CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Italian Yearbook of International Law

Volumn 9, Issue , 2000, Pages 11-25

  Francioni, Francesco ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84919615666     PISSN: 03915107     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1163/221161399X00033     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Protocol No. 11 has entered into force on November 1998. See DE VEY MESTDAGH, "Reform of the European Convention on Human Rights in a Changing Europe", in LAWSON and DE BLOIS (eds), Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, Dordrecht, 1994, pp. 337-360; DE SALVIA, La Convenzione europea dei diritti deWuomo: procedure e contenuti, Napoli, 1997; STEINER and ALSTON, International Human Rights in Context, Oxford, 1999, p. 584 ff.; SCHERMERS, 'The Eleventh Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights", EL Rev., 1994, p. 367 ff.; idem, "Adaptation of the 11th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights", EL Rev., 1995, p. 559 ff.
2. There are now forty-one Contracting Parties to the ECHR, the latest accessions being those of Croatia (6.11.1996) and Georgia (27.4.1999). See http://www.coe.fr/fr/std/pays.htm.
3. Human Rights Act 1998, ILM, 1999, p. 464 ff.
4. Article 94 of the 1983 Constitution. For a general overview, see CASSESE, "Modern Constitutions and International Law", RCADI, 1985, III, p. 331 ff.
5. Article 10(1) provides that the Italian legal system incorporates "the norms of international law that are generally recognized".
6. Article 25 reads: 'The general rules of international law shall be an integral part of federal law. They shall take precedence over the laws and shall directly create rights and duties for the inhabitants of the Federal territory".
7. See generally, FROWEIN, "The European Convention on Human Rights as the Public Order of Europe", Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law, 1990, Vol. 1-2, p. 267 ff.; SUDRE, "Existe t-il un ordre public europ^en?", in TAVERNIER (ed.), Quelle Europe pour les droits de Vhomme?, Bruxelles, 1996, p. 39 ff.
8. For a legal analysis of such "constitutional" and "federal or monistic" approaches to the structure of the European human rights system, See TAVERNIER, "La Cour europ6enne des droits de l'homme applique-t-elle le droit international ou un droit de type interne?", in TAVERNIER, tit supra n. 7, p. 17 ff.
9. Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections), Ser. A, Vol. 310 (1995), § 75 (See also § 93).
10. As a result of the institutional reform brought about with Protocol No. 11, the articles of the ECHR have been renumbered. In this text, I shall refer to the new articles with original articles in parenthesis.
11. Among the vast literature, See especially CANCADO TRINDADE, The application of the rule of exhaustion of local remedies in international law, Cambridge, 1983; for a thorough commentary on the peculiar significance of the rule within the European human rights system, See ARONOVITZ, "L'art. 26 della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell'uomo: dal diritto internazionale consuetudinario al sistema europeo dei diritti deiruomo", RIDU, 1994, p. 515 ff.
12. Ahmet Sadikv. Greece, Reports of Judgments and Decisions, 1996-V, No. 20.
13. See, particularly, the dissenting opinion of Judge Martens, supra n. 12.
14. Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI), ICJ Rep. 1989, p. 15 ff. See e.g. GILL, "International Decisions", AJIL, 1990, p. 249 ff.
15. Resolution of 11 December 1946, adopted unanimously.
16. See Art. 15, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
17. The International Conference for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, held in Rome in July 1998, adopted the Statute of the International Criminal Court on 17 July 1998 by 120 States voting in favour, 7 against and 21 abstaining. For the text of the Statute, see http://www.un.org/icc (reprinted in RDI, 1999, p. 229 ff.); for the first debates on this historical achievement, see the Symposium "The International Criminal Court", EJIL, 1999, pp. 93-191, with comments by WEDGWOOD; HAFNER, BOON, ROBESAME AND HUSTON; ZWANENBURG; CASSESE; GAETA. See also SAROOSHI, 'The Statute of the International Criminal Court", ICLQ, 1999, p. 387 ff.; CRAWFORD, 'The ILC's Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court", AJIL, 1994, p. 140 ff; Cooperazionefra stati e giustizia penale internazionale (Proceedings of the Symposium of the Italian Society of International Law, Third Meeting, Siena, 12-13 June 1998), Napoli, 1999.
