scholarly journals Majority rule and human rights: identity and non-identity in SAS v France

2016 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-136
Author(s):  
Matthew Nicholson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Places ◽  
Human Rights Practice ◽  
Theodor Adorno ◽  
European Court ◽  
Political Function ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Identity Thinking

This article considers the July 2014 decision of the European Court of Human Rights in SAS v France in which the court upheld the legality of a ban on the wearing of the burqa and niqab in public places. Exploring the connection between SAS and a related trend of deference to the will of the national community in the court’s jurisprudence, it relies on Joseph Slaughter’s work to argue that the decision is best explained on the basis of what Theodor Adorno termed ‘identity thinking’ which, in a human rights context, involves the conceptualisation of human identity as something existing in and defined by the community rather than the individual. Drawing on the work of Franz Neumann, Otto Kirchheimer and Peter Mair, the article reflects on the social and political function of the ECtHR in the light of SAS and argues for an alignment between international human rights practice and the ‘non-identity thinking’ that Adorno advocated.

scholarly journals Doing Minority Justice Through Procedural Fairness: Face Veil Bans in Europe

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saïla Ouald Chaib ◽  
Saïla Ouald Chaib ◽  
Eva Brems
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Procedural Fairness ◽  
Public Places ◽  
The People ◽  
European Court ◽  
Complementary Approach ◽  
The Social ◽  
Multicultural Context ◽  
The Face ◽  
Legislative Processes

Abstract The French and Belgian bans on face veils in public places have been subjected to strong substantive human rights critiques. This article takes a complementary approach, examining the bans from the perspective of procedural fairness. Indeed, the French and Belgian bans are extreme examples of legislative processes taking place above the heads of the people concerned, neglecting the ban’s possible human rights impact. After exploring what the social psychology notion of procedural fairness entails for the judiciary and the legislator, especially in a multicultural context, this article details procedural fairness shortcomings with respect to the face veil ban in France and Belgium. Subsequently, the article sets out how the European Court of Human Rights might compensate for these shortcomings.

Environmental Displacement in European Asylum Law

2009 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 313-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Finn Myrstad ◽  
Vikram Kolmannskog
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Work Force ◽  
Displaced Persons ◽  
Temporary Protection ◽  
European Court ◽  
Asylum Law ◽  
The Individual ◽  
International Border ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Environmental Displacement

AbstractEnvironmentally displaced persons can be included in several existing categories of protected persons under international law, but there may be a normative protection gap for many of those who cross an international border. This article looks at protection possibilities within the EU framework and national European legislations. Environmental displacement can arguably trigger temporary protection according to the EU Temporary Protection Directive. There may also be environmentally displaced persons who require longer-term or permanent protection. Drawing on the EU Qualification Directive and case-law from the European Court of Human Rights, one can argue that subsidiary protection should be granted in certain cases of extreme natural disaster or degradation. In less extreme cases, humanitarian asylum could be granted. Human rights principles such as non-refoulement could also be used to extend at least basic protection. In addition, legal labour migration could supply a work force, assist distressed countries and enhance protection of the individual. A strategy to meet the challenge of environmental displacement must also include climate change mitigation and external measures such as adaptation. Most of the displaced persons in the world today and in the near future do not arrive at the EU borders.

scholarly journals The echr and the Protection of Irregular Migrants in the Social Sphere

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-67
Author(s):  
Sylvie Da Lomba
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Social Dimension ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Irregular Migrants ◽  
Social Sphere ◽  
European Court ◽  
Poor Access ◽  
The Social ◽  
International Adjudication

For more than a decade, the Council of Europe has expressed deep concern over irregular migrants’ poor access to basic social rights. With this in mind, I consider the extent to which the European Convention on Human Rights can contribute to protect irregular migrants in the social sphere. To this end, I consider the role of international supervisory bodies in social rights adjudication and discuss the suitability of international adjudication as a means to uphold irregular migrants’ social rights. Having reached the conclusion that international adjudication can help protect irregular migrants’ social rights, I examine the ‘social dimension’ of the European Convention on Human Rights and the significance that the European Court of Human Rights attaches to immigration status. I posit that the importance that the Court attaches to resource and immigration policy considerations in N v. United Kingdom significantly constrains the ability of the European Convention on Human Rights to afford irregular migrants protection in the social sphere.

