1,721,017 research outputs found
Interpreting the ECHR in the Light of “Other” International Instruments: Systemic Integration or Fragmentation of Rules on Treaty Interpretation?
No full textOften accused of being a threat to the coherence of international law, the ECtHR was indeed a pioneering international tribunal in showing the relevance of Art. 31.3.c of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) in broadening the normative context for interpreting treaties. In doing so, it anticipated the principle of “systemic integration” recently singled out by the ILC as a crucial tool against the fragmentation of international law.
In the Demir and Baykara v. Turkey judgment, the ECtHR has systematized its previous jurisprudence, elaborating a methodology of interpretation of the Convention in light of other international instruments. However, in doing so, it has adopted a language describing its approach as partially deviating from the customary rules on treaty interpretation, as codified by the VCLT.
This chapter argues that, upon a closer analysis, the interpretative method of the Court may be, and should be, reconciled with the traditional approach, whose flexibility accommodates the special interpretative needs of human rights treaties. In this context, “systemic integration”, i.e. an interpretative reference to a wide international normative environment, far from being constrained by the narrow terms of Art. 31.3.c VCLT, should be constructed as a general principle of interpretation rooted in a plurality of hermeneutic approaches (textual, contextual and teleological).
It concludes that, as far as interpretation is concerned, the Court should treat international law more carefully, avoiding unnecessary separatist statements
Trasmissione del cognome e parità di genere: sulla sentenza Cusan e Fazzo c. Italia e sulle prospettive della sua esecuzione nell’ordinamento interno
No full textThe article discusses how the principle of non-discrimination impacts on domestic rules on trans-mission of surnames, in the light of the judgment in the case of "Cusan and Fazzo v. Italy". The Court considered that a system requiring that the surname given to children born in wedlock was to be that of the father, without exception and irrespective of the choice made by the spouses, constituted a gender discrimination in the enjoyment of the applicants' private and family life. The Court also required the adoption of general measures to execute the judgment. The Italian Government promptly adopted a draft law to discharge its obligations, providing that the father's surname shall be given to children, failing an agreement of the spouses to the contrary. It is argued that this solution is not sufficient to comply with the Convention, in the light of the importance of gender equality. It thus formulates some recommendation in order to bring the proposed legislation fully in line with conventional requirement. It concludes that, failing adoption of new rules, the Italian Constitutional Court, which had previously declined to repeal the law, may look afresh at this matter and reach a different - and more courageous - decision
La Corte EDU compie un piccolo passo in avanti sui Paesi terzi “sicuri” e un preoccupante salto all’indietro sulla detenzione di migranti al confine. A margine della sentenza della grande camera sul caso Ilias e Ahmed c. Ungheria
No full textNella sentenza Ilias e Ahmed, la grande camera della Corte EDU si pronuncia sui limiti convenzionali a due strumenti controversi nella gestione dei flussi migratori in frontiera: l’applicazione della nozione di Paese terzo sicuro quale causa di inammissibilità di domande d’asilo e il trattenimento dei richiedenti in pendenza della determinazione del loro status. Sul primo punto, la sentenza chiarisce alcuni interessanti principi con riguardo sia alla valutazione da parte delle autorità nazionali, sia alla natura del sindacato sovranazionale, essenzialmente procedurale. Lascia tuttavia aperta la questione della loro applicazione concreta in casi futuri. Sulla questione del trattenimento, la Corte nega la sussistenza di una privazione di libertà personale, con una motivazione che sembra fondarsi su una visione “sovranista” del bilanciamento tra interessi dello Stato e diritti individuali e sull’elaborazione di una nuova teoria di interpretazione della Convenzione in materia di immigrazione. L’argomentazione della Corte presenta evidenti profili di incoerenza interna, costituisce un punto di rottura con la giurisprudenza sviluppata in casi analoghi e apre un fronte di conflitto giurisprudenziale con la Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea. Il risultato è un preoccupante indebolimento delle garanzie convenzionali e della rule of law per i migranti in frontiera e costituisce un salto qualitativo nella tendenza verso un regime “eccezionale” (al ribasso) nella tutela dei diritti umani delle persone migranti.In Ilias and Ahmed, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR ruled on the conventional limits to a couple of controversial tools for the management of migration flows at borders: the notion of “safe” third Country as a ground of inadmissibility of asylum claims and the detention of asylum seekers pending the determination of their status. On the first issue, the judgement sets out some relevant principles, both as the assessment by domestic authorities and the review by the Court. Their concrete application in future cases remains, however, an open question. On the issue of retention of asylum seekers at the land borders, the Court denies the existence of a deprivation of liberty, through a reasoning that seems to be based on a “sovereignist” outlook of the balance between State interests and individual rights. The Court also develops a new interpretive theory of the Convention in the field of migrations. Finally, the Court’s reasoning is internally inconsistent and is at variance with the case law developed in similar cases. Moreover, it opens a front of jurisprudential conflict with the Court of Justice of the European Union. The outcome of the case weakens the rule of law for migrants at borders and is a qualitative leap in the trend towards an “exceptional” (downward) regime in the protection of migrants’ human rights
The European Court of Human Rights, Judicial Dialogue and General International Law in Cyprus v. Turkey (Just Satisfaction)
Full text linkProcedures and Mechanisms for Review of Compliance under the 1998 Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters
No full textMultiplication and Overlap of Non-Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms: Towards Better Coordination?
Full text link“Friends, not foes”: qualificazione penalistica delle attività delle ONG di soccorso in mare alla luce del diritto internazionale e tipicità della condotta
Full text linkProcedures and Mechanisms for Review of Compliance under the 2003 Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers tothe 1998 Aarhus Convention
Full text linkProcedures and Mechanisms for Review of Compliance under the 1999 Protocol on Water and Health to the 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes
Full text link
- …
