scholarly journals O direito estatal à suspensão das obrigações do Pacto Internacional de Direitos Civis e Políticos | The state right to the suspension of the obligations of the international covenant on civil and political right

KPGT_dlutz_1 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-48
Author(s):  
Vivianny Galvão

O direito estatal à suspensão das obrigações do Pacto Internacional de Direitos Civis e Políticos Resumo: Este artigo dedica-se à análise do artigo 4.º do Pacto Internacional de Direitos Civis e Políticos de 1966, com especial atenção à interpretação do direito estatal à suspensão das obrigações internacionais. Cabe, atualmente, ao Conselho de Direitos Humanos das Nações Unidas a tarefa de investigar os casos em que esta suspensão acontece, bem como fiscalizar os motivos da suspensão e estabelecer os parâmetros considerados legítimos. Os direitos humanos trazidos pelo Pacto Internacional sobre os Direitos Civis e Políticos, além dos demais tratados em matéria de direitos humanos, limitam o direito estatal de suspensão. As medidas aplicadas pelo Estado que evocam o direito de derrogação precisam ser consideradas estritamente necessárias e sua adoção, fundamentada e temporária; caso contrário, o Estado derrogador será considerado violador das obrigações assumidas na ordem internacional. Somente o instrumento da denúncia é capaz de desobrigar o Estado dos acordos firmados e, ainda assim, essa desvinculação não alcançariam em tese certos costumes internacionais nem, tampouco, as normas de ius cogens ou obrigações erga omnes. Infere-se que a lógica do artigo 4.º, também presente na Convenção Europeia de Direitos Humanos, está norteada pela preservação do Estado Democrático de Direito conforme se extraiu da criação da categoria dos direitos irrevogáveis. Além disso, mesmo diante da possibilidade de suspensão parcial e temporária dos direitos, o Conselho de Direitos Humanos não deixa de fiscalizar a atuação do Estado, pelo contrário, esse Conselho passa a emitir recomendações mais contundentes contra o Estado. Palavras-chave: Direito de suspensão. Direitos humanos. Direito Internacional. Pacto Internacional de Direitos Civis e Políticos. _____ The state right to the suspension of the obligations of the international covenant on civil a: nd political right Abstract: This article is devoted to the analysis of the article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966, with special attention to the interpretation of state law to the suspension of international obligations. The UN Human Rights Council is now responsible for investigating the cases in which this suspension takes place, as well as monitoring the reasons for the suspension and establishing the parameters considered legitimate. The human rights brought by the ICCPR, in addition to the other human rights treaties, limit the State's right to suspend. The measures applied by the State that evoke the right of derogation must be considered strictly necessary and the adoption, substantiated and temporary. Otherwise, the derogating State shall be considered as violating the obligations assumed in the international order. Only the instrument of denunciation can release the State from the agreements reached and, even so, that untying would not achieve in theory certain international customs nor the norms of jus cogens or obligations erga omnes. It is inferred that the logic of Article 4, which is also present in the European Convention on Human Rights, is guided by the preservation of the Democratic Rule of Law as derived from the creation of the category of irrevocable rights. Moreover, even in the face of the possibility of partial and temporary suspension of rights, the Human Rights Council does not cease to supervise the actions of the State; on the contrary, this Council is issuing more forceful recommendations against the State. Keywords: Human rights. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. International Law. Right of suspension.

2016 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 859-894 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Lappin

AbstractThe right to vote is the most important political right in international human rights law. Framed within the broader right of political participation, it is the only right in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights not guaranteed as a universal human right but rather as a citizen's right. While limitations on the right to vote are permissible in respect of citizenship and age, residency-based restrictions are not explicitly provided. However, recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights endorse a view that voting rights may be conditioned on residency on the grounds of an individual's bond to their country-of-origin and the extent to which laws passed by that government would affect them. This article questions this proposition and explores whether disenfranchisement based solely on residency constitutes an unreasonable and discriminatory restriction to the essence of the right.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Broderick

The traditional dichotomy of rights between civil and political rights, on the one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights, on the other hand, has been increasingly eroded in scholarly and judicial discourse. The interdependence of the two sets of rights is a fundamental tenet of international human rights law. Nowhere is this interdependence more evident than in the context of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD or UN Convention). This article examines the indivisibility and interdependence of rights in the CRPD and, specifically, the positive obligations imposed on States Parties to the UN Convention, in particular the reasonable accommodation duty. The aim of the paper is to analyse, from a disability perspective, the approach adopted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or ‘Strasbourg Court’) in developing the social dimension of certain civil and political rights in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), namely Articles 2 and 3 (on the right to life and the prohibition on torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, respectively), Article 8 (on the right to private and family life) and Article 14 ECHR (on non-discrimination). Ultimately, this paper examines the influence of the CRPD on the interpretation by the Strasbourg Court of the rights of persons with disabilities under the ECHR. It argues that, while the Court is building some bridges to the CRPD, the incremental and often fragmented approach adopted by the Court could be moulded into a more principled approach, guided by the CRPD.


