Public rights and private schools: state accountability for violations of rights in education

This chapter discusses state accountability for violations of rights in education. Securing state accountability for vindicating the rights of children in education becomes particularly challenging in the context of private schools. In these schools, a private organisation is interposed between the rights-holder (the child) and the duty-bearer (the state). This poses the question of where responsibility lies if a child's rights are not vindicated. In essence, this was the question that confronted the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in O'Keeffe v Ireland. The key message of the O'Keeffe decision is a crucial one. Children have human rights while they are in school; they do not leave their rights behind at the school gate. The state has a direct obligation to protect the rights of children in all schools, whether fully public, fully private, or something in between.

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 183-197
Author(s):  
Ingrid Kodelja ◽  
Zdenko Kodelja

Slovenian schools were victims of the totalitarianism of Italian Fascism from the advent of fascist rule in 1922 until the capitulation of Italy in 1943 and of German Nazism during World War II (1941–1945). However, the question remains whether schools in Slovenia were victims of totalitarianism after the war, too. The answer depends on whether the socialist regime was merely undemocratic or also totalitarian. But even if the state at that time was not totalitarian, it violated human rights also in the field of education. According to the European Court of Human Rights, the State is forbidden to pursue an aim of indoctrination in public schools – as was the case in Slovenia – because indoctrination is considered to not respect parents’ religious and philosophical convictions. In this paper it will be shown that the state also violated two other human rights of their citizens which are in close connection to this parents’ right, namely, the right of parents to choose private schools based on specific moral, religious or secular values; and (if there are not such schools) the right to establish them. Both of these rights were violated because private schools, except religious schools for the education of priests, were forbidden. These rights were violated in the socialist republic of Slovenia even though ex-Yugoslavia (one of whose constitutive parts was at that time Slovenia) signed and ratified these international documents on human rights.


2013 ◽  
pp. 154-164
Author(s):  
Katerina Elbakyan

In modern Russia, one often hears about the claims of state bodies to certain religious organizations, mainly related to the so-called “religious minorities”. The result is judicial precedents, when individual religious organizations are forced, often repeatedly, to appeal to the courts of various instances, including the European Court of Human Rights, in order to solve their problems. Sometimes, on the contrary, the state makes charges against religious organizations.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Nedim Begović

Abstract The article analyses the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on accommodation of Islamic observances in the workplace. The author argues that the Court has not hitherto provided adequate incentives to the states party to the European Convention on Human Rights to accommodate the religious needs of Muslim employees in the workplace. Given this finding, the author proposes that the accommodation of Islam in the workplace should, as a matter of priority, be provided within a national legal framework. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, this could be achieved through an instrument of contracting agreement between the state and the Islamic Community in Bosnia and Herzegovina.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-101
Author(s):  
Dmitry Kuznetsov

When establishing human rights violations committed by the state, should it be violation of internationally protected rights or constitutional rights, the violator is obliged to compensate for the harm caused. In the meantime, neither international sources, nor national legal acts and case law answer the question whether the obligation to compensate is exhausted by the compensation awarded in accordance with a decision of an international judicial body or such a payment has punitive nature, and the state keeps the obligation to compensate the damage within the frameworks of national proceedings. Following the first part of opening remarks the second part of the article studies universal international law approach towards the state obligation to compensate for human rights violations, it reviews positions of the International Court of Justice, the model established in international customary law of international responsibility. The third part discusses the compensation mechanism of the European Court of Human Rights and a number of cases where the Russian Federation was the respondent state. The forth part considers national regulation of the Council of Europe states and case law thereof. The author argues that the established international case law in respect of awarding compensations for human rights violations is too restrictive – it does not take into account a complex nature of this phenomenon which includes both correction of the individual applicant situation (restitution of the pre-existed situation) and prevention of similar situations in the future. It is concluded that awarding the compensation by an international body primarily constitutes a measure of international responsibility whereas consideration by a national court is a more effective means of restitution of the applicants rights and that the national court shall not deny consideration of applicants claims due to the fact that they have already been awarded compensation by the international judicial body including the European Court of Human Rights.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-271
Author(s):  
Cedric Jenart ◽  
Mathieu Leloup

