem principle. This principle was also addressed in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the Supreme Court of the United States. While addressing the problem at international level, this article focuses principally on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights in the field of the ne bis in idem principle, concisely presenting the legal framework, findings of the Courts, and some conclusions on the interpretation of the principle. The study also analyses the absence of uniformity in interpretation and the use of different criteria in addressing identical situations by different courts, or even by the same court, concluding on a (seemingly) fortunate approximation in interpretation at European level.


2020 ◽  
pp. 147737082098035
Author(s):  
Gaëtan Cliquennois ◽  
Sonja Snacken ◽  
Dirk Van Zyl Smit

The power to punish is traditionally seen as an essential prerogative of the national state. Over the last three decades, judicial and standard-setting bodies of the Council of Europe (CoE) have sought increasingly, at a regional level, to monitor and control the power of European states to punish. In parallel, the European Union (EU) has become an increasingly important penal actor, fostering a common approach to transnational forms of criminality, as well as seeking judicial cooperation between EU member states in order to deal with a wider range of crimes. Little attention has been paid, however, to the interactions, coherence or discrepancies between the CoE’s and the EU’s bodies and policies. Therefore, we analyse the inter-relationship of the CoE and EU penal and prison policies. We focus on the instruments that can be used to limit European states’ powers to punish, but also, particularly in the case of the EU, on countervailing forces resulting from policies conducted in the field of terrorism and from countries hit by populism. Finally, we develop the concept of ‘two Europes’, which encapsulates not only the discrepancies between the approaches adopted by the CoE and the EU towards human rights moderation of European prison and penal policies but also wider penal policy differences between a modern, liberal democratic, humanistic Europe and a nationalistic Europe conducting harsh penal policies, increasing its margin of appreciation and using its sovereignty in order to avoid implementing such blurred policies.


2021 ◽  
pp. 155-164
Author(s):  
Anna PRYSIAZHNA

The current stage of development of international relations and international law is characterized by the active growth of interstate cooperation and the emergence of new more integrated forms of such cooperation. A special manifestation of this modern phenomenon is observed in the field of judicial cooperation. Moreover, the emergence in the modern world of international universal and regional courts and the gradual increase in their number, has become one of the prerequisites for a new form of international judicial cooperation — the interaction of national courts with international regional courts. In this regard, the greatest interest for the theoretical analysis of international legal regulation of judicial interaction is the study of the experience of such interaction in the European space, which operates the «oldest» international regional courts — the Court of Justice of the European Union, which was established in 1952 and was called the Court of Justice of t he European Coal and Steel Community and the European Court of Human Rights, established in 1959. The legal nature and forms of interaction of national courts of European states with the named international regional courts are of special interest for scientific analysis, which is explained both by considerable experience of judicial cooperation accumulated by them and novelty of legal forms and mechanisms of cooperation requiring theoretical understanding. Without exaggeration, the reopening of proceedings based on judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is one of the most effective, and often the only, measures to restore violated individual rights and improve the practice of national courts and ensure full and effective enforcement of ECHR judgments. The basis of cooperation between the courts of the member states of the Council of Europe and the ECHR is the provisions of the Convention, which makes the decision of the ECHR binding. The judicial authorities of the member states of the Council of Europe are obliged to apply the convention law of the Council of Europe, as well as the case law of the ECHR, which is the only source of cooperation between the courts of the member states of the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document