scholarly journals Giving Due Consideration: A Normative Pathway between UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring Bodies and Domestic Courts

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Machiko Kanetake
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Treaty Monitoring

The Legal Status of Decisions by Human Rights Treaty Bodies

2020 ◽  
pp. 129-158
Author(s):  
Leonardo Borlini ◽  
Luigi Crema
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Legal Scholarship ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Ordinary Meaning ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Treaty Monitoring ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
Legal Position

Academic analysis of pronouncements of human rights treaty monitoring bodies has tended to focus on their contribution to the promotion of human rights in domestic jurisdictions, particularly to convey the desire of scholars to see more use of these pronouncements by domestic courts. Comparatively little attention has been paid to the issue of their legal status in light of the supervisory function of human rights monitoring bodies. This chapter starts with a thorough analysis of a few recent cases by national courts, which commented on the legal value of the work of these bodies. The chapter then challenges two recurring arguments in the legal scholarship: their assimilation to judicial bodies, and the existence of a procedural obligation on states to consider their views. Next, it focuses on the interpretive weight of the pronouncements of these treaty bodies in international law, and, accordingly, in national jurisdictions. The chapter argues that the alleged existence of a general procedural obligation on states to consider the pronouncements of human rights treaty monitoring bodies is controversial, and that their work does not have a specific, or privileged, legal position in defining the ordinary meaning of a treaty. The conclusions point out that supervisory bodies have a specific and important role in the international legal order, different from that of courts, which bears preserving.

scholarly journals UN HUMAN RIGHTS TREATY MONITORING BODIES BEFORE DOMESTIC COURTS

2017 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 201-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Machiko Kanetake
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Treaty Monitoring

AbstractThis article analyses both cooperative and confrontational interactions between domestic judges and UN human rights treaty monitoring bodies. Based on a number of cases collected through multiple databases, this article addresses the basis on which the monitoring bodies encourage the domestic acceptance of their views, general comments, and reports; how domestic courts engage with these findings; on what basis; and why some courts are more willing to engage with these findings. A key argument is that judicial accommodation is highly selective; domestic judges occasionally avoid, discount, and contest the interpretation put forward by the treaty monitoring bodies and thereby pose a challenge to their legitimacy.

The Institutional Future of the Covenants

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felice D Gaer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Body System ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
Treaty Monitoring ◽  
Treaty Body ◽  
International Human ◽  
Normative Standards ◽  
Individual Petition

Longstanding proposals to strengthen implementation of the international human rights treaties have often focused on procedural reforms such as harmonizing methods of work or consolidating ten treaty monitoring bodies into one. This article reviews past reform efforts and then considers proposals to create stronger individual petition mechanisms—including a ‘world court’—as a way of strengthening human rights implementation. After discussing these proposals, the author offers additional ways to make the system more effective and efficient. She rejects the oft-suggested proposal to create a ‘world court’ for human rights, noting legal, organizational, logistical, and financial obstacles. Rather than rushing to tear down the current treaty body system, the author offers a proposal for determining how consolidation of petition proceedings might affect normative standards.

Complementary Protection and Encampment

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bríd Ní Ghráinne
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Relief ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Treaty Monitoring ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Individual

Abstract A camp may be described as a temporary space in which individuals receive humanitarian relief and protection until a durable solution can be found to their situation. The camp environment is often riddled with contradictions—the camp can be a place of refuge while at the same time, a place of overcrowding, exclusion and suffering. This article asks to what extent removal of an individual from state A to state B, where he or she will have to live in a camp, is a breach of state A’s human rights law obligations. It argues that even if encampment in state B will expose the individual to terrible conditions, it is unlikely that they will be able to successfully challenge a removal decision before international human rights courts and/or treaty monitoring bodies.

Ius Humanitatis and the Right to Reparation for International Crimes in Foreign Domestic Courts

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 358-376
Author(s):  
Marcel Brus
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Domestic Court ◽  
Core Element ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Humanitarian Ethics ◽  
The Right

This article focuses on the possibilities for victims of international crimes to obtain reparation in a foreign domestic court. The chances of success for such claims are small under traditional international law. The article questions whether the development of human rights and humanitarian ethics as a core element of international law (referred to as ius humanitatis) is having an impact on traditional obstacles to making such claims. Two elements are considered: the relevance of changing societal attitudes to the ‘rights’ of victims of such crimes and their possible effect on the interpretation and application of existing law, and whether in present-day international law humanitarian concerns have led to limiting obstacles that are still based on sovereignty, notably regarding the universality principle, prescription, and state immunity. The general conclusion is that on all these points much remains to be done.

When interpreting domestic legislation courts must, so far as it is possible, read and give effect to such legislation in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights; see s3(1). Hence domestic courts are given a degree of latitude – reference to the jurisprudence of Strasbourg is mandatory – but it need only be taken into account. Legislation must be construed in a manner compatible with the Convention but only so far as is possible. Three points are particularly worth noting: • When applying the European Convention on Human Rights a domestic court should be prepared to take a generous view as to whether an activity falls within the protection afforded by the Convention’s articles. • The Convention is to be regarded as a ‘living’ or ‘dynamic’ instrument to be interpreted in the light of current conditions. More recent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights will be regarded as carrying more weight than earlier decisions. • Where an Article of the Convention permits some state interference with the enjoyment of a right, a court assessing the extent to which that interference is compatible with the Convention should consider (i) whether the interference is provided for by law; (ii) whether it serves a legitimate purpose; (iii) whether the interference is proportionate to the end to be achieved; (iv) whether it is necessary in a democratic society; (v) whether it is discriminatory in operation; and (vi) whether the state should be allowed a margin of appreciation in its compliance with the Convention – that is, be allowed to apply the Convention to suit national standards. The ‘quality of law test’

1996 ◽  
pp. 88-88
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Standards ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Domestic Court ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
State Interference

The European Court of Human Rights and Removal of Long-term Migrants

2021 ◽  
pp. 159-174
Author(s):  
Başak Çalı ◽  
Stewart Cunningham
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Unique Position ◽  
European Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Central Argument ◽  
The Right ◽  
Dual Commitment

This chapter analyses the general interpretative outlook of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on the rights of long-term migrants facing deportation. It shows that this outlook is strongly marked by recognising the primacy of state discretion in the field of migration policy, while at the same time ensuring that long-term migrants are given access to the protection of the Convention. The chapter then surveys the case law of the ECtHR related to the deportation of long-term migrants, identifying the factors that the Court employs in balancing its dual commitment to states and long-term migrants. The central argument of the chapter is that the Court’s approach to the right to stay of long-term migrants falls short of adequately recognising the unique position of long-term migrants and is unable to differentiate between those who have lived for lengthy periods in host states and any other category of alien in those states. The Court’s recent emphasis on principled deference to domestic courts in balancing the rights of long-term migrants and host states further undercuts any future progressive developments in the field of right to stay for long-term migrants.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document