Freedom of Expression and National Security: Judicial and Policy Approaches under the European Convention On Human Rights and Other Council of Europe Instruments

1999 ◽  
pp. 109-128
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Security ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe

scholarly journals Limits to Terror Speech in the UK and USA: Balancing Freedom of Expression with National Security

Amicus Curiae ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-232
Author(s):  
Ian Turner
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Security ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Security ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Strict Scrutiny ◽  
American Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Article 5

Article 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, freedom of expression, is incorporated into UK law. With the growing Islamist terror threat after 9/11, particularly threatening European security, the Council of Europe introduced the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (CPT) 2005. One of the Articles within the Convention, Article 5, obliges states to outlaw ‘public provocation to commit a terrorist offence’. Drawing on its obligations in the CPT, the UK enacted section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006: ‘encouragement of terrorism’. But, in implementing its duties, the UK went further. There are very real concerns, therefore, about the effects of this legislation on freedom of expression. The test for interpreting breaches of Article 10 is ‘proportionality’. Comparatively, in America there is a much stronger test than proportionality, ‘strict scrutiny’, in assessing limits to terror speech. However, in the age of Islamism, together with the speed, ease and little cost incurred in sharing terror speech online, should there not be a reappraisal of American law? The author is based in the UK. But the UK’s approach to limiting terror speech is arguably too intrusive of freedom of expression. This paper, therefore, proposes a compromise approach between the two jurisdictions.

scholarly journals Defamation and Political Comment in Post-Soviet Russia

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-36
Author(s):  
Elspeth Reid
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
First Century ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Tradition ◽  
The Law ◽  
Soviet Russia ◽  
Defamation Law ◽  
Difficult Transition

The law of defamation in Russia has a long history. Its roots are in the European tradition, but the discontinuity of its historical development has meant that there have been particular difficulties in reconfiguring the law for the new human rights era following Russia’s accession to the Council of Europe in 1996 and ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights in 1998. Defamation law must now be been tested against the fundamental standards enshrined in the ECHR, to ensure that appropriate levels of protection are provided not only for reputation but, also, for freedom of expression. It has been left largely to the judiciary and judge-made law to manage this difficult transition. This article analyses the elements that make up the law of defamation in Russia and assesses the challenges that remain in adapting it to the twenty-first century.

Introductory Note

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guido Raimondi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Public ◽  
Introductory Note ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This article comments on four important judgments given by the European Court of Human Rights in 2016. Al-Dulimi v. Switzerland addresses the issue of how, in the context of sanctions regimes created by the UN Security Council, European states should reconcile their obligations under the UN Charter with their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to respect the fundamentals of European public order. Baka v. Hungary concerns the separation of powers and judicial independence, in particular the need for procedural safeguards to protect judges against unjustified removal from office and to protect their legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary is a judgment on the interpretation of the Convention, featuring a review of the “living instrument” approach. Avotiņš v. Latvia addresses the principle of mutual trust within the EU legal order and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention.

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.

Freedom of expression and respect for private life in the context of the development of new information technologies: judicial practice of the ECHR and national courts

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 141-156
Author(s):  
Iliya Shablinsky
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Information Technologies ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Partial Control ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
New Information

This article examines and summarises judicial practice in cases related to the use of new information technologies. The study primarily focuses upon the decisions of Russian courts (general jurisdiction and arbitration) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Employing ECHR practice, the author also refers to numerous decisions by courts in Hungary and the United Kingdom. Cases related to the use of new information technologies can be distinguished between, and this article examines the judicial practice of three categories of cases: 1) blocking of internet resources; 2) employers’ control over employees’ electronic correspondence; 3) journalists’ use of hyperlinks in author’s texts and their responsibility of such placements. Within each category of cases, the rights of citizens can be seriously violated. The article highlights that in an era of rapid development of new information technologies, states, represented by special services and authorised state bodies, are making unprecedented efforts to ensure that they maintain at least partial control over the activities of new actors (bloggers, Internet media, Internet platforms, etc.). Similarly, courts often compromise with authorities when resolving such issues. Notably, national Russian courts did not consider parties’ interests, nor did they assess the need to block all sites with a particular IP address. They did not even follow the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation’s decision to apply the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights within the framework of the ECHR. The courts limited themselves to pointing out that Roskomnadzor acted within its power. Thus, the decisions of the national courts did not offer a mechanism for protecting rights. Within the norms regulating the new sphere of relations, there are often norms of a restrictive and prohibitive nature, and these norms are dominant in the Russian Federation. In this regard, there remains grounds for concern among lawyers involved in the protection of rights related to new information technologies.

scholarly journals Academic Freedom and Its Protection in the Law of European States

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 254-345
Author(s):  
Klaus D. Beiter ◽  
Terence Karran ◽  
Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Academic Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

Focusing on those countries that are members of the European Union, it may be noted that these countries are bound under international human rights agreements, such as the International Covenants on Civil and Political, and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights or the European Convention on Human Rights, to safeguard academic freedom under provisions providing for the right to freedom of expression, the right to education, and respect for ‘the freedom indispensable for scientific research.’ unesco’s Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, a ‘soft-law’ document of 1997, concretises international human rights requirements to be complied with to make the protection of the right to academic freedom effective. Relying on a set of human rights indicators, the present article assesses the extent to which the constitutions, laws on higher education, and other relevant legislation of eu states implement the Recommendation’s criteria. The situation of academic freedom in practice will not be assessed here. The results for the various countries have been quantified and countries ranked in accordance with ‘their performance.’ The assessment demonstrates that, overall, the state of the protection of the right to academic freedom in the law of European states is one of ‘ill-health.’ Institutional autonomy is being misconstrued as exhausting the concept of academic freedom, self-governance in higher education institutions sacrificed for ‘executive-style’ management, and employment security abrogated to cater for ‘changing employment needs’ in higher education.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document