18. Arts. 2-5 of the Statute: see ILM, 1993, p. 1192 ff.
19. Cyprus v. Turkey Nos. 6780/74 and 6950/75 (First and Second Applications), DR n. 2,1975, p. 125 ff.; Cyprus v. Turkey No. 8007/77 (Third Application), DR 13,1978, p. 85 ff.; Lohidou, supra n.9.
20. Lithgow et al. v. the United Kingdom, Ser. A, Vol. 102,1986, and Loizidou, supra n. 9.
21. Stocke v. Federal Republic of Germany, Ser. A, Vol. 199,1991.
22. Soering v. ffo l//i/W Kingdom, Ser. A, Vol. 161, 1989. Among the vast literature debating the outcome of this case, see e.g. SUDRE, "Extradition et peine de mort: arret Soering de la Cour europeenne des droits de l'homme du 7 juillet 1989", RGDIP, 1990, p. 103 ff.; VAN DEN WYNGAERT, "Applying the European Convention on Human Rights to Extradition: Opening Pandora's Box?", ICLQ, 1990, p. 757 ff.; DAMATO, "Estradizione e divieto di trattamenti inumani o degradanti nella Convenzione europea dei diritti delFuomo", RIDU, 1991, p. 648 ff.; GANSHOF VAN DER MEERSCH, "L*extradition et la CEDH: l'affaire Sdering", RTDH, 1990, p. 5 ff.
23. Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Ser. A, Vol. 25,1978.
24. GA Resolution No. 3452-XXX, 1975, adopting the Declaration on Torture, etc., and GA Resolution n. 39/46, 1984, adopting the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
25. Art. 1(3), UN Charter, Art. 2(1), Universal Declaration on Human Rights; Arts. 2(1), 26, CCPR; International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 1966, UNTS, Vol. 60, p. 195 ff. See Jersildv. Denmark, Ser. A, Vol. 298, 1994, on which see espec. COHEN-JONATHAN, "Discrimination raciale et liberte" d'expression. A propos de Tarret de la CEDH du 23 septembre 1994: Jersild contre Danemark", RUDH, 1995, p. 1 ff.
26. GA Resolution No. 1803-XVII, 1962.
27. See e.g. Lithgow, cit. supra n. 20; Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreatis v. Greece, Ser. A,Vol.301-B,1994.
28. Cit. supra n. 20. See especially, MENDELSON, 'The United Kingdom Nationalization Cases and the European Convention on Human Rights", BYIL, 1986, p. 33 ff.
29. Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions Case, PCIJ, Ser. A, No. 5, 1925; Chorzow Factory (Jurisdiction), PCIJ, Ser. A, No. 9, 1927 and (Merits), PCIJ, Ser. A, No. 17, 1928; Corfu Channel (Merits), ICJ Reports, 1949, p. 4 ff.
30. PIRRONE, "II caso Papamichalopoulos dinanzi alia Corte Europea dei diritti dell'uomo: restitutio in integrum ed equa soddisfazione", RDI, 1997, p. 152 ff.
31. Papamichapoulos v. Greece, Ser. A, Vol. 260-B, 1993.
32. Hentrich v. France, Ser. A, Vol. 296-A, 1994.
33. Piersackv. Belgium, Ser. A, Vol. 53,1982.
34. See OLOWOFOYEKU, Suing Judges, Oxford, 1993; BIANCHI, "Overcoming the Hurdle of State Immunity in the Domestic Enforcement of International Human Rights", in CONFORTI and FRANCIONI (eds.), Enforcing International Human Rights in Domestic Courts, The Hague-Boston-London, 1997, p. 405 ff.
35. European Court of Human Rights, 18 February 1999, http://www.dhcour.coe.fr/hydoc. See also Osman v. United Kingdom, EHRR, 2000, p. 245 ff.
