General Aspects of Human Rights and Domestic Jurisdiction

2010 ◽  
pp. 390-409
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Domestic Jurisdiction ◽  
General Aspects

International Criminal Court

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (9) ◽  
pp. 41-51
Author(s):  
Charles B.A Ubah ◽  
Osy E. Nwebo
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Justice System ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Domestic Jurisdiction ◽  
National Governments

The principle of domestic jurisdiction in international law makes national governments responsible for protecting their citizens, investigating alleged abuses of human rights in their countries and bringing the perpetrators to justice. They governments may also extradite those accused of abuse of human rights to any other states prepared to give them a fair trial. Problem arises however, when governments are unable or unwilling to perform this duty or are themselves perpetrators of these crimes. Thus, millions of people have fallen victims of genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of humanitarian laws. But only very few of these perpetrators have been brought to justice in national courts as many governments claim sanctuary under the principle of domestic jurisdiction. The need therefore arises for the international community to act in order to protect helpless or defenseless citizens from being victims of crimes against humanity and human rights abuses, by bringing the perpetrators of these crimes to justice. The thrust of this article therefore, is that the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) fills this void by fulfilling a central and pivotal goal in international jurisprudence. This article, therefore, provides insights and lessons into the history and prospects of the International Criminal Court. These are insights and lessons that are too important and too costly to ignore in the 21st century understanding of international criminal justice system.

Part A: Articles: A Non-Governmental Human Rights Strategy for Peacekeeping?

1996 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-145
Author(s):  
Reinhard Marx
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Moral Dilemma ◽  
International Community ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Neutral Position ◽  
New Model ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Human Rights Movement ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Domestic Jurisdiction

The human rights movement has never accepted that human rights belong to the domestic jurisdiction, but the new model of peacekeeping, which to some extent is based on a human rights component, causes severe problems for the movement, particularly because of its selectivity and its often biased implementation. This obstacle to an impartial combat against massive human rights violations and a wide range of other problems make it difficult for the movement to develop a consistent and plausible policy on peacekeeping. Although the international community may have good reasons to deploy soldiers in order to save lives and to bring an end to genocide, a supportive attitude by the human rights movement may jeopardise its principles of impartiality and non-violent campaigning and hence weaken the system of protection of human rights. But it has to be underscored that massive human rights violations will cause a moral dilemma for the movement if it cannot justify its neutral position on compelling grounds.

Le Peuple, c’est moi! The World Court and Human Rights

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 173-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando R. Tesón
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Domestic Jurisdiction ◽  
Final Verdict ◽  
Law And Justice ◽  
The Relationship

This essay examines the discussion of human rights and domestic jurisdiction by the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua case. Independently of the final verdict about the lawfulness of U.S. help to the contras under principles of either self-defense or humanitarian intervention, the Court’s views on the relationship among human rights, domestic jurisdiction and intervention are wrong in law. Furthermore, the philosophical assumptions of the Judgment are profoundly disturbing. For the reasons set forth below, I submit that the Court’s approach embodies a backward view of international law and justice that was totally unnecessary to the resolution of the case.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ASYLUM CLAIMS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW: A PROGRESS NARRATIVE?

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 459-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siobhán Mullally
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Refugee Law ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Domestic Jurisdiction ◽  
International Human

Recent years have witnessed significant developments in international human rights law relating to domestic violence. No longer viewed as a matter ‘essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the State’, domestic violence now frequently commands the attention of international human rights bodies. The obligations imposed on States include positive obligations of due diligence to prevent, investigate and to punish domestic violence, whenever and wherever it occurs.1 Judicial dialogue across the borders of human rights and refugee law has also expanded access to asylum for women fleeing domestic violence, bringing with it a gradual recognition of the positive obligations that international law now imposes on States. However, as recent cases such as Jessica Gonzalez v the United States2 and Opuz v Turkey3 reveal, significant gaps remain between the rhetoric of human rights law and the reality of everyday enforcement and implementation on the ground. These gaps are most keenly felt by refugee women. While State practice suggests greater gender inclusivity and sensitivity in the practice of refugee law, women fleeing domestic violence continue to face obstacles in making their claims heard.

scholarly journals Protection AgainstRefoulementfrom Europe: Human Rights Law Comes to the Rescue

1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 515-544 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hélène Lambert
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
The Status ◽  
Convention Against Torture ◽  
Domestic Jurisdiction ◽  
Rights Discourse ◽  
Human Rights Discourse ◽  
Scope Of Protection

A growing opinion has appeared in refugee and human rights discourse that the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the European Convention) provides more extensive protection againstrefoulementthan the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugee Convention). However, uncertainties remain as to whether the protection offered by the 1984 UN Convention against Torture (the Torture Convention) and the 1966 UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Political Covenant) may substitute, or, rather, reinforce, that of the European Convention. Which of these four instruments offers the greatest protection against a decision ofrefoulementfrom a European country? The answer to this question is far from being academic. The rule that an international organ may only be competent to consider an individual petition or communication provided “the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of individual investigation or settlement” is embodied in all three instruments providing a procedure for individual complaints. It is therefore crucial for an asylum-seeker to give his or her best shot first, even if, as rightly pointed out by Liz Heffernan, the Strasbourg organs and the Geneva organs are not in competition.1This article will review the scope of protection afforded under the three of these treaties which provide an international enforcement mechanism to persons who have sought refugee status in the domestic jurisdiction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document