1,721,075 research outputs found

    Shared responsibility per violazioni di diritti umani nel corso di peacekeeping operations delle Nazioni Unite: quale ruolo per la Corte europea dei diritti umani?

    Full text link
    The author examines how the European Court of Human Rights may effectively respond to human rights violations committed by UN peacekeepers, notwithstanding the fact that it is impossible to bring a claim against the UN before international or national courts, and the organization itself lacks effective internal remedies. Accepting as a premise the thesis of the dual nature of peacekeeping forces and arguing that this leads to a shared responsibility between the United Nations and the sending State, the author first analyzes the position of the Strasbourg Court in its decision on Behrami and Behrami v. France — the only case specifically concerning peacekeeping operations examined so far. She then considers possible future developments of the jurisprudence in the light of the work of the International Law Commission and of some domestic judgments, which have recognized the attribution of peacekeepers’ conduct to the sending State. Lastly, the author considers some recent decisions of the European Court which, although not specifically concerned with peacekeeping operations, may have significant implications also in this regar

    The Externalization of Border Controls and the Responsibility of Outsourcing States under the European Convention on Human Rights

    No full text
    Over the past few decades, both the European Union and its Member States have been implementing different strategies of externalizing border controls with the declared intent of saving human lives and countering smuggling, but with the actual end-result of shifting borders, circumventing international obligations and ultimately preventing access to Europe. The author analyzes whether Member States can succeed in shifting their responsibility onto third States in cases of human rights violations by focusing on the Italy-Libya Memorandum of Understanding of February 2017. She also examines whether claims could be brought against Italy (and against outsourcing States in general) before the ECtHR. Applying the doctrine of positive obligations, as developed in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, could prove a particularly useful tool in addressing the responsibility of European States under the ECHR within an externalized context, because it may make it easier to meet the jurisdictional requirement and ultimately hold outsourcing States accountable

    Il Muslim ban di Trump alla luce del diritto internazionale

    No full text
    On 27 January 2017, the US President Donald Trump adopted an executive order, Protecting the Nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States, introducing extremely controversial measures: i.e. a 90 day entry ban for nationals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and a 180 day suspension of refugees’ admission to the USA. This ban was challenged before many courts and frozen by a nationwide restraining order on 3 February 2017. On 6 March 2017, a new travel ban was adopted but then suspended nationwide on 15 March 2017. The author analyses both orders and the most significant domestic case-law, focusing in particular on the compatibility of the bans with international law, and on the possibility of international remedies, against the USA and/or Third States, for complicity or on other grounds

    La Corte europea condanna l’Italia per i respingimenti verso la Libia del 2009: il caso Hirsi

    No full text
    The article explores the case Hirsi and others v. Italy concerning the interception at sea and push back to Libya of 11 Somalis and 13 Eritreans by the Italian authorities in May 2009. On 23 February 2012 the European Court of Human Rights condemned Italy for the violation of art. 3 ECHR (prohibiting torture and inhuman and degrading treatment), art. 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsions) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken in conjunction with Article 3 and with 4 of Protocol No.4. The author first analyzes the applicability of the ECHR in the high seas, and the various complaints submitted to the Court and then goes on to consider the wider implications of the judgment, since the principles affirmed therein could concern other hypotheses of externalization of border control

    “Overlap Between Complicity and Positive Obligations: What Advantages in Resorting to Positive Obligations in Case of Partnered Operations?”

    No full text
    Partnered operations are very frequent and pose complex questions in international law, such as the allocation of responsibility in cases of violations of international human rights law and/or international humanitarian law (IHL). The present article deals with the question of complicity in partnered operations between States and between States and/or non-State actors, focusing on the possible overlap between responsibility for complicity and responsibility for breach of positive obligations in partnered operations in the light of the relevant case law of the International Court of Justice and of the European Court of Human Rights. As the requirements laid down by art. 16 of the International Law Commission Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States with respect to complicity are often difficult to meet, the author intends to explore the potential advantages of resorting to positive obligations in light of the due diligence standard. Although the article focuses primarily on human rights violations, in the final section the author investigates the benefits of this approach also with respect to breaches of IHL

    Sul meccanismo di co-respondent previsto nel progetto di accordo per l’adesione dell’Unione Europea alla Convenzione europea dei diritti umani

    Full text link
    The article first analyzes the case-law of the European Court of Human rights in relation to the European Union, and then goes on to explore one of the most controversial points of the draft agreement of the UE accession to the European Convention on Human Rights of 5 April 2013, i.e. the “co-respondent-mechanism”, which, under certain circumstances, might allow the extension of the proceedings against a Member State to the European Union, and vice versa. After considering one of the greatest advantages of such a mechanism, i.e. the possibility/power to involve – and eventually allow the condemnation of – the subject who is able to remedy the violation effectively, the author analyzes in particular some cases – submitted in the past to the Court of Strasbourg or which might be submitted in the future – to which the “co-respondent mechanism” might be applied, in order to ascertain whether it really could make the protection of individuals more effective (without - as envisaged by some authors – simply leading to procedural delays)

    Le garanzie procedurali avverso l'espulsione degli immigrati in Europa

    No full text
    Nel libro sono analizzate le garanzie procedurali avverso l’espulsione degli immigrati predisposte nell’ambito dei due sistemi giuridici internazionali principali operanti a livello regionale europeo, il Consiglio d’Europa e l’Unione europea, al fine di verificare se tali garanzie possano costituire un utile baluardo ai rischi che si presentano allorché gli Stati, per motivi politici, economici o per esigenze di sicurezza nazionale, adottano pericolose politiche di chiusura nei confronti dell’altro, dimentichi del valore universale della persona umana. La scelta di dedicare il lavoro all’esame delle garanzie procedurali, nell’ambito della più ampia tematica dei limiti al potere di espulsione derivanti dai diritti umani, parte dall’assunto che il riconoscimento di diritti sostanziali senza un corrispondente diritto di agire risulta illusorio. In particolare in caso di espulsione un rimedio efficace è spesso di vitale importanza per impedire danni irreparabili agli individui
    corecore