36. See SIMMA, "From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law", RCADI, 1994-VI, p. 217 ff., espec. pp. 373-376.
37. Austria v. Italy No. 788/60, Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1961, p. 112 ff.
38. **Cit. supra n. 9.
39. Protocol No. 6, adopted on 28 April 1983 (in force 1 March 1985).
40. See the Soering case, supra n. 22 and, most lately, ADDO and GRIEF, "Does Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights Enshrine Absolute Rights?", EJIL, 1998, p. 510 ff.
41. Notably, in the Soering case, supra n. 22.
42. Adopted on 20 March 1952 (in force 18 March 1954).
43. Papamichalopoulos, cit supra n. 31.
44. 45 See Arts. 19-23.
45. See especially the Second Report on the legime regime of reservations (UN Doc. A/CN.4/477 and Add. 1) submitted to the ILC in 1996 by Special Rapporteur's Pellet, as well as the ILCs "Preliminary Conclusions on Reservations to Normative Multilateral Treaties including Human Rights Treaties", in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-ninth session, 12 May-18 July 1997, GAOR, Fifty-second session, Suppl. No. 10 (A/52/10).
46. As well-known, Protocol No. 11 (in force from 1 November 1998) has abolished Arts. 25 and 46 which respectively required specific declarations of acceptance by States of the competence of the Commission to receive individual petitions and of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. As a result, the present system contemplates an automatic right of individual petition and the automatic acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court upon ratification of the Convention (see Art. 34).
47. Belilos v. Switzerland, Ser. A, Vol. 132, 1988. Cf. especially, COHEN-JONATHAN, "Les reserves & la Convention europ6enne des droits de Thomme (k propos de Tarret Belilos du 29 avril 1988), RGDIP, 1989, p. 273 ff.; MARKS, "Reservations Unhinged: The Belilos Case before the European Court of Human Rights", ICLQ, 1990, p. 300 ff.; CAMERON and HORN, "Reservations to the European Convention on Human Rights: The Belilos Case", GYIL, 1990, p. 69 ff.; BARATTA, "Le riserve incompatibili con Tart. 64 della Convenzione europea dei diritti deiruomo", RDI, 1992, p. 289 ff. It is worth mentioning that the doctrine of the European Court with respect to reservations has been endorsed by the UN Human Rights Committee in its General Comment No. 24 (52) of 2 November 1994 relating to reservations made to the ICCPR and its two Optional Protocols, Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.l/Add.6, reproduced in HRU, 1994, p. 464 ff. For criticism on the Committee's approach, see SIMMA, cit supra n. 36, pp. 345-349.
48. Cit supra n. 9.
49. Cf. CAMERON, "Turkey and Art. 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights", ICLQ, 1988, p. 887 ff.; ZANGHI, "La declaration de la Turquie relative & Tart. 25 de la Convention europ^enne des droits de l'homme", RGDIP, 1989, p. 69 ff.; FOCARELU, "Accettazione 'condizionata' della competenza della Commissione europea dei diritti umani", RDI, 1994, p. 92 ff.; idem, "Sulle riserve air accettazione della competenza della Corte europea: il caso Loizidou", RDI, 1995, p. 738 ff.
50. Loizidou, cit supra n. 9, §§ 90-98.
51. Ibidem, respectively, § 77 and §§ 82-85.
52. This is the significance to be attached to critical remarks such as the following one which Judge Matscher expressed in his concurring opinion in the Fischer case with respect to the abnormally-restrictive interpretation of reservations by the Court: "la confiance r&iproque a 6t€ trahie": Fischer, Ser. A, Vol. 312,1995.
53. The fact that such acquiescence has to be excluded is aptly demonstrated by the written observations submitted to the UN Human Rights Committee by the United Kingdom and France (reproduced in HRLJ, 1995, p. 422 ff.) which refused the conclusions reached by the Committee itself in its General Comment No. 24 (cit. supra n. 48). As noted, such conclusions are very much in line with the Belilos doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights. See SIMMA, cit. supra n. 36, pp. 345-349,370-371.
54. Cit.supran.9.
55. See supra n. 54.