scholarly journals Russia Against Ukraine Before the European Court of Human Rights. The Empire Strikes Back?

2021 ◽  
Vol 51 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Milena Ingelevič-Citak ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
Crimean Peninsula ◽  
Strategic Objectives ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Given ◽  
Legal Battle ◽  
The Crimean Peninsula

In July 2021, Russia submitted its first inter-state complaint against Ukraine to the European Court of Human Rights. It was an unexpected and intriguing step of the Russian government, especially since many of the presented allegations are linked to the events that initiated the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Referring to the hostilities that began in 2014, the international community was, in principle, unanimous in assessing who the aggressor was. The focus of this research is the strategy of the Russian Federation in its recently initiated legal battle before the Strasbourg Court. This paper presents an attempt to outline the possible motives for taking such a step. Moscow's position on this case is particularly puzzling, as some of the allegations concern the Crimean Peninsula, widely recognized under international law as territory occupied by Russia. In spite of that, doubt arises about the strategic objectives of the Russian authorities in the conflict with Ukraine; the question is whether the actions taken by Russia fall within the scope of its previous strategy or if there has been a new turn in the matter. The first part of this paper outlines the background of the given conflict, the second details Russian policy after the annexation of Crimea, and the third, which is crucial for the formulating of conclusions, presents considerations on Russia's possible motivation and goals in filing a complaint to the European Court Human Rights. The research was conducted mainly based on the merits of the complaint, the statements of the representatives of Russia and Ukraine in the matter, the author's observations, and practitioners' considerations.

Limitations of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms in International Law and Novations in the Russian Criminal Legislation

10.12737/1209 ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (11) ◽  
pp. 75-84
Author(s):  
Юрий Ромашев ◽  
YUriy Romashyev
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Security ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Public Order ◽  
European Court ◽  
State Secret ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation ◽  
State Secrets

The author analyses new amendments related to state secrets protection: amendments to Article 275 ‘High Treason’, Article 276 ‘Espionage’, Article 283 ‘Disclosure of a State Secret’, and adopted Article 283.1 ‘Illegal Receipt of Information Constituting a State Secret’ of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in respect to their conformity with acceptable restrictions of fundamental human rights and freedoms. Special attention is paid to theoretical and action-oriented aspects of restrictions of fundamental human rights and freedoms. The author investigates relevant provisions of international documents, practice of the European Court of Human Rights, doctrines of leading experts in this sphere. The author notes that the criteria for restricting fundamental human rights and freedoms should be established entirely under the law and be indispensable and applicable in a democratic society, be aimed at the protection of national security and public order. The author draws the conclusion on the urgent character and timeliness of introducing the abovementioned novations into the Russian criminal legislation, and their conformity with generally recognized principles and rules of international law.

scholarly journals RESTRICTION OF THE RIGHT TO THE LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF MINORS ACCORDING TO THE INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL LAW (BY THE EXAMPLE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION)

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gulnara R. Shaihutdinova ◽  
Gulshat Z. Shamilova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
European Court ◽  
Personal Rights ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5

The article is about the main points of the minors arrest and detention who are suspected in a criminal offense under paragraph 5 (d) of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950; the legality of the minors arrest and detention, rights and freedoms. The special attention is paid to the study of the pointed legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights. The importance of the study is connected with the fact that the right to the liberty and security is one of the most important rights included in the list of internationally recognized human rights and freedoms. From the point of the generally accepted classification in the law theory and Russian constitutional law, as well as in the theory of international law, the analysing law belongs to the civil (personal) rights. In this regard, the right to the liberty and security can be characterized as a law that has a natural character and it is closely connected with the nature of man.Detention or arrest is the most severe measure; it is applied only on the basis of a court decision which is based only on the results of consideration which is accepted as a result of the court’s learning of the relevant petition submitted by an investigator or inquiry officer

The applicability decision of the ECHR in legal proceedings

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 211-218
Author(s):  
Полина Виноградова ◽  
Polina Vinogradova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Russian Federation

In modern conditions, changing approaches to the implementation of international law there is both the need and opportunity. The article considers some issues of the relation of national and international law. The legal position about resolution of conflicts of constitutional and conventional interpretations are based on the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the so-called request for the applicability of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Since 2014 there is a new version of Article 101 of the Federal Constitutional Law on the Constitutional Court, which establishes opportunity to apply to the Constitutional Court against the decision of the ECHR. This provision contains an important mechanism for harmonization the constitutional and conventional interpretation.

