DOCSLIB.ORG

Enlarging the Scope of the European Convention on Human Rights: History, Philosophical Roots and Practical Outcomes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Enlarging the Scope of the European Convention on Human Rights: History, Philosophical Roots and Practical Outcomes Zbornik PFZ, 65, (2) 309-326 (2015) 309 ENLARGING THE SCOPE OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS: HISTORY, PHILOSOPHICAL ROOTS AND PRACTICAL OUTCOMES Elena Sychenko, LL. M. * UDK: 341.231.14(4):340.112 Pregledni znanstveni rad Primljeno: ožujak 2015. The history of the development of the European Convention on Human Rights represents a unique experience of widening the scope of protection of an interna- tional instrument from classical political and civil rights to certain social and economic rights. With a particular focus upon the protection of labour rights under the European Convention, the author researches the roots of expansion of the Convention, analyzing the process of drafting and the capabilities theory of A. Sen, and the application of Convention as a “living instrument”. The paper traces how the judgments of the European Court in social matters contribute to the development of the relevant legislation of the states and establish enforceable standards of human rights protection. Keywords: European Court of Human Rights, European Convention on Hu- man Rights, labour rights, “living instrument” 1. HISTORY OF THE DRAFTING OF THE ECHR The history of the development of the European Convention on Human Rights represents a unique experience of widening the scope of protection of an international instrument from classical political and civil rights to certa- in social and economic rights. The reasons and the ways of broadening the Convention’s authority will be discussed in the present paper focusing on the history of the drafting of the Convention and on the integration of new rights into the original text. * Elena Sychenko, LL. M., Senior Lecturer, State Institute of Economics, Finance and Law, Leningrad region, Russia; home address: ul. K. Marksa, 36a, 21 Gatchina, Leningrad region, Russia; [email protected] 310 E. Sychenko: Enlarging the Scope of the European Convention on Human Rights: History... It is commonly said that the Convention was deemed to be the instrument of protection from totalitarianism as it was drafted shortly after the fall of Nazi Germany in the atmosphere of the post-war enlargement of totalitarian Soviet countries.1 Since the Nuremberg judgments had established a new concept of international responsibility and consequently a new concept of national sovereignty, it was considered necessary to establish effective international guarantees of human rights.2 Human rights, listed solemnly in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, lacked a mechanism of protection. In the course of 1949 it had be- come rather evident for the international community that the International Covenant, which was supposed to represent the international guarantee of human rights, would be very long in coming (in that time it was not yet clear that the rights would be divided into two documents3). The adoption of the Convention by the countries of the Council of Europe was a way of implemen- ting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Ten founding countries which created the Council of Europe in 1949 evi- dently represented a more homogenous group of countries than the members of the UN and could easier reach a consensus on the matter of human rights protection, particularly taking into account that the political and civil rights concerned were already fixed in their domestic legislations. The drafting of the Convention began shortly after the creation of the Council of Europe in 1949. It was not an easy process as even in this “ho- mogenous” circle of countries there were different views on the due scope of the future convention, the mechanism of protection, and on the possibility of restriction of national sovereignty. The main points of dispute were the follow- ing: 1. the definition of rights; 2. the list of rights; 3. the process of supervision and the right to individual petition. A discussion of these controversial points 1 As Winston Churchill put it in his speech on the First Session of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on 12.08.1949 “we have to… protect ourselves against any risk of being overrun, crushed by whatever form of totalitarian tyranny.” Cited from: Voices of Europe: A Selection of Speeches Delivered Before the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 1949-96, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 1997, p. 11. 2 Gordon L. Weil, The European convention on human rights: background, development and prospects, A.W. Sythoff, Leyden, 1963, p. 22. 3 For example, USSR and Syria opposed the idea of placing economic, social, and cultural rights in a separate instrument. See Daniel J. Whelan, Indivisible Human Rights: A History, University of Pennsylvania Press, Pennsylvania, 2011, p. 75 Zbornik PFZ, 65, (2) 309-326 (2015) 311 might contribute to our understanding of the roots of the future expansion of the Convention and, therefore, deserves to be presented in more detail. 