Derogations under article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Columbia Journal of Transnational Law

Volumn 36, Issue 1-2, 1997, Pages 225-267

  Macdonald, R St J ^a  

^a European Court of Human Rights ^*  (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 26244464558     PISSN: 00101931     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (111)

1. Sir Ronald Ross, in 1 COLLECTED EDITION OF THE TRAVAUX PRÉPARATOIRES OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 152 (1975) [hereinafter TRAVAUX PRÉPARATOIRES].
2. Marcel Merle, Chronique Constitutionnelle Européene: La Convention Européene des Droits de l'Homme et des Libertés Fondamentales, 67 REVUE DU DROIT PUBLIC ET DE LA SCIENCE POLITIQUE 705, 714 (1951).
3. 1 TRAVAUX PRÉPARATOIRES, supra note 1, at 278. This principle forms the basis of the present articles 17 and 18 of the Convention.
4. 2 TRAVAUX PRÉPARATOIRES, supra note 1, at 290.
5. Report of the Drafting Committee to the Commission on Human Rights, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/21, Annex B (1947).
6. See also MARC J. BOSSUYT & JOHN P. HUMPHREY, GUIDE TO THE TRAVAUX PRÉPARATOIRES OF THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS 83 (1987); Proposal by the United Kingdom, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/37 (1947).
7. See Proposed Draft of Article 4 of the International Covenant on Human Rights, U.N. ESCOR, 5th Sess. at 1, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/187 (1949). The proposal was provisionally adopted by the Commission in its fifth session. U.N. ESCOR, 5th Sess., 127th mtg. at 13, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/SR. 127 (1949).
8. Adopted at the Eighth Session of the Commission on Human Rights, U.N. ESCOR, 8th Sess., 331st mtg. at 5, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/SR.331 (1952).
9. Report of the Legal Committee to the Consultative Assembly (Sept. 5, 1949), in 1 TRAVAUX PRÉPARATOIRES, supra note 1, at 230.
10. 3 TRAVAUX PRÉPARATOIRES, supra note 1, at 280, 282.
11. 4 TRAVAUX PRÉPARATOIRES, supra note 1, at 30.
12. Id. at 926.
13. Id. at 914.
14. Id. at 926.
15. See JOAN FITZPATRICK, HUMAN RIGHTS IN CRISIS: THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM FOR PROTECTING RIGHTS DURING STATES OF EMERGENCY 64 (1994).
16. JOAN FITZPATRICK, See HUMAN RIGHTS IN CRISIS: THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM FOR PROTECTING RIGHTS DURING STATES OF EMERGENCY id.64 ( 1994).
17. See U.N. Draft International Covenants on Human Rights and Measures of Implementation, U.N. ESCOR, 8th Sess., Agenda Item 4 at 1., U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/L.139 (1952), revised by U.N. Doc. ECN.4/L.139/Rev. 1 (1952).
18. Jersild v. Denmark, 298 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1994), reprinted in 15 HUM. RTS. L.J. 361 (1994).
19. See Report of the Committee of Experts on Human Rights to the Committee of Ministers, Council of Europe, Problems Arising from the Co-existence of the United Nations Covenants on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights: Differences as regards the Rights Guaranteed, Council of Europe Doc. No. H (70)7, at 18-22 (1970).
20. U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/365, at 19 (Statement of Eleanor Roosevelt).
21. See JAIME ORAÁ, HUMAN RIGHTS IN STATES OF EMERGENCY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 190-206 (1992).
22. Yoram Dinstein, The Reform of the Protection of Human Rights During Armed Conflicts and Periods of Emergency and Crisis, in THE REFORM OF INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS - FIRST INTERNATIONAL COLLOQIUM ON HUMAN RIGHTS 337, 349 (1993).
23. 5 THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY 176 (2d ed. 1989).
24. See ERGUN ÖZBUDUN & MEHMET TURHAN, EMERGENCY POWERS 22 (1995) (Report of the European Commission for Democracy Through Law).
25. Brogan v. United Kingdom, 145 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1988).
26. Brannigan & McBride v. United Kingdom, 258 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1993).
27. Aksoy v. Turkey, App. No. 21987/93, 79-A Eur. Comm'n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 60 (1994).
28. Carl J. Friedrich, referred to in ÖZBUDUN & TURHAN, supra note 23, at 15.
29. D.J. HARRIS ET AL., LAW OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 499 (1995).
30. See FITZPATRICK, supra note 14, at 57.
31. See Stephen Marks argues that the concept of emergency should apply in only restricted cases, so as to prevent misuse of underdevelopment as an excuse for prolonged repressive measures. Stephen P. Marks, Principles and Norms of Human Rights Applicable in Emergency Situations: Underdevelopment, Catastrophes and Armed Conflicts, in 1 THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS 175, 180-82 (Karel Vasak & Philip Alston eds., 1982).