Sowieckie ludobójstwo i prawo międzynarodowe. Litewskie zmagania ze zbrodniami ZSRS w świetle orzeczenia Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka w sprawie Drelingas

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 237-258
Author(s):  
Tomasz Lachowski
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Soviet Occupation ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Resistance Movement

The aim of the paper is to analyze the endeavors undertaken by the authorities of independent Lithuania to deal with the crimes committed by the Soviet Union against Lithuanian society, in particular against representatives of the anti-Soviet resistance movement, by using the notion of crime of genocide rooted in international law. The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Drelingas v. Lithuania of 12 March 2019, which approved the legality of the qualification of “ethno-national-political” genocide of “forest brethren” committed by the Soviet occupation authorities, was one of the key elements confirming the Lithuanian policy in this regard. This ruling reopens the discussion on the possibility of trying the crimes of the Soviet Union, at the same time raising certain legal and political doubts – as generally expressed by the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals IDENTITY MARKERS IN THE CONTEXT OF POLITICALLY MOTIVATED PERSECUTION OF UKRAINIANS AND CRIMEAN TATARS IN THE TEMPORARILY OCCUPIED CRIMEAN PENINSULA

2021 ◽  
pp. 86-93
Author(s):  
Boris Petrunok
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Collective Identity ◽  
Crimean Peninsula ◽  
The Crimea ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Identity Markers ◽  
Main Components ◽  
Crimean Tatar ◽  
The Crimean Peninsula

This article is dedicated to the study of identity markers in the context of politically motivated persecution by the Russian Federation in the temporarily occupied Crimean Peninsula. The occupational administration, following a set political course, basically builds a generalized „Other‟ that is being persecuted. They also create their own identity markers that further prove the longevity and legitimacy of the temporary occupation of Ukraine's territory. Cases of human rights violations, harassment of national and religious communities in the occupied Crimea are actively documented and investigated by non-governmental human rights organizations: Crimean Human Rights Group, Crimea SOS, Regional Center for Human Rights, Crimean Tatar Resource Center and a number of others. In the article proposed a comprehensive approach to the analysis of collective identity Crimean Tatars and Ukrainian. Author examined the main components of collective identity Crimean Tatars at the present stage. Considered the main challenges faced by the Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian community in connection with the occupation of the Crimea. Today we can talk about a specific list of elements indicating the ethnocide and linguicide agenda, political and religious persecution in the Crimean Peninsula. Furthermore, the so-called „general threat‟ is too blurry and undefined for the Russian Federation based on the gathered material throughout the years of occupation. The occupant cannot classify and define the risks that they face and that compromise the illegal occupation and attempt to annex a part of Ukrainian territory. So, they target all the self-organized active communities that are not controlled by the occupational government. Whether these communities have an agenda, national, cultural, or religious differences is an important factor, but it is not in priority. The Russian occupational regime understands its weakness on the temporarily occupied territory of the Crimean Peninsula, so it utilizes the logic and traditions of other authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. However, it will lead to the collapse of the dictatorship.

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.

The European Convention on Human Rights and International Law

2007 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luzius Wildhaber
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Mutual Relationship ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Special Character ◽  
British Institute

AbstractThis article is an expanded and footnoted version of the lectur given at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law on Tuesday 21 March 2006, entitled ‘International Law in the European Court of Human Rights’.The article begins with some comparative comments on the application of the European Convention on Human Rights in monistic and dualistic systems It then discusses in detail the European Court's case law which confirms that the Convention, despite its special character as a human rights treaty, is indeed part of public international law. It concludes that the Convention and international law find themselves in a kind of interactive mutual relationship. checking and buildine on each other.

Presumption of Innocence as a Principle of Administrative Offense Proceedings

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 30-34
Author(s):  
Artem R. Nobel ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The presumption of innocence is defined as one of the key principles of proceedings on the cases of administrative offenses. Using the current legislation, the legal positions of the highest courts of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights, judicial practice, the author reveals the essence of the presumption of innocence by highlighting the elements of this principle and characterizing their content.

Fragmentation of International Law Revisited: Insights, Good Practices, and Lessons to be Learned from the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 863-885 ◽  
Author(s):  
ADAMANTIA RACHOVITSA
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Good Practices ◽  
European Court ◽  
Interpretation Process ◽  
Fragmentation Of International Law

AbstractThis article discusses the contribution of the European Court of Human Rights to mitigating difficulties arising from the fragmentation of international law. It argues that the Court's case law provides insights and good practices to be followed. First, the article furnishes evidence that the Court has developed an autonomous and distinct interpretative principle to construe the European Convention on Human Rights by taking other norms of international law into account. Second, it offers a blueprint of the methodology that the Court employs when engaging with external norms in the interpretation process. It analyses the Court's approach to subtle contextual differences between similar or identical international norms and its position towards the requirements of Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). It concludes that international courts are developing innovative interpretative practices, which may not be strictly based on the letter of the VCLT.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document