1.1. The dispute on the definition of rights According to the Papers of the First Session of the Committee of Ministers4 held in Strasbourg in 1949, the proposal to define each right was opposed by some representatives who argued that the rights mentioned were already “abundantly dealt with”.5 Based primarily on their experience in drawing up constitutions for ex-colonies, the British favoured a precise definition of the rights to be included. The French representative M. Teitgen thought that mere enumeration, a statement of principles such as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, would be easily enough enforced by the European Court.6 The final text of the Convention does not contain a fixed definition of rights, leaving to the Court the power of interpretation, which with the years has become the driving force of the Convention’s evolution. It may be presu- med that the power of interpretation granted to the Court was not intentional. It seems more probable that the rights were not defined as their meanings were already very familiar to the legal systems of European states and were “already protected thoroughly”.7 As the former Vice-President of the European Commi- ssion of human rights J. A. Frowein noted, “the countries did not expect that the European Convention would go further than their internal system”.8 1.2. Dispute on the list of rights It is remarkable to note that as early as in the preparatory stages of draft- ing there were ideas of creation of a “complete code of all the freedoms and fundamental rights, and all the so-called social freedoms and rights”.9 The 4 Papers of the First Session of the Committee of Ministers, Strasbourg, 1949, available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dgal/dit/ilcd/archives/selection/cm/1949Aug.pdf (accessed 01.11.2014). 5 See the opinion of the French representative M. Schuman. Ibid., p. 34. 6 Gordon L. Weil, op. cit. (fn. 2), p. 28. 7 Ed Bates, The Evolution of the European Convention on Human Rights: From Its Inception to the Creation of a Permanent Court of Human Rights, Oxford University Press, New York, 2010, p. 114. 8 Jochen Frowein, The transformation of the constitutional law through the ECHR, Israel Law Review, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2008, p. 490. 9 These words were said by Pierre-Henri Teitgen while presenting the Draft of the Convention on 19.08.1949, cited from Ed Bates, op. cit. (fn. 7), p. 59. 312 E. Sychenko: Enlarging the Scope of the European Convention on Human Rights: History... Convention was perceived by some members of the drafting committee as a “guarantee for further development of social justice in Europe”10 although it was initially aimed at protecting only basic civil and political rights. The idea to include economic or social rights was in the air, but was re- jected. One of the fathers of the Convention, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, found these rights to be “too controversial and difficult for enforcement even in the changing state of social and international development in Europe”; in his view their inclusion could jeopardize the acceptance of the Convention.11 The ap- proach of the drafters to social rights was vividly expressed by Teitgen: “Cer- tainly, ‘professional’ freedoms and ‘social’ rights, which have in themselves a fundamental value, must also, in the future, be defined and protected; but everyone will understand that it is necessary to begin at the beginning and to guarantee political democracy in the European Union, and then to co-ordinate our economies, before undertaking the generalisation of social democracy.”12 It is curious to note that Teitgen was in fact one of the judges of the ECtHR in 1978 considering the case Tyre v. United Kingdom, where the approach to the Convention as to a living instrument was formulated for the first time.13 This approach later permitted to significantly widen the scope of rights, guaranteed by the Convention, including also “professional and social rights” mentioned by Teitgen during the drafting process. 1.3. Dispute on establishment of a process of supervision and the right to individual petition The structure and powers of the bodies and the issue of supervision were further points of controversy. The authors of the Convention completely ove- restimated the willingness of certain States to create a human rights instru- ment that threatened their sovereignty; in 1949-1950 the governments of cer- 10 Words of the Socialist representative cited in Gordon L. Weil, op. cit. (fn. 2), p. 12. 11 See Collected Edition of the “Travaux Préparatoires” of the European Convention on Human Rights: Preparatory Commission of the Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Consulta- tive Assembly, 11 May-8 September 1949, Council of Europe, Brill, Strasbourg, 1975, p. 116. 12 Cited from Ed Bates, op. cit. (fn. 7), p. 65 13 ECtHR, Tyrer v. United Kingdom, 5856/72, 25.04.1978, para 31.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conseil De L'europe Council of Europe Cour Européenne Des Droits De L
    CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF O’HALLORAN AND FRANCIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Applications nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 29 June 2007 2 O’HALLORAN AND FRANCIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT In the case of O’Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of: Jean-Paul Costa, President, Luzius Wildhaber, Christos Rozakis, Nicolas Bratza, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Rıza Türmen, Volodymyr Butkevych, Josep Casadevall, Matti Pellonpää, Snejana Botoucharova, Stanislav Pavlovschi, Lech Garlicki, Javier Borrego Borrego, Alvina Gyulumyan, Ljiljana Mijović, Egbert Myjer, Ján Šikuta, judges, and Vincent Berger, Jurisconsult, Having deliberated in private on 27 September 2006 and on 23 May 2007, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last- mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in two applications (nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two British nationals, Mr Gerard O’Halloran and Mr Idris Richard Francis (“the applicants”), on 3 April 2002 and 15 November 2001 respectively. 2. The applicants, one of whom had been granted legal aid, were represented by Mr J. Welch of Liberty, London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr D. Walton of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 3. Mr O’Halloran alleged that he had been convicted solely or mainly on account of the statement he had been compelled to provide under threat of a penalty similar to the offence itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Rolv Ryssdal* President, and the Former Vice-President, Hermann Mosler Council of Europe
    section Some Notable People3 in the Court’s History CHAPTER 7 Presidents of the Court Lord (Arnold Duncan) McNair (1885–1975) British • Barrister, law professor and international judge • Judge (1946–52) and President of the International Court of Justice (1952–5) • President (1959–65) and thereafter judge at the Court (1965–6) Lord McNair served as the first President of the Court. He was educated at Aldenham School and Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, where he read law. From 1907 to 1908 he was Secretary of the Cambridge University Liberal Club, and in 1909 he was President of the Cambridge Union. After practising as a solicitor in London, he returned to Cambridge in 1912 to become a fellow of his old college, later becoming senior tutor. In 1917 he was called to the Bar, Gray’s Inn. He had taken an interest in international law from an early age, and in 1935 he was appointed Whewell Professor of International Law at Cambridge. However, he left this chair in 1937 to become Vice-Chancellor of Above: Lord (Arnold Duncan) McNair. Liverpool University. He remained at Liverpool until 1945, Opposite: Poster with some of the when he returned to Cambridge to take up the position of Convention’s keywords (2009). Professor of Comparative Law. The following year he was 106 The Conscience of Europe: 50 Years of the European Court of Human Rights Chapter 7: Presidents of the Court elected a judge of the International Court of Justice in The rights. He wanted above all to place human rights at the heart 1974 that France ratified the Convention, only two years Hague, a post he held until 1955, and he was also President of the European construction project then just beginning.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume.1, Issue.1 AVE MARIA INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL
    AVE MARIA INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL SYMPOSIUM: THE HOLY SEE: INTERNATIONAL PERSON AND SOVEREIGN ARTICLES The Holy See: International Person and Sovereign Robert John Araujo Foreign Sovereign Immunity and the Holy See Robert John Araujo The New Delicta Graviora Laws Davide Cito Le nuove norme sui delicta graviora Davide Cito The Holy See in Dialogue With the Jane Adolphe Committee on the Rights of the Child STUDENT NOTE The Truth Unraveled: Lowering Maternal Mortality Elise Kenny Inaugural Issue Volume 1 Fall 2011 Dedicated to Robert John Araujo, S.J. AVE MARIA INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 2011 - 2012 EDITORIAL BOARD ISSN 2375-2173 JESSICA HOYT Editor-in-Chief CHANILLE L. GRIGSBY ELISE KENNY Managing Editor Publication Manager MAJEL BRADEN MATEUSZ SZYMANSKI Executive Articles Editor Executive Articles Editor SENIOR EDITORS MELINDA ALICO AMY PENFOLD GENEVIEVE TURNER ASSOCIATE EDITORS MICHAEL ACQUILANO ASHLEY HARVEY MUKENI NADINE NTUMBA ASTHA ADHIKARY MARKUS HORNER ALISON ROGERS DOUGLAS CHRISTIANSEN BRENDAN MURPHY MARISSA ROZAS CATHERINE DREYER STEPHANIE MUSKUS COREY SMITH BRIAN GRAVUNDER RENEE VEZINA FACULTY ADVISORS JUDGE DANIEL RYAN PROFESSOR JANE ADOLPHE PROFESSOR KEVIN GOVERN AVE MARIA INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 2010 - 2011 EDITORIAL BOARD CHERYL LEDOUX Editor-in-Chief STEPHANIE GREWE JENNA ROWAN Managing Editor Publication Manager KATHERINE BUDZ SARA SCHMELING Executive Articles Editor Executive Articles Editor SENIOR EDITORS DOUG LAING LISA UTTER ASSOCIATE EDITORS MELINDA ALICO CHANILLE GRIGSBY AMY PENFOLD MAJEL BRADEN JESSICA HOYT MATEUSZ SZYMANSKI EVA-MARIE CHITTY ELISE KENNY GENEVIEVE TURNER FACULTY ADVISORS JUDGE DANIEL RYAN PROFESSOR JANE ADOLPHE ARTICLE SUBMISSIONS The Ave Maria International Law Journal is constantly seeking timely and thought- provoking articles that engage the international legal community on a wide range of topics.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2013 Prov