32. See, e.g., Arie Bloed, Eastern Europe and the Council of Europe: Membership or Association, in PERSPECTIVES OF AN ALL-EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION: THE ROLE OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE, THE CSCE, AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: PROCEEDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF AN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE (POZNAN̄, POLAND, 8-11 OCT. 1990),
33. reprinted in 1 ALL-EUR. HUM. RTS. Y.B. 45, 50 (1991).
34. Joan F. Hartman, Derogation from Human Rights Treaties in Public Emergencies, 23 HARV. INT'L L.J. 1, 16 (1981).
35. A comprehensive account of the United Kingdom's emergency powers to maintain essential supplies is contained in DAVID BONNER, EMERGENCY POWERS IN PEACETIME 211-66 (1985).
36. INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION, REPORT OF THE FIFTY-NINTH CONFERENCE HELD AT BELGRADE 105-07 (1982) [hereinafter INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION [BELGRADE]]. The Paris Minimum Standards touched on this question, in approving the minimum standards to govern emergency situations and listing non-derogable rights and freedoms.
37. See INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION, REPORT OF THE SIXTY-FIRST CONFERENCE HELD AT PARIS (1985) [hereinafter INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION [PARIS]].
38. João de Deus Pinheiro Farinha, L 'Article 15 de la Convention, in PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS: THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION 521, 523-24 (Franz Matscher & Herbert Petzold eds., 1988) [hereinafter PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS].
39. On this issue, see also Michele de Salvia, Il terrorismo e la Convenzione Europea del Diritti dell'Uomo, 2 RIVISTA INTERNAZIONALE DEI DIRITTE DELL'UOMO 21 (1989); TERRORISM (Conor Gearty ed., 1996).
40. Brogan v. United Kingdom, 11 Eur. H.R. Rpt. (ser.A) (No. 145-B) 117 (1988).
41. This approach was strongly criticized by van Dijk and Van Hoof in P. VAN DIJK & G.J.H. VAN HOOF, THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 587-88 (2d ed. 1990). However, the margin of appreciation in these situations does permit states a necessary degree of latitude to take action against terrorism without resorting to derogations under article 15.
42. See ANTONIO VERCHER, TERRORISM IN EUROPE: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS 342-50 (1992).
43. Klass v. Germany, 28 Eur. Ct. H.R. (sen A) at 23, ¶ 49 (1978).
44. Colin Warbrick, The European Convention on Human Rights and the Prevention of Terrorism, 32 INT'L & COMP. L.Q. 82, 100 (1983).
45. See, e.g., Maradinno v. Italy, App. No. 12386/86, 70 Eur. Comm'n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 59, 101 (1991); Ciancimino v. Italy, App. No. 12541/86, 70 Eur. Comm'n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 103 (1991); Raimondo v. Italy, 281 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1994) (Court found a partial violation but without significant discussion of the threat of mafia activities to the state).
46. Nicole Questiaux, Study of the Implications for Human Rights of Recent Developments concerning Situations Known as States of Siege or Emergency, U.N. ESCOR, 35th Sess., Provisional Agenda Item 10 at 15, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1982/15 (1982).
47. J.E.S. FAWCETT, THE APPLICATION OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 308 (2ded. 1987).
48. RUSEN ERGEC, LES DROITS DE L'HOMME A L'ÉPREUVES CIRCONSTANCES EXCEPTIONN-ELLES - ETUDE DE L'ARTICLE 15 DE LA CONVENTION EUROPÉENE DE DROITS DE L'HOMME 141-42 (1987).
49. Torsten Stein expresses the same view in Derogations from Guarantees Laid Down in Human Rights Instruments, in PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN EUROPE - LIMITS AND EFFECTS: PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIFTH INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUY ABOUT THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 123, 131 (Irene Maier, ed., 1982).
50. Ireland v. United Kingdom, 25 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at 78 (1978).
51. Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, reprinted in 7 HUMAN RTS. Q. 3, 7, ¶ 39(a) (1985).
52. Minimum Standards of Human Rights Norms in a State of Exception, Section A, paras. 1(b) and 4, reprinted in INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION [PARIS], supra note 34, at 58.
53. In its preparatory work on the U.N. Covenant, the U.N. Commission of Human Rights envisaged two different situations: (i) an emergency in one part of the territory but affecting the whole nation, and (ii) an emergency in one part of the territory but affecting only that part of the nation. See Draft International Covenants on Human Rights, U.N. GAOR, 10th Sess., Annexes, Agenda Item 28, pt. 11, U.N. Doc. A/2929, ¶ 39 (1955).
