Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:55:31.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The European Convention on Human Rights and International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Luzius Wildhaber
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article is an expanded and footnoted version of the lectur given at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law on Tuesday 21 March 2006, entitled ‘International Law in the European Court of Human Rights’.

The article begins with some comparative comments on the application of the European Convention on Human Rights in monistic and dualistic systems It then discusses in detail the European Court's case law which confirms that the Convention, despite its special character as a human rights treaty, is indeed part of public international law. It concludes that the Convention and international law find themselves in a kind of interactive mutual relationship. checking and buildine on each other.

Type
Research Article
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , April 2007 , pp. 217 - 231
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On monism and dualism see Miller, JP and Wildhaber, L, Praxis des Völkerrechts (3rd edn, Stämpfli Bern, 2001) 153–208.Google Scholar On the application of the Convention in Member States see Blackburn, R and Polakiewicz, J (eds), Fundamental Rights in Europe (OUP, Oxford, 2001).Google Scholar

2 Møse, E, ‘Norway’ in Blackburn and Polakiewicz (n 1) 625–55.Google Scholar

3 cf Meriggiola, E, ‘Italy’ in Blackburn and Polakiewicz (n 1) 475–50Google Scholar; a recent illustration of the difficulties encountered in Italy can be found in Scordino v Italy (No 1) [GC], Judgment of 29 Mar 2006, [2006] ECHRGoogle Scholar; for illustrations concerning Germany see Caroline von Hannover v Germany (3d Section), Judgment of 24 June 2004Google Scholar; Görgülü v Germany (3d Section), Judgment of 26 Feb 2004; German Federal Constitutional Court (2d Senate), ‘Görgülü-Beschluss’ of 14 Oct 2004, [2004] EuGRZ 741–8Google Scholar; Bergmann, J, ‘Das Bundesverfassungsgericht in Europa’ [2004] EuGRZ 620–7Google Scholar; Cremer, H-J, ‘Zur Bindungswirkung von EGMR-Urteilen’ [2004] EuGRZ 683–700Google Scholar; Papier, H-J, ‘Koordination des Grundrechtsschutzes in Europa—die Sicht des Bundesverfassungsgerichts’ (2005) 124 Revue de droit Suisse 113–27Google Scholar; Scheyli, M, ‘Konstitutioneller Anspruch des EGMR des Umgang mit nationalen Argumenten’ [2004] EuGRZ 628–34Google Scholar; Luzius, Wildhaber, ‘Europäischer Grundrechtsschutz aus der Sicht des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte’ [2005] EuGRZ 689–92Google Scholar; id ‘Bemerkungen zum Vortrag von BVerfG-Präsident Papier, HJ.’ [2005] EuGRZ 743–4.Google Scholar

4 Zwaak, LF, ‘The Netherlands’ in Blackburn and Polakiewicz (n 1) 595–624Google Scholar; H Tretter, ‘Austria’ in ibid 103–65.

5 This would be similar to the ‘later in time’ doctrine in American law, which demonstrates a dualist rather than a monist approach. See Restatement of the Law Third, American Law Institute, Foreign Relations Law of the United States (St Paul, , Minn, 1987) § 115 63–9.Google Scholar

6 Schokkenbroek, J and Ziemele, I, ‘The European Convention on Human Rights and the Central and Eastern European Member States of the Council of Europe’ (2000) 34 Netherlands Legal Journal 1914–20.Google Scholar

7 A recent example for such a harmonization without express reliance on the Convention can be found in the judgment of the Turkish Court of Cassation of 18 Apr 2006, which quashed a decision of a lower instance and found that a caricature of Prime Minister RT Erdogan, portraying him as a cat, did not amount to defamation, because it was covered by freedom of expression.

8 cf Buergenthal, T, ‘Proliferation of International Courts and Tribunals: Is It Good or Bad?’ (2001) 14 Leiden Journal of International Law 267–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Delas, O, Coˇté, R, Crépeau, F, and Leuprecht, P (eds), Les juridictions Internationales: Complémentarité ou concurrence? (Bruylant, Bruxelles, 2005).Google Scholar

9 Caflisch, L and Cançado-Trindade, AA, ‘Les conventions américaine et européenne des droits de l'homme et le droit international général’ (2004) 108 Revue générate de droit international public 5–62Google Scholar; Ziemele, I, ‘Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and Integrity of International Law’ in Vinaixa, R Huesa and Wellens, K (eds), L'influence des sources sur I'unité et la fragmentation du droit international (Bruylant, Bruxelles, 2006) 187–210.Google Scholar