    European Court of Human Rights Annual Report 2013 Provisional Version Registry of the European Court of Human Rights Strasbourg, 2014 All or part of this document may be freely reproduced with acknowledgment of the source “Annual Report 2013 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe”. Photographs: Council of Europe Cover: the Human Rights Building (Architects: Richard Rogers Partnership and Atelier Claude Bucher) – Photograph: Michel Christen, Council of Europe CONTENTS Foreword 5 I. The Court in 2013 7 II. Composition of the Court 15 III. Composition of the Sections 19 IV. Speech given by Mr Dean Spielmann, President of the European Court of Human Rights, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 25 January 2013 23 V. Speech given by Ms Christiane Taubira, Garde des Sceaux, French Minister of Justice, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 25 January 2013 31 VI. Speech given by Mr Theodor Meron, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, President of the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 25 January 2013 39 VII. President’s Diary 49 VIII. Activities of the Grand Chamber, Sections and single- judge formations 59 IX. Case-law information, training and outreach 63 X. Summary of the main judgments and decisions delivered by the Court in 2013 77 XI. Cases reported in the Court’s Case-law Information Notes in 2013 147 XII. Statistical information 191 Events in total (2012-2013) 193 Pending cases allocated
    [Show full text]
  • Case of Jussila V. Finland
    CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS Case of Jussila v. Finland (Application no. 73053/01) Judgment Strasbourg, 23 November 2006 CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT O F HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF JUSSILA v. FINLAND (Application no. 73053/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 23 November 2006 2 JUSSILA v. FINLAND JUDGMENT In the case of Jussila v. Finland, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of: Jean-Paul Costa, President, Nicolas Bratza, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Peer Lorenzen, Lucius Caflisch, Loukis Loucaides, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Volodymyr Butkevych, Josep Casadevall, Matti Pellonpää, Kristaq Traja, Mindia Ugrekhelidze, Antonella Mularoni, Elisabet Fura-Sandström, Ljiljana Mijović, Dean Spielmann, Ján Šikuta, judges, and Erik Fribergh, Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 5 July and 25 October 2006, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last- mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 73053/01) against the Republic of Finland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Finnish national, Mr Esa Jussila (“the applicant”), on 21 June 2001. 2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr P. Lappalainen, a lawyer practising in Nokia. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr A. Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. 3. The applicant alleged that he had not received a fair hearing in the proceedings in which a tax surcharge was imposed as he had not been given an oral hearing.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2012 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe”
    European Court of Human Rights Annual Report 2012 Provisional Version Registry of the European Court of Human Rights Strasbourg, 2013 All or part of this document may be freely reproduced with acknowledgment of the source “Annual Report 2012 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe”. Photographs: Council of Europe Cover: the Human Rights Building (Architects: Richard Rogers Partnership and Atelier Claude Bucher) – Photograph: Michel Christen, Council of Europe – Graphic design: Publications Unit of the Registry of the Court CONTENTS Foreword 5 I. The Court in 2012 9 II. Composition of the Court 17 III. Composition of the Sections 21 IV. Speech given by Sir Nicolas Bratza, President of the European Court of Human Rights, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 27 January 2012 29 V. Speech given by Mr Thomas Hammarberg, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 27 January 2012 39 VI. Visits 51 VII. Activities of the Grand Chamber, Sections and single- judge formations 57 VIII. Publication of information on the Court and its case-law 61 IX. Short survey of the main judgments and decisions delivered by the Court in 2012 71 X. Cases reported in the Court’s Case-law Information Notes in 2012 103 XI. Statistical information 147 Pending cases allocated to a judicial formation at 31 December 2012 (respondent States) 149 Pending cases allocated to a judicial formation at 31 December 2012 (main respondent States) 150 Court’s workload by state of proceedings and application type at 31 December 2012 151 Violations by Article and by respondent State (2012) 152 Violations by Article and by respondent State (2012) (continued) 153 Applications allocated to a judicial formation (1999-2012) 154 Judgments (1999-2012) 155 European Court of Human Rights – Annual Report 2012 Allocated applications by State and by population (2009-2012) 156 4 FOREWORD The year 2012 almost exactly corresponded to the term of office of my predecessor Sir Nicolas Bratza.
