Helga Law Journal

Ukioqatigiit
Ataaseq assigiiaat ilaat

Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Qupperneq 156

Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Qupperneq 156
Helga Law Journal Vol. 1, 2021 160 International Legal Research Group 161 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)179. For the sake of brevity, we will briefly cover what the various clauses of Article 15 focus on. Article 15 has three clauses. Article 15(1) defines the circumstances in which Contracting States can validly derogate from their obligations under the Convention. It also limits the measures they may take in the course of any derogation. Article 15(2) protects certain fundamental rights in the Convention from any derogation. Article 15(3) sets out the procedural requirements that any State derogating must follow. Article 15(1) allows for states to take measures derogating from its conventional obligations, ‘‘provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.”180 The court has not been required to interpret the term war in any of the emergency cases yet and therefore, the same would not be an issue of contention in the present essay. Most of the cases concerned with Article 15 are concerned with the interpretation of the term “public emergency threatening the life of the nation” that has been interpreted by the court as an exceptional situation of crisis or emergency affecting the whole population and constituting a threat to the community of which the state is composed.181 4.2.1 Public Emergencies Public emergencies present a problem for states, with regards to balancing the efforts to overcome the emergency and restore order while at the same time respecting the fundamental rights of individuals. In 1959, the phrase “public emergency threatening the life of the nation” was defined for the first time by the European Commission of Human Rights in its report on Lawless, where the Commission pointed out the French authentic text of the lawless judgment from which the court adopted its definition, the text mentioned not only the word ‘exceptional’ but also the word ‘imminent’ which created an additional criteria to be examined by both the Court and the Commission.182 Although the phrase was defined by the Commission in the Lawless case, through the Greek case it became more elaborate. The Commission expressed that in order to be qualified as “public emergency,” an emergency must have the following characteristics: - It must be actual or imminent, - its effect must involve the whole nation, 179 (n 1). 180 Article 15(1) as a whole reads|: “In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under [the] Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.” 181 Lawless v Ireland, no 332/57, EHRR 1961. 182 MM El Zeidy, ‘The ECHR and States of Emergency: Article 15 -A Domestic Power of Derogation from Human Rights Obligations’ (2003) 4 San Diego International Law Journal 281. - the continuance of the organised life of the community must be threatened, - the crisis or danger must be exceptional in the normal measures or restrictions permitted by the Convention for the maintenance of public safety, health and order, are plainly inadequate.183 Despite the fixed criteria of crises affecting the whole population, in practice the standard has been relaxed. For instance, in Ireland v United Kingdom,184 the court accepted the argument that the whole population may be affected by incidents or events in only a part of the state, and that the derogation may be restricted to that part. A number of conceptual tensions or oppositions appear when the states tend to defend the human rights derogations in the name of emergency in the state. One of them is the implicit counterpoint between emergency and normality and therefore, an emergency is understood as an exceptional vesting of powers in the executive that would normally belong to the judiciary or legislature.185 The government asserted and the Court accepted that an emergency relating to Northern Ireland had existed at least since the early 1970s and highlighted an important feature of the emergency/normality antinomy if emergency measures pretend to aim at the achievement of future normality they often, in fact, become a deferring normality.186 This process of normalization has been noted by a number of observers of UK anti-terrorist legislation.187 The second precondition for a valid derogation is that the derogation must be “strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”; generally the Convention organs have been satisfied with the fulfillment of this condition if a respondent government showed some colorable basis for believing that the derogatory measures were necessary at the time, for instance in Ireland v UK where the Court found that the Government was ‘reasonably entitled’ to consider that departures from the convention were ‘called for.’188 Along with a series of decisions comprising those in Brogan,189 as well as Brannigan, one can observe a pattern of Court providing a wide margin of appreciation to the states (discussed in detail 183 European Commission of Human Rights, The Greek Case : Report of the Commission : Application No. 3321/67-Denmark v. Greece, Application No. 3322/67-Norway v. Greece, Application No. 3323/67- Sweden v. Greece, Application No. 3344/67-Netherlands v. Greece (1969) 72. 