Human rights for profit: The system-preserving tendencies of the regional human rights courts

2021 ◽  
pp. 030981682110050
Author(s):  
Stéfanie Khoury ◽  
David Whyte
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Regional Systems ◽  
European Court ◽  
Social Ordering ◽  
Made In ◽  
The Way

This article presents an analysis of the way that profit-making corporations have sought human rights protections in the following two regional human rights courts: the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. It seeks to deepen our understanding of a controversial principle in that corporations can claim protections as ‘legal persons’. After exploring precisely how and why each of those regional systems have accepted claims for human rights protections by corporations and their shareholders, the article then develops an analysis of what the way that the regional human rights courts have carefully weighed their decisions implies more broadly about the prospects for human rights law to exhibit either system-threatening or system-preserving tendencies. The article then concludes by setting out a general principle of social ordering that underpins the decisions made in human rights courts.

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.

scholarly journals The History and the Structure of European Court of Human Right

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 18-27
Author(s):  
Nadhmi Khedairi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Commission ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
One Step ◽  
Made In ◽  
The Way

The European Court of Human Rights has been established by this convention, currently with more than 50 years of judicial experience, is also one of the most important international judicial organizations and from November 1998 onward the Protocol 11 became enforceable and along with its being imperative, the former two-steps system consisting of European Commission of Human Rights and the European court of Human Rights changed its structure into a one-step system, that is the new European Court of Human Rights, and that significant changes were made in the way an application was dealt with and in the Court procedure as well. This article will answer this question: How can this structure secure the rights guaranteed in this Convention against member states? Given that the topics related to the Court are very broad and diverse, attempts have been made to address issues about: the history and the structure of the Court, the issue of the Protocol 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the aforementioned Court after this Protocol, judges and the manner of their election, jurisdiction and so forth.

Comparative Views on the Right to Vote in International Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shai Dothan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Right To Vote ◽  
The Right ◽  
Democratic Elections ◽  
The Way

There is a consensus about the existence of an international right to vote in democratic elections. Yet states disagree about the limits of this right when it comes to the case of prisoners’ disenfranchisement. Some states allow all prisoners to vote, some disenfranchise all prisoners, and others allow only some prisoners to vote. This chapter argues that national courts view the international right to vote in three fundamentally different ways: some view it as an inalienable right that cannot be taken away, some view it merely as a privilege that doesn’t belong to the citizens, and others view it as a revocable right that can be taken away under certain conditions. The differences in the way states conceive the right to vote imply that attempts by the European Court of Human Rights to follow the policies of the majority of European states by using the Emerging Consensus doctrine are problematic.

International Human Rights Law and Blockade

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phillip Drew
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
European Court ◽  
Power And Control ◽  
International Human ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction ◽  
And Control

The years since the beginning of the twenty-first century have seen a significant incursion of international human rights law into the domain that had previously been the within the exclusive purview of international humanitarian law. The expansion of extraterritorial jurisdiction, particularly by the European Court of Human Rights, means that for many states, the exercise of physical power and control over an individual outside their territory may engage the jurisdiction of human rights obligations. Understanding the expansive tendencies of certain human rights tribunals, and the apparent disdain they have for any ambiguity respecting human rights, it is offered that the uncertain nature of the law surrounding humanitarian relief during blockades could leave blockading forces vulnerable to legal challenge under human rights legislation, particularly in cases in which starvation occurs as a result of a blockade.

Is the assessment under Article 8 ECHR for migrants justifiable?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2110614
Author(s):  
Jennie Edlund ◽  
Václav Stehlík
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Foreign Nationals ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Way

The paper analyses the protection granted under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights for different immigration cases. The way the European Court of Human Rights determines compliance with Article 8 for settled migrants differs from the way the Court determines compliance for foreign nationals seeking entry or requesting to regularize their irregular migration status. The paper argues that the European Court of Human Rights application of different principles when determining a States’ positive and negative obligations is contradicting its own case law. It also argues that the absence of justification grounds for the refusal of foreign nationals who are seeking entry lacks legitimacy. By treating all immigration cases under Article 8(2) the paper suggests that the differentiation between cases should be based on how a refusal of entry or an expulsion would impact on the family life. The paper also suggests that more consideration should be given towards the insiders interests when balancing the individual rights against the state's interests. These changes would lead to a more consistent and fair case law and generate a more convergent practice by the states which will increase the precedent value of the Court's judgements.

scholarly journals THE USE OF FLOGGING AS A PUNISHMENT IN SAUDI ARABIA FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-102
Author(s):  
Hind Sebar ◽  
Shahrul Mizan Ismail
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
Legal Procedures ◽  
Made In

Flogging is one of the most widely-used corporal punishments in Islamic penology. Most countries that practice Islamic criminal law use flogging to punish a variety of crimes and offenses. Saudi Arabia is one of the countries that use flogging to punish various crimes and has faced immense backlash from the international community for gross violation of human rights. The goal of this article is to investigate the implementation of flogging as a punishment in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, it also examines how international human rights law has contributed to limiting flogging as a form of criminal punishment. This study has critically analysed several human rights documents in order to understand how flogging is viewed under international human rights law if compared to the position under the Shari‘ah. Focus on the implementation of flogging in Saudi Arabia is made in particular. In addition, it is found that the application of flogging in Saudi Arabia is overused and is uncodified. Hence, the article signifies the necessity of codifying Islamic law to ensure fair legal procedures. Interestingly, a recent announcement that abolishes flogging as a common form of punishment, indicates the willingness of the kingdom to implement judicial reforms, thereby creating a ray of hope in the form of amendment of laws.

Rights of Families of Disappeared Persons

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grażyna Baranowska
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Advisory Panel ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Missing Persons ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Special Process

This book examines how international judicial and non-judicial bodies in Europe address the needs of the families of forcibly disappeared persons. The needs in question are returning the remains of disappeared persons; the right to truth; the acceptance of responsibility by states; and the right to compensation. These have been identified as the four most commonly shared basic and fundamental needs of families in which an adult was disappeared many years previously and is now assumed to be dead, which is representative of the situation of the vast majority of families of disappeared persons in Europe. <br><br>The analysis covers the judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, the UN Human Rights Committee, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Human Rights Advisory Panel in Kosovo, as well as the activities of the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus, the Special Process on Missing Persons in the Territory of former Yugoslavia, the UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances and the International Commission on Missing Persons. In so doing, the book demonstrates whether, how, and based on what principles these four needs of the families of disappeared persons can constitute a claim based on international human rights law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document