61 research outputs found
Art. 8 – Diritto al rispetto della vita privata e familiare
No full textC. Pitea è autore dei seguenti paragrafi:
II. (pp. 303-311)
VII. (pp.329-331 );
IX. (pp. 344-349);
X. (pp. 349-352);
XIII. (pp. 358-362);
XVI.5 (pp. 366-367);
XVI.9 (pp. 368-369)
Azioni di contrasto alla pirateria e Convenzione europea dei diritti umani : questioni di attribuzione e di applicazione extraterritoriale
No full textThe fight against piracy off the Somali coast has raised a number of human rights concerns. The article illustrates how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) can provide a forum for litigating possible cases against European States involved in anti-piracy operations, as the judgments of the ECtHR, in the Hassan and Ali Samatar cases, show. It argues that obstacles to the access to the ECtHR in similar cases, because of questions of attribution and extraterritorial application, are mostly overcome. As to attribution, it highlights that such action cannot be attributed to the Security Council. It also argues that a correct understanding of the general rules on the allocation of responsibility between States and International Organizations would reduce the cases in which those conduct – when carried out by the EUNAVFOR Operation Atalanta – may be attributed exclusively to the EU. As to extra-territorial operations, it argues that even before a pirate vessel and its crew are taken into custody, the ECHR should apply. Certainly when the action is carried out under the authority of the UN Security Council resolution or on the basis of a valid consent by the coastal state. Arguably, also in hypothetical other cases, as the recent jurisprudence (in particular in Jaloud v. the Netherlands) shows an evolution towards a functional model based on authority and control over persons, which include control over premises or areas where they are found
The Non-Compliance Procedure of the Aarhus Convention: Between Environmental and Human Rights Control Mechanisms
No full textInstitutional and procedural mechanisms are routinely established under Multilateral Environmental Agreements to facilitate, control and enhance compliance by States with the obligations they assume. The 1998 Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters is no exception in this respect. However, due to the peculiar nature of the Convention, which recognized procedural human rights in environmental governance, the design of its compliance mechanism is peculiar, especially in that it provides broad access and participatory rights to individuals and NGOs.
After reviewing thoroughly the law and practice governing the institutional setting and the functioning of the mechanism, the article concludes that, notwithstanding the features it shares with human rights quasi-judicial procedures, the Compliance systems maintains its fundamental “non-confrontational, non-judicial and consultative” nature. However, it is not excluded that a process of “judicialisation” may take place through practice
Procedures 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 text
Procedures and Mechanisms for Review of Compliance under the 2003 Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers tothe 1998 Aarhus Convention
No full textProcedures 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
No full text
Multiplication and Overlap of Non-Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms: Towards Better Coordination?
No full textInterpretation and Application of the European Convention on Human Right in the Broader Context of International Law: Myth or Reality?
No full textThe European Court of Human Rights (the Court) has progressively developed a method of interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights which takes into account the evolving normative environment of international law. This methodology has been summarized by the Grand Chamber of the Court in the Demir and Baykara judgment. This chapter identifies two rationales for the Court’s approach: “systemic integration”, as it may be considered a tool to en-sure coherence in a fragmented system of international law, and “evolutive interpretation”, as far as it underpins with objective standards the adaptation of its interpretation to the evolving social and legal context. It then analyses two critical aspects of the Court’s approach. On the one hand, it underlines the un-necessary use by the Court of expressions denoting its willingness to deviate from generally accepted rules on treaty interpretation, as codified by the Vien-na Convention on the Law of Treaties. On the other hand, it brings a few ex-amples of the inconsistent application of this interpretative approach. It concludes by observing that, if the practice of relying on “other” international law to interpret the Convention is a “reality”, its contribution to the unity of inter-national law and to the enhancement in consistency and predictability of the Court’s jurisprudence remains, to a large extent, a “myth”
- …