    [Show full text]
  • European Court of Human Rights
    CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA (Application no. 55707/00) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 February 2009 ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Andrejeva v. Latvia, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of: Jean-Paul Costa, President, Christos Rozakis, Nicolas Bratza, Peer Lorenzen, Françoise Tulkens, Josep Casadevall, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Corneliu Bîrsan, Nina Vajić, Alvina Gyulumyan, Dean Spielmann, Davíd Thór Björgvinsson, Ján Šikuta, Ineta Ziemele, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, and Michael O’Boyle, Deputy Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 25 June 2008 and on 14 January 2009, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last- mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 55707/00) against the Republic of Latvia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a “permanently resident non-citizen” (nepilsone) of Latvia who was previously a national of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Ms Natālija Andrejeva (“the applicant”), on 27 February 2000. 2. The applicant was represented before the Court by Mr V. Buzajevs, Member of Parliament. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Reine. 3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that by refusing to grant her a State pension in respect of her employment in the former Soviet Union prior to 1991 on the ground that she did not have Latvian citizenship, the national authorities had discriminated against her in the exercise of her pecuniary rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2014
    EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME Annual Report 2014 Provisional version European Court of Human Rights Annual Report 2014 Provisional Version Registry of the European Court of Human Rights Strasbourg, 2015 All or part of this document may be freely reproduced with acknowledgment of the source “Annual Report 2014 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe”. Photographs: Council of Europe Cover: the Human Rights Building (Architects: Richard Rogers Partnership and Atelier Claude Bucher) – Photograph: Michel Christen, Council of Europe CONTENTS Foreword 5 I. The Court in 2014 9 II. Composition of the Court 17 III. Composition of the Sections 21 IV. Speech given by Mr Dean Spielmann, President of the European Court of Human Rights, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 31 January 2014 29 V. Speech given by Prof. Dr Andreas Voßkuhle, President of the German Federal Constitutional Court, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 31 January 2014 39 VI. President’s Diary 49 VII. Activities of the Grand Chamber, Sections and single- judge formations 61 VIII. Case-law information, training and outreach 67 IX. Overview of the Court’s case-law in 2014 79 X. Statistical information 163 Events in total (2013-14) 165 Pending cases allocated to a judicial formation at 31 December 2014 (respondent States) 166 Pending cases allocated to a judicial formation at 31 December 2014 (main respondent States) 167 Court’s workload by state of proceedings and application type at 31 December 2014 168 Violations by subject matter at 31 December 2014 169 Applications allocated to a judicial formation (2000-14) 170 Judgments (2000-14) 171 Allocated applications by State and by population (2011-14) 172 Violations by Article and by respondent State (2014) 174 Violations by Article and by respondent State (1959-2014) 176 FOREWORD Looking back over 2014, we can take pleasure in a number of successes achieved by the Court this year.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law
    Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law Publication TheCambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law (CJICL) is an open-access publication available online at <http://cilj.co.uk>. Each volume consists of two or more general issues and occasional symposiums on a particular area of law. Editorial policy All submissions are subject to a double-blind peer-review editorial process by our Academic Review Board and/or our Editorial Board. Submissions The Journal accepts the following types of manuscript: (i) Long Articles between 6,000 and 12,000 words but not exceeding 12,000 words including footnotes; (ii) Short Articles not exceeding 5,000 words including footnotes; (iii) Case Notes not exceeding 3,000 words including footnotes; and (iv) Book Reviews not exceeding 2,500 words including footnotes. Please visit our website for submission details. Copyright and open-access policy The CJICL is an open-access publication governed by our publishing and licensing agreement. Any commercial use and any form of republication of material not covered by the applicable license is subject to the express permission of the Editors-in-Chief. Contact information Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law Faculty of Law, 10 West Road Cambridge, CB3 9DZ United Kingdom E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://cilj.co.uk Typeset in InDesign. ISSN 2050–1706 (Print) ISSN 2050–1714 (Online) © 2016 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law and Contributors This issue should be cited as (2016) 5(3) CJICL. http://cilj.co.uk