54. Lawless (Merits), 3 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1961).
55. See ERGEC, supra note 43, at 167.
56. See Stein, supra note 43, at 131.
57. SUBRATA ROY CHOWDHURY, RULE OF LAW IN A STATE OF EMERGENCY: THE PARIS MINIMUM STANDARDS OF HUMAN RIGHTS NORMS IN A STATE OF EMERGENCY 45 (1989).
58. See International Commission of Jurists, Recommendation 4, in INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURISTS, STATES OF EMERGENCY: THEIR IMPACT ON HUMAN RIGHTS 459 (1983) [hereinafter INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURISTS].
59. See INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION [BELGRADE], supra note 34, at 98.
60. HARRIS ET AL., supra note 28, at 501.
61. See Body of Principles for the Protection of all Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, G.A. Res. 43/173, U.N. GAOR, 43rd Sess., Supp. No. 49, at 297, U.N. Doc. A/43/49 (1988) (listing non-derogable rights including judicial and quasi-judicial guarantees).
62. See INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURISTS, supra note 52, at 427.
63. See INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION [BELGRADE], supra note 34, at 82.
64. See Siracusa Principles, supra note 45.
65. See Brannigan & McBride v. United Kingdom, 258 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A), at 64 (1993) (dissenting opinion of Pettiti, J.).
66. See Aksoy v. Turkey, App. No. 21987/93, 79-A Eur. Comm'n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 60, 70 (1994).
67. See Brendan Mangan, Protecting Human Rights in National Emergencies: Shortcomings in the European System and a Proposal for Reform, 10 HUMAN RTS. Q. 372, 380-82 (1988).
68. See Cyprus v. Turkey, 4 Eur. H.R. Rep. 552-53, paras. 510, 512 (1982) (Commission's Report).
69. Christoph Shreuer, Derogation of Human Rights in Situations of Public Emergency, 9 YALE J. WORLD PUB. ORD. 113, 130 (1982).
70. See ERGEC, supra note 43, at 214, 235-36. See also JACQUES VELU & RUSEN ERGEC, LA CONVENTION EUROPÉENNE DE DROITS DE L'HOMME 143 (1990);
71. Allan Rosas, Human Rights at Risk in Situations of Internal Violance and Public Emergency: Towards Common Minimum Standards, in THE FUTURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION IN A CHANGING WORLD: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF TORKEL OPSAHL 165, 168-71 (Asbjørn Eide & Jan Helgesen eds., 1991).
72. For a similar approach adopted by Argentina see Thomas Buergenthal, Modern Constitutions and Human Rights Treaties, this volume p. 207, 214-15.
73. FREDE CASTBERG, THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 169 (1974).
74. See Hartman, supra note 32, at 29.
75. See Alexandre Kiss, Les Clauses de Limitation et de Dérogation dans la Convention Européenne des Droits de L'Homme, in PERSPECTIVES CANADIENNES ET EUROPÉENNES DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE. ACTS DES JOURNÉES STRABOURGEOISES DE L'INSTITUT CANADIEN D'ETUDES JURIDIQUES SUPÉRIEURES 119 (D. Turp & G.A. Beaudoin dir., 1986). See also CASTBERG, supra note 66, at 169.
76. See Mangan, supra note 61, at 385.
77. Ireland v. United Kingdom, 25 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at 84 (1978).
78. Statement by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on Article 57 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in 2 EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS: TEXT AND DOCUMENTS 4 (H. Miehsler & H. Petzold eds., 1982) (statement to the Legal Committee of the Consultative Assembly (Oslo, 1964)).
79. See Questiaux, supra note 41, at 14.
80. HARRIS ET AL., supra note 28, at 506. See also Allan Rosas, Emergency Regimes: A Comparison, in BROADENING THE FRONTIERS OF HUMAN RIGHTS: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF ASBJØRN EIDE 165, 177 (Donna Gomien ed., 1993) ("it would seem that a failure to notify in accordance with paragraph 3, while a breach of the relevant instruments, does not, as such, foreclose invoking the right to derogate.")
81. See P. van Dijk, Supervision on the Application of Article 15 of the Convention, in LES CLAUSES ÉCHAPPATOIRE EN MATIÈRE D'INSTRUMENTS INTERNATIONAUX RELATIFS AUX DROITS DE L'HOMME 151, 153 (Université Catholique Louvain, 1990). The question of a Council ombudsman was revived by Finland on November 7, 1996.
82. Claudio Zanghi, Written Communication On Responsibilities Resulting for the Committee of Ministers and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe from the Implementation of the European Convention of Human Rights, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE SIXTH INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUY ON THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 920, 954 (1988).
