Suchergebnisse

The European and Inter-American human rights courts are increasingly moving beyond their original mandates and making determinations about the design of national courts. They have judicialized new areas of the law, empowered national courts over other branches of government, and encouraged changes in judicial administration. By empowering domestic judiciaries, these regional human rights courts have also (intentionally or not) empowered themselves. ; The European and Inter-American human rights courts are increasingly moving beyond their original mandates and making determinations about the design of national courts. They have judicialized new areas of the law, empowered national courts over other branches of government, and encouraged changes in judicial administration. By empowering domestic judiciaries, these regional human rights courts have also (intentionally or not) empowered themselves.

Regional human rights courts in Europe and the Americas came into being in the wake of World War II. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) were established in order to adjudicate on alleged violations of the rights of individuals. Yet, since their inception these courts have also influenced other areas of international law. A part from their impact on general international law, their case law has had significant spill over effects on international criminal law, international refugee law, international environmental law, the law of armed conflicts, and the law of the sea.

Part I: General Introduction -- Part II: International and Regional Courts of General Jurisdiction as Human Rights Courts -- Part III: Obligations Imposed by Human Rights Treaties With Regard to the Implementation of Human Rights by Domestic Courts -- Part IV: The Role of Courts in the Domestic Implementation of International Human Rights

The Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS Court) is an increasingly active and bold adjudicator of human rights. Since acquiring jurisdiction over human rights complaints in 2005, theECOWASCourt has issued numerous decisions condemning human rights violations by the member states of the Economic Community of West African States (Community). Among this Court's path-breaking cases are judgments against Niger for condoning modern forms of slavery and against Nigeria for impeding the right to free basic education for all children. TheECOWASCourt also has broad access and standing rules that permit individuals and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to bypass national courts and file suits directly with the Court. Although the Court is generally careful in the proof that it requires of complainants and in the remedies that it demands of governments, it has not shied away from politically courageous decisions, such as rulings against the Gambia for the torture of journalists and against Nigeria for failing to regulate multinational companies that have degraded the environment of the oil-rich Niger Delta.

The article sums up the state of international human rights law as concerns the issue of responsibility for human rights violations allegedly carried out by private persons and entities. It employs four main legal concepts: imputability of private actions to a State, positive obligations of States, duties of private persons and entities, and 'horizontal' effect of human rights. The attempt is made to see how these concepts appear in the case-law of international monitoring bodies and regional courts. The article also attempts to indicate pending questions as concerns the responsibility of private persons and entities for human rights violations and to introduce possible approaches that an international or regional judicial or legislative process could undertake to remedy the gaps, in particular in the narrower context of private military companies. One of the obvious conclusions that emerges from the study is that international actors have preferred the development of the scope of positive obligations that States ought to undertake within various human rights treaties. It is through these obligations that international human rights standards have come to circumscribe private actions. The scope of positive obligations for States typically involve the following measures: adoption of appropriate legislation, provision of judicial remedies and compensation where appropriate. It can be said that the existing legal framework contains most if not all the necessary elements to hold such legal entities as private military or security contractors accountable for human rights violations. The question lies more with the courage to use them to ensure respect for human rights. ; The 'Regulating Privatisation of "War": The Role of the EU in Assuring the Compliance with International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights" (PRIV-WAR) project is funded by the European Community's 7th Framework Programme under grant agreement no. 217405.

AbstractCritics challenge international courts for their interference with domestic democratic processes and alleged violations of rule of law standards: they claim that these guardians of the rule of law are not well guarded themselves. These concerns should not be dismissed too quickly as mere disgruntled venting by populist politicians. This article focuses on regional human rights courts and argues that the same interests and values that justify rule of law standards of impartiality, independence and accountability domestically also justify similar standards for international courts. Focusing on the European Court of Human Rights and its doctrine of the margin of appreciation, the article demonstrates how this doctrine may contribute to fulfilling the rule of law but at the same time may also endanger it. This requires changes to the doctrine to ensure that the core rule of law standards of predictability and protection against arbitrary discretion are respected.

Abstract Critics challenge international courts for their interference with domestic democratic processes and alleged violations of rule of law standards: they claim that these guardians of the rule of law are not well guarded themselves. These concerns should not be dismissed too quickly as mere disgruntled venting by populist politicians. This article focuses on regional human rights courts and argues that the same interests and values that justify rule of law standards of impartiality, independence and accountability domestically also justify similar standards for international courts. Focusing on the European Court of Human Rights and its doctrine of the margin of appreciation, the article demonstrates how this doctrine may contribute to fulfilling the rule of law but at the same time may also endanger it. This requires changes to the doctrine to ensure that the core rule of law standards of predictability and protection against arbitrary discretion are respected.

Despite substantial growth in past decades, international human rights law faces significant enforcement challenges and threats to legitimacy in many parts of the world. Regional human rights courts, like the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights, represent unique institutions that allow individuals to file formal complaints with an international legal body and render judgments against states. In this book, Jillienne Haglund focuses on regional human rights court deterrence, or the extent to which adverse judgments discourage the commission of future human rights abuses. She argues that regional court deterrence is more likely when the chief executive has the capacity and willingness to respond to adverse regional court judgments. Drawing comparisons across Europe and the Americas, this book uses quantitative data analyses, supplemented with qualitative evidence from many adverse judgments, to explain the conditions under which regional courts deter future rights abuses.

Despite substantial growth in past decades, international human rights law faces significant enforcement challenges and threats to legitimacy in many parts of the world. Regional human rights courts, like the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights, represent unique institutions that allow individuals to file formal complaints with an international legal body and render judgments against states. In this book, Jillienne Haglund focuses on regional human rights court deterrence, or the extent to which adverse judgments discourage the commission of future human rights abuses. She argues that regional court deterrence is more likely when the chief executive has the capacity and willingness to respond to adverse regional court judgments. Drawing comparisons across Europe and the Americas, this book uses quantitative data analyses, supplemented with qualitative evidence from many adverse judgments, to explain the conditions under which regional courts deter future rights abuses.