Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T00:10:41.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Establishing a Hierarchy of Human Rights: Ideal Solution or Fallacy?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2012

Eckart Klein
Get access

Abstract

The Article discusses the difficulties of establishing a hierarchy of norms in international law, particularly with regard to human rights norms. A number of arguments have been put forward but none of them has proven to be conclusive: be it the distinction between treaty-based norms and norms of customary law, be it the non-restrictability or non-derogability of some treaty rights, be it their erga omnes character or the inadmissibility to make reservations. The best way to address the issue of hierarchy seems to be the concept of jus cogens. However, the consequences of some rights being “superior” to others are by no means clear. The fact that certain rights are addressed in court decisions as being “most fundamental” or representing a “supreme value” does not necessarily mean that these rights prevail over other, seemingly “inferior” rights in a given case. This is so because it is difficult to decide in abstracto and in advance possible conflicts of human rights positions of different human beings. The Article therefore recommends a very reluctant use of a terminology pointing at a hierarchy between human rights.

Type
A Symposium on Constitutional Rights and International Human Rights honoring Professor David Kretzmer
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , Winter 2008 , pp. 477 - 488
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2008

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 Koskenniemi, Martti, Hierarchy in International Law: A Sketch, 8 Eur. J. Int'l L. 566, 571 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Meron, Theodor, On a Hierarchy of International Human Rights, 80 Am. J. Int'l L. 1, 4 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Shelton, Dinah, Normative Hierarchy in International Law, 100 Am. J. Int'l L. 291, 