184 Ireland v United Kingdom, no 5310/71, ECHR 1977. 185 Moreover, emergency denotes the distinctive notion of duration, in that, it is a limited departure from an otherwise enduring sense of normality and has to be justified by the promise of restoration, or creation, of normality in the future as conveyed by one of the dissenting opinions in Brannigan and McBride (Brannigan and McBride v United Kingdom, no 14554/89, ECHR 1993) by Judge Makarczyk. 186 ibid, 86. 187 ibid. 188 Ireland v United Kingdom, no 5310/71, ECHR 1977 [212]-[220]. 189 Brogan v United Kingdom, [1988] 11 EHRR 117.
Qupperneq 1
Qupperneq 2
Qupperneq 3
Qupperneq 4
Qupperneq 5
Qupperneq 6
Qupperneq 7
Qupperneq 8
Qupperneq 9
Qupperneq 10
Qupperneq 11
Qupperneq 12
Qupperneq 13
Qupperneq 14
Qupperneq 15
Qupperneq 16
Qupperneq 17
Qupperneq 18
Qupperneq 19
Qupperneq 20
Qupperneq 21
Qupperneq 22
Qupperneq 23
Qupperneq 24
Qupperneq 25
Qupperneq 26
Qupperneq 27
Qupperneq 28
Qupperneq 29
Qupperneq 30
Qupperneq 31
Qupperneq 32
Qupperneq 33
Qupperneq 34
Qupperneq 35
Qupperneq 36
Qupperneq 37
Qupperneq 38
Qupperneq 39
Qupperneq 40
Qupperneq 41
Qupperneq 42
Qupperneq 43
Qupperneq 44
Qupperneq 45
Qupperneq 46
Qupperneq 47
Qupperneq 48
Qupperneq 49
Qupperneq 50
Qupperneq 51
Qupperneq 52
Qupperneq 53
Qupperneq 54
Qupperneq 55
Qupperneq 56
Qupperneq 57
Qupperneq 58
Qupperneq 59
Qupperneq 60
Qupperneq 61
Qupperneq 62
Qupperneq 63
Qupperneq 64
Qupperneq 65
Qupperneq 66
Qupperneq 67
Qupperneq 68
Qupperneq 69
Qupperneq 70
Qupperneq 71
Qupperneq 72
Qupperneq 73
Qupperneq 74
Qupperneq 75
Qupperneq 76
Qupperneq 77
Qupperneq 78
Qupperneq 79
Qupperneq 80
Qupperneq 81
Qupperneq 82
Qupperneq 83
Qupperneq 84
Qupperneq 85
Qupperneq 86
Qupperneq 87
Qupperneq 88
Qupperneq 89
Qupperneq 90
Qupperneq 91
Qupperneq 92
Qupperneq 93
Qupperneq 94
Qupperneq 95
Qupperneq 96
Qupperneq 97
Qupperneq 98
Qupperneq 99
Qupperneq 100
Qupperneq 101
Qupperneq 102
Qupperneq 103
Qupperneq 104
Qupperneq 105
Qupperneq 106
Qupperneq 107
Qupperneq 108
Qupperneq 109
Qupperneq 110
Qupperneq 111
Qupperneq 112
Qupperneq 113
Qupperneq 114
Qupperneq 115
Qupperneq 116
Qupperneq 117
Qupperneq 118
Qupperneq 119
Qupperneq 120
Qupperneq 121
Qupperneq 122
Qupperneq 123
Qupperneq 124
Qupperneq 125
Qupperneq 126
Qupperneq 127
Qupperneq 128
Qupperneq 129
Qupperneq 130
Qupperneq 131
Qupperneq 132
Qupperneq 133
Qupperneq 134
Qupperneq 135
Qupperneq 136
Qupperneq 137
Qupperneq 138
Qupperneq 139
Qupperneq 140
Qupperneq 141
Qupperneq 142
Qupperneq 143
Qupperneq 144
Qupperneq 145
Qupperneq 146
Qupperneq 147
Qupperneq 148
Qupperneq 149
Qupperneq 150
Qupperneq 151
Qupperneq 152
Qupperneq 153
Qupperneq 154
Qupperneq 155
Qupperneq 156
Qupperneq 157
Qupperneq 158
Qupperneq 159
Qupperneq 160
Qupperneq 161
Qupperneq 162
Qupperneq 163
Qupperneq 164
Qupperneq 165
Qupperneq 166
Qupperneq 167
Qupperneq 168
Qupperneq 169
Qupperneq 170
Qupperneq 171
Qupperneq 172
Qupperneq 173
Qupperneq 174
Qupperneq 175
Qupperneq 176
Qupperneq 177
Qupperneq 178
Qupperneq 179
Qupperneq 180
Qupperneq 181
Qupperneq 182
Qupperneq 183
Qupperneq 184
Qupperneq 185
Qupperneq 186
Qupperneq 187
Qupperneq 188
Qupperneq 189
Qupperneq 190
Qupperneq 191
Qupperneq 192
Qupperneq 193
Qupperneq 194
Qupperneq 195
Qupperneq 196
Qupperneq 197
Qupperneq 198
Qupperneq 199
Qupperneq 200
Qupperneq 201
Qupperneq 202
Qupperneq 203
Qupperneq 204
Qupperneq 205
Qupperneq 206
Qupperneq 207
Qupperneq 208
Qupperneq 209
Qupperneq 210
Qupperneq 211
Qupperneq 212
Qupperneq 213
Qupperneq 214
Qupperneq 215
Qupperneq 216
Qupperneq 217
Qupperneq 218
Qupperneq 219
Qupperneq 220
Qupperneq 221
Qupperneq 222
Qupperneq 223
Qupperneq 224

x

Helga Law Journal

Direct Links

Hvis du vil linke til denne avis/magasin, skal du bruge disse links:

Link til denne avis/magasin: Helga Law Journal
https://timarit.is/publication/1677

Link til dette eksemplar:

Link til denne side:

Link til denne artikel:

Venligst ikke link direkte til billeder eller PDfs på Timarit.is, da sådanne webadresser kan ændres uden advarsel. Brug venligst de angivne webadresser for at linke til sitet.