10 Al-Adsani v United Kingdom [GC], Judgment of 21 11 2001, § 55, ECHR 2001–XI.Google Scholar

11 Loizidou v Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], Judgment of 23 03 1995, §§ 75, 93, A/310Google Scholar; Bankovic v Belgium et al [GC], Decision of 12 12 2001, § 80, ECHR 2001–XII.Google Scholar

12 Ireland v United Kingdom, Judgment of 18 01 1978, § 239, A/25; Loizidou (preliminary objections) (n 11) §70.Google Scholar

13 Al-Adsani (n 10) § 55.

14 Loizidou v Turkey (merits) [GC], Judgment of 18 12 1996, § 44, ECHR 1996–VI.Google Scholar

15 Al-Adsani n. 10). For a more elaborate discussion see text at n 29.

16 Bankovic (n 12), §§ 55 et seq and see text at n 24.

17 Loizidou (preliminary objections) (n 12) § 72.

18 Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey [GC], Judgment of 4 02 2005, § 101Google Scholar; Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen, and Pedersen, Judgment of 7 12 1976, § 53, A/23Google Scholar; Soering, Judgment of 7 07 1989, §87, A/161.Google Scholar

19 Loizidou (preliminary objections) (n 11), §§ 96–8 and see text at n 39.

20 See Wildhaber, L, ‘Sovereignty and international law’ in Macdonald, RStJ and Johnston, DM (eds), The Structure and Process of International Law: Essays in Legal Philosophy, Doctrine and Theory (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague/Boston/Lancaster, 1983) 19–49.Google Scholar

21 Pierre-Henri, Teitgen, ‘Consultative Assembly, 19 Aug 1949 in Collected edition of the ‘travaux préparatories’ of the European Convention on Human Rights, vol I (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1975) 49.Google Scholar

22 Lawrence v Texas, Judgment of 26 June 2003, (2003) 24 HRLJ 371–84.Google ScholarSee also Ginsburg, R Bader, ‘Gebührender Respekt vor den Meinungen der Menschheit’ [2004] EuGRZ 341–6.Google Scholar

23 Tyrer, , Judgment of 25 04 1978, § 31, A/26Google Scholar; Klass, , Judgment of 6 09 1978, § 34, A/28; Soering (n 19), §§ 87, 102Google Scholar; Matthews v United Kingdom [GC], Judgment of 18 02 1999, § 39, ECHR 1999–1Google Scholar; Christine Goodwin v United Kingdom [GC], Judgment of 11 07 2002, § 75, ECHR 2002–VI; Mamatkulov (n 18) §§ 101, 121.Google Scholar

24 Bankovic v Belgium et al [GC], Decision of 12 12 2001, ECHR 2001–XII.Google Scholar

25 §§ 55–8.

26 §§ 59–61.

27 Blečić v Croatia [GC], Judgment of 8 03 2006.Google Scholar

28 §§45–8, 70–1, 79–81, 90–1.

29 Al-Adsani v United Kingdom [GC], Judgment of 21 11 2001, ECHR 2001–XI.Google Scholar

30 §§ 37–41.

31 § 54.

32 §§ 60–3.

33 Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey [GC], Judgment of 4 02 2005.Google Scholar

34 Cruz Varas v Sweden, Judgment of 20 03 1991, A/201.Google Scholar

35 Mamatkulov (n 33) §§ 40–53, 109–10, 112–18, 124.

36 § 124.

37 § 128.

38 Belilos, , Judgment of 29 04 1988, A/132.Google Scholar

39 Loizidou (preliminary objections) (n 11).

40 §§ 75, 77, and 89.

41 §§ 93–8.

42 Loizidou (merits) (n 14) §§ 43–5.

43 CCPR/C/2/Revl/Add6 (11 11 1994).Google Scholar

44 cf Wildhaber, L, ‘Rund um Belilos’, in Kleinstaat und Menschenrechte, Festgabe für Gerard Batliner (Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel/Frankfurt aM, 1993) 323–9Google Scholar; Ziemele, Ineta (ed), Reservations to Human Rights Treaties and the Vienna Convention Regime (Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston, 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim §irketi v Ireland [GC], Judgment of 30 06 2005.Google Scholar

46 §§ 73–6.

47 §§ 155–6, 165.