83. See also Statement by the Secretary General of the United Nations, in Draft International Covenants on Human Rights, supra note 47; Statement by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on Article 57 of the European Convention on Human Rights, supra note 71;
84. Lauri Hannikainen, International Monitoring of Respect for Human Rights Norms During Public Emergencies in Europe, 1 ALL-EUROPEAN HUM. RTS. Y.B. 117 (1991).
85. Zanghi, supra note 75, at 964.
86. France, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands v. Turkey, App. No. 9940-9944/82 (jointed), 35 Eur. Comm'n H. R. 143, 151 (1983).
87. Paul Mahoney, Does Article 57 of the European Convention on Human Rights Serve Any Useful Purpose?, in PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS, supra note 35, at 373, 380.
88. See Schreuer, supra note 63, at 132.
89. Recommendation 41 in INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURISTS, supra note 52, at 464.
90. See The Queensland Guidelines for Bodies Monitoring Respect for Human Rights During States of Emergency, reprinted in FITZPATRICK, supra note 14, at 227 [hereinafter Queensland Guidelines].
91. See L'avenir du Système Européen, in 5 DROIT INTERNATIONAL ET DROITS DE L'HOMME 276 (Hubert Thierry & Emmanuel Decaux eds., 1990).
92. See van Dijk, supra note 74, at 153. The use of this power has also been suggested by FAWCETT, supra note 42, at 396, and RAKEL VASAK, LA CONVENTION EUROPÉENE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME 224 (1964).
93. See ERGEC, supra note 43, at 386. See also FITZPATRICK, supra note 14, at 199.
94. See VAN DIJK & VAN HOOF, supra note 37, at 554.
95. See Menno T. Kamminga, Is the European Convention on Human Rights Sufficiently Equipped to Cope with Gross and Systematic Violations?, 2 NETHERLANDS Q. HUM. RTS. 153, 164 (1994).
96. See Christian Tomuschat, Quo Vadis, Argentoratum? The Success Story of the European Convention on Human Rights and a Few Dark Stains, 13 HUM. RTS. L. J. 401, 406 (1992).
97. HARRIS ET AL., supra note 28, at 690.
98. See Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, Inter-Am.C.H.R. 13, OAS/ser.L/V/III.19, doc.13 (1988).
99. See The Queensland Guidelines, supra note 81, at 229. Under Protocol 11, expected to enter into force in 1998, The Committee of Ministers may, by a majority vote of the representatives entitled to sit, request an advisory opinion of the Court on legal questions concerning the interpretation of the Convention and the protocols thereto.
100. Joan F. Hartman, Working Paper for the Committee of Experts on the Article 4 Derogation Provision, 7 HUM. RTS. Q. 89, 92 (1985).
101. Kiss, supra note 68, at 135.
102. ORAÁ, supra note 20, at 108-27.
103. See Stanislav Chernichenko & William Treat, The Right to a Fair Trial, U.N. ESCOR, 45th Sess., Provisional Agenda Item 10(d) at 23, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/24 (1993).
104. In August 1949, in the First Session of the Consultative Assembly drafting the European Convention, the Irish delegate raised the need to protect minorities from discrimination during emergencies. This concern, however, was not taken into account in the final draft of article 15. See 1 TRAVAUX PRÉPARATOIRES, supra note 1. For a general comparison of treaty provision on non-derogation see Rosas, supra note 73, at 190-91.
105. See, e.g., the separate opinions of Judge Matscher in Ireland v. United Kingdom, 25 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at 141 (1978), and Brannigan & McBride v. United Kingdom, 258 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1993). The Venice Commission has also recommended that emergency measures should be taken without discrimination. See ÖZBUDUN & TURHAN, supra note 23, at 17. See also the comprehensive analysis of the principle of non-discrimination in ORAÁ, supra note 20, at 171-89.
106. See Kersten Rogge, Fact-Finding, in THE EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS 677 (R. St. J. Macdonald et al. eds., 1993) [hereinafter EUROPEAN SYSTEM].
107. See Hannikainen, supra note 75, at 118, 126. Although these proposals precede the reforms in Protocol 11, they present a useful theoretical hypothesis for the future.
108. Id. at 122.
109. See Report on the Conformity of the Legal Order of the Russian Federation with Council of Europe Standards, Council of Europe Doc. AS/BUR/Russian 7 (1994); and for discussion see R. St. J. Macdonald, The Council of Europe and New Member States of Central and Eastern Europe, Proceedings of the A.S.I.L. (publication forthcoming).
110. FITZPATRICK, supra note 14, at 199.
111. See R. St. J. Macdonald, The Margin of Appreciation, in EUROPEAN SYSTEM, supra note 97, at 83.