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 Khlaifia and Others v. Italy

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-280
Author(s):  
Jill I. Goldenziel
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Detention Centers ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Arab Spring ◽  
Domestic Law

In Khlaifia and Others v. Italy, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber or Court) released a landmark opinion with broad implications for how states must respect the individual rights of migrants. In the judgment, issued on December 15, 2016, the Court held that Italy's treatment of migrants after the Arab Spring violated the requirement of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that migrants receive procedural guarantees that enable them to challenge their detention and expulsion. The Court also held that Italy's treatment of migrants in detention centers did not violate the ECHR's prohibition on cruel and inhuman treatment, in part due to the emergency circumstances involved. The Court further held that Italy's return of migrants to Tunisia did not violate the prohibition on collective expulsion in Article 4 of Protocol 4 of the ECHR. Enforcement of the judgment would require many European states to provide a clear basis in domestic law for the detention of migrants and asylum-seekers. Given the global diffusion of state practices involving migrants, and other states’ desires to restrict migration, this case has broad implications for delineating the obligations of states to migrants and the rights of migrants within receiving countries.

scholarly journals The legal meaning of the terms "torture", "inhuman treatment or punishment", "degrading treatment or punishment" and their distinction in the decisions of the European commission of human rights and the European court of human rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 26-33
Author(s):  
Khrystyna YAMELSKA
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Convention Against Torture ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
Legal Meaning

The paper reveals the legal meaning of the terms "torture", "inhuman treatment or punishment", "treatment or punishment that degrades human dignity". A distinction between these concepts is made on the examples of court decisions of European courts, taking into account the individual circumstances of each case. The genesis of the origin of the above concepts is investigated through a prism of the decisions of the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. The paper reveals the absolute nature of the "jus cogens" norm of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The author proposes to modernize the Ukrainian criminal legislation on the reception of the position of the European Court of Human Rights on the delimitation of these concepts. In contrast to the European convention regulation of ill-treatment, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the author notes that the Ukrainian legislation regulates this issue quite succinctly. The Article 127 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine provides a definition only of torture, which in essence coincides with the definition of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the position of the European Court of Human Rights. The paper notes that the practice of Ukrainian courts shows that a distinction (similar to that provided by the European Court of Human Rights) is not implemented.

scholarly journals Improving Human Rights Protection on the national and the European Level

2015 ◽  
pp. 36-51
Author(s):  
RUDOLF DUR SCHNUTZ
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Level ◽  
European Level ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Current State ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Venice Commission ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
The Individual

The recent move towards the individual access to constitutional justice is a progress for protection of human rights in Europe. The explicit purpose of these efforts is to settle human rights issues on the national level and to reduce the number of cases at the Strasbourg Court. Such individual complaints have to be designed in a way that makes them an effective remedy which has to be exhausted before a case can be brought before the European Court of Human Rights. This paper points out the current state of these improvements on the national level in a difficult context on the European level and the recommendations of the Venice Commission in this regard.

scholarly journals The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the social model of health: new perspectives

2014 ◽  
pp. 74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penelope Weller
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Social Model ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
People With Mental Illness ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Social ◽  
Rights Discourse ◽  
Human Rights Discourse ◽  
Health Laws

Contemporary mental health laws are embedded in basic human rights principle, and their ongoing evolution is influenced by contemporary human rights discourse, international declarations and conventions, and the authoritative jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR). The<em> Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities</em> (CRPD) is the most recent expression of international human rights applicable to people with disability including people with mental illness.3 It provides a fresh benchmark against which to assess the human rights compatibility of domestic mental health laws.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document