    [Show full text]
  • The International Court of Justice and the 'Principle Of
    CHAPTER 25 THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE AND THE ‘PRINCIPLE OF NON-USE OF FORCE’ CLAUS KREß I. Introduction The international law on the use of force underwent signifcant developments in the inter-war period, most signifcantly through the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, as enshrined in Article I of the 1928 Kellogg–Briand Pact.1 Yet, the law preceding the United Nations Charter2 remained fraught with uncertainties due, perhaps most importantly, to the notoriously ambiguous concept of war and the possible scope for certain lawful forcible measures short of war.3 Te 1 General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy of 27 Aug 1928, LNTS XCIV (1929), 58. 2 Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice, 26 June 1945. 3 For one important exposition of the complexities of the pre-Charter law on the use of force, see Ian Brownlie, International Law and the Use of Force by States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), 19–111, 214–50; Sir Humphrey Waldock, ‘Te Regulation of the Use of Force by Individual States in International Law’ (1952-II) 81 Receuil des cours de l’Académie de droit international 455. Weller180414OUK.indb 561 12/18/2014 7:26:34 PM 562 CLAUS KREß Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) had not developed a case law on those matters4 and only limited light was shed on them by the International Military Tribunals immediately afer the Second World War.5 Since 1945, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been called upon to interpret the UN Charter provisions on the use of force in international relations against this international law back- ground full of obscurities.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Highlights
    ANNUAL HIGHLIGHTS 2018-19 ANNUAL HIGHLIGHTS Click to navigate CONTENTS 1. Highlights of the Year 10. Events and Conferences 18. Student Fellowship Programme 3. Thank You 11. Eleanor Roosevelt Statue Unveiling 20. Bonavero Research 4. Institutional Structure 12. Human Rights Network events 21. Research Seminars and Roundtable Discussions 5. Benefactors 13. Confronting Illiberalism 22. Staff Activities 5. Advisory Council 15. Book Launches 25. Global Reach 6. Founding Principles 16. Price Media Law Moot Court Competition 24. Contact details 7. Staffing 17. Programmes, Community & Student 8. Social Media Enrichment 9. Kofi Annan’s Visit HIGHLIGHTS OF THE YEAR The Bonavero Institute has been a busy place in its second year of operation. The year started with Secretary Hillary Clinton unveiling Penelope Jencks’ magnificent statue of Eleanor Roosevelt in the gardens of Mansfield just outside the Institute. Eleanor Roosevelt was the chairperson of Speakers included Adam Bodnar, the Polish the committee that drafted the Universal Ombud, Nic Dawes, Deputy Executive Director Declaration of Human Rights and guided for Media at Human Rights Watch, Michael Baroness Helena Kennedy QC its adoption by the United Nations General Ignatieff, the Rector of the Central European The Founding Fellow of the Bonavero Institute of Human Assembly in December 1948. She is an University, and Louise Richardson, the Vice- Rights and Principal of Mansfield College (2010-2018). inspirational historical figure: a woman with Chancellor of the University of Oxford. This little formal learning who became a global conference was the first of several important Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, former Principal of leader, striving untiringly with compassion and conferences hosted by the Bonavero Institute Mansfield College, was the driving force behind the commitment to promote and protect human during the year.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2013
    European Court of Human Rights Annual Report 2013 Registry of the European Court of Human Rights Strasbourg, 2014 All or part of this document may be freely reproduced with acknowledgment of the source “Annual Report 2013 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe”. Photographs: Council of Europe Cover: the Human Rights Building (Architects: Richard Rogers Partnership and Atelier Claude Bucher) ISBN: 978-92-871-9935-5 Printed in France, March 2014 VALBLOR Illkirch 12021555 CONTENTS Foreword 5 I. The Court in 2013 7 II. Composition of the Court 15 III. Composition of the Sections 19 IV. Speech given by Mr Dean Spielmann, President of the European Court of Human Rights, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 25 January 2013 23 V. Speech given by Ms Christiane Taubira, Garde des Sceaux, French Minister of Justice, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 25 January 2013 31 VI. Speech given by Mr Theodor Meron, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, President of the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 25 January 2013 39 VII. President’s Diary 49 VIII. Activities of the Grand Chamber, Sections and single- judge formations 59 IX. Case-law information, training and outreach 63 X. Summary of the main judgments and decisions delivered by the Court in 2013 77 XI. Cases reported in the Court’s Case-law Information Notes in 2013 145 XII. Statistical information 189 Events in total (2012-2013) 191 Pending cases
    [Show full text]