Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T19:27:29.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights: International Protection versus National Restrictions. Edited by Mireille Delmas-Marty and Christine Chodkiewicz. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1992. Pp. xiii, 341. Index. $118.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Christina M. Cerna
Christina M. Cerna*
Affiliation:
Of the District of Columbia Bar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Reviews and Notes
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 88 , Issue 1 , January 1994 , pp. 206 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1994

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 The second remark comes from Sir Gerald’s Some Reflections on the European Convention on Human Rights—and on Human Rights, in Völkerrecht als Rechtsordnung, Internationale Gerichtsbarkeit, Menschenrechte: Festschrift für Hermann Mosler 203 (1983). Given the hands-off policy of the Strasbourg human rights organs concerning the former Yugoslavia, Sir Gerald’s evaluation continues to be valid.

2 Professor Delmas-Marty points out that Article 2(7) of the UN Charter posits the notion that “a state of necessity” can prevail over law, in that this clause provides that the United Nations is not authorized “to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State” unless measures are necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security (p. 8).

3 The European Commission, when examining the case of Greece under the Colonels, came to the conclusion that the Greek Colonels could not invoke Article 15 of the Convention because they were attempting to preserve themselves in power, not to preserve a democratic state. From this, it follows that no nondemocratic state may invoke a state of emergency to keep itself in power.