2013 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 99-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cornelias Ncube

This paper examines the implications of Zimbabwe's 2013 harmonised elections on the opposition's continued deployment of the rights-based discourse to make moral and political claims against and demands of the state. Since 2000, two polarising strands of the human rights discourse −1) the right to self-determination and 2) civil and political rights – were deployed by the state and the opposition, respectively, in order to challenge extant relations and structures of power. The acutely strained state–society relations in post-2000 Zimbabwe emanated from human rights violations by the state as it responded to challenges to its political power and legitimacy. However, the relative improvement in the human rights situation in the country since the 2009 coalition government came into office, and during and since the recently concluded peaceful 2013 elections – the flawed electoral process itself notwithstanding – suggests a need for alternative new ways to make moral and political demands of the state in the future.


SEEU Review ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-78
Author(s):  
Arta Bilalli

Abstract Interrogations are a very specific component of any criminal investigation. The answers gained through interrogative process provides information that are considered as direct evidences. In contemporary criminal procedure, the court is not absolved from gaining other evidences, even in cases when the defendant confesses his/her guiltiness. This is a mechanism for excluding the inquisitorial approach for extracting compulsory confessions. The modern procedure uses a variety of mechanisms to guarantee that the defendant will not be compelled to confess guilt. Those mechanisms are part of most important international conventions as International Convention for Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, the Statutes of International Tribunals (i.e. International Tribunal for ex-Yugoslavia, International Tribunal for Rwanda) and part of different constitutional and legal acts of modern states. A very interesting “highlight” remains the right to silence which guarantees that the defendant might remain silent and it will not be interpreted against him. The defendant, even in cases with direct evidences, can remain silent and cannot be forced to answer given questions. Another “highlight” is that one that appears from the privilege against self-incrimination that allows the defendant to not answer a question, if by answering, he/she may confess guilt or incriminate him/herself. How deep is this privilege? Are there, maybe questions, that he/she are obliged to answer (i.e. disclosure of identity?) The article will focus in interrogations and the right to silence by most important international acts and domestic acts of different countries (USA, France, Germany, Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia) and upcoming specifics in the relation interrogations vs. remaining silent.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-282
Author(s):  
Louise Reyntjens

In response to Islamic-inspired terrorism and the growing trend of foreign fighters, European governments are increasingly relying on citizenship deprivation as a security tool. This paper will focus on the question of how the fundamental rights of individuals deprived of their citizenship are affected and which protection is offered for them by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’). In many countries, these new and broader deprivation powers were left unaccompanied by stronger (procedural) safeguards that protect the human rights they might affect. Unlike the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the ECHR does not provide for an explicit right to citizenship. The question therefore rises what protection, if any, is offered by the ECHRsystem against citizenship deprivation and for the right to citizenship. Through a case study of the Belgian measure of citizenship deprivation, the (implicit) protection provided by the Convention-system is demonstrated.


Author(s):  
Tadeusz Jasudowicz

Abstract The subject of the study is the issue defined in international documents by the term “threat to the life of the nation” as a preliminary condition for departing from obligations in the field of human rights. This premise was adopted both in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as in similar regulations for individual continents, including the European Convention on Human Rights. However, on a practical basis, this issue has raised and continues to raise multiple interpretation doubts. In the presented considerations, various aspects of this problem are presented in the light of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. On the basis of these, it can be assumed that one cannot identify the category of the nation with the categories of the state and//or the population, since each of these categories has its due autonomy; while on the other hand, they accompany, coexist and remain in mutual relations and interaction. Hence, in international norms, both the treaty provisions and the treaty bodies in their rulings consistently confirm “the life of the nation” as the fundamental protected value, which does not prevent them from associating this value with values important for the state as such and for the population/society. The classic model of this approach has already been established by the ECtHR in the Lawless case, where the Court described a derogation situation as “an exceptional crisis or emergency situation that affects the entire population and poses a threat to the organized life of the community that comprises the state


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (91) ◽  
pp. 23-29
Author(s):  
Jelena Girfanova

In the paper “The prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment in closed Institutions” the author has examined the obxervasnce of  persons’  in detention,  custody or imprisonment human rights in the European regional acts and national instruments as well as the provision of health care for detainees and convicted persons alike.All basic human rights’ documents, namely: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United Nations and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms state that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, degrading his or her human dignity”.  All persons who have been punished, regardless of the crimes for which they were convicted, have the right to humane treatment and respect for their personality. No actions of people, whatever they may be, justify the inhuman treatment of them or the humiliation of their personality.  


1989 ◽  
Vol 29 (270) ◽  
pp. 196-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hernán Salinas Burgos

It is generally acknowledged by the international community that the taking of hostages is one of the most vile and reprehensible of acts. This crime violates fundamental individual rights—the right to life, to liberty and to security—that are protected by binding legal instruments such as the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the worldwide level, and the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights and the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms on the regional level. The United Nations General Assembly has stated that the taking of hostages is an act which places innocent human lives in danger and violates human dignity.


2005 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. 227-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Bohman

Democracy and human rights have long been strongly connected in international covenants. In documents such as 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1966 International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, democracy is justified both intrinsically in terms of popular sovereignty and instrumentally as the best way to “foster the full realization of all human rights.” Yet, even though they are human and thus universal rights, political rights are often surprisingly specific. In the Covenant, for example, “the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs” is equated with “the right to vote and to be elected.” More often then not, their realization is left to states and their constitutions, as for example in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. Political rights have a “peculiar” status among enumerated human rights, and this difficulty has to do with deep assumptions about the nature and scope of democracy and political community that remain unexamined by the drafters of these important declarations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document