Alternative dispute resolution procedures before the European Court of Human Rights – The state agent, a member of the executive branch, tasked with representing the respondent state – Judicial and legislative branches of the respondent state limited or bound by concessions by the state agent – Convention framework effectively increases the power of the executive branch to the detriment of the other branches of government in the respondent state – Tension with national separation of powers – Possible solutions on a national and international level


2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 601-620
Author(s):  
Vladislava Stoyanova

AbstractThe European Court of Human Rights has consistently reiterated that positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights arise when state authorities know or ought to have known about the risk of harm. This article attempts to describe and assess the role of state knowledge in the framework of positive obligations, and to situate the Court’s approach to knowledge about risk within an intelligible framework of analysis. The main argument is that the assessment of state knowledge is imbued with normative considerations. The assessment of whether the state ‘ought to have known’ is intertwined with, first, concerns that positive obligations should not impose unreasonable burden on the state and, second, the establishment of causal links between state omissions and harm.


2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 1764-1785 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Greene

The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) is as much a political as it is a legal document. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) constantly walks the delicate tight rope between vindicating human rights and respecting the sovereignty of contracting states. This balancing act is particularly sensitive when a situation of “exceptional and imminent danger” exists. In such instances of national security the state may need to act in a manner beyond the parameters of normalcy in order to neutralize the threat and protect both itself and its citizens. Article 15 of the ECHR therefore allows states to derogate from its obligations under the convention when a state of emergency is declared. On foot of a notice of derogation, a state has more discretion and flexibility to act accordingly to respond to a threat without being constrained by its obligations under the treaty. However, it is also in these conditions that human rights are at their most vulnerable as the state's response may encroach severely on individuals' rights and the liberal-democratic order of the state.


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 607-630 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lize R Glas

Faced with numerous repetitive applications, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has welcomed the unilateral declaration mechanism as a way to handle these efficiently. In a unilateral declaration, the state admits a human rights violation and promises to provide redress to the applicant. On that basis, the Court strikes out an application and does not deal with its merits. Some authors and non-governmental organizations warn against losing sight of the applicants’ interests whilst relying on unilateral declarations. Against this background, this article aims to establish whether unilateral declarations are indeed (mostly) used to dispose of repetitive applications and how this procedure works in practice. The second aim is to determine whether the interests of the applicants are sufficiently protected when the Court rules on unilateral declarations. The analysis is based on all 1285 unilateral declarations, which the states parties to the ECHR have proposed in the five years following 2 April 2012.


2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 198-209
Author(s):  
Stephanie E. Berry

Abstract The European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) use of the margin of appreciation (MoA) in cases concerning religious clothing is well-documented. This article paints a more complete picture of the use of the doctrine in cases falling within Article 9 and Article 2, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (echr). The ECtHR’s use of the normative MoA often appears to be superfluous as it does not seem to extend past the Article 9(2) echr, limitations clause. In contrast, the systemic MoA allows almost complete deference to the State, which has the potential to undermine the religious freedom of minorities.


2010 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 266-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Leigh

This article analyses recent trends in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights concerned with the right to freedom of thought, belief and religion (Article 9, European Convention on Human Rights) and the right of parents to respect by the state for their religious and philosophical views in the education of their children (Article 2, Protocol 1).1 These developments include notable decisions concerned with protection from religious persecution in Georgia, with religious education in Norway and Turkey and with the display of crucifixes in state schools in Italy. It is apparent that the European Convention religious liberty jurisprudence increasingly stresses the role of the state as a neutral protector of religious freedom. For individuals religious freedom is now also recognised to include not only the right to manifest their religious belief but also freedom from having to declare their religious affiliation. As the religious liberty jurisprudence comes of age, other significant developments, for example in relation to conscientious objection to military service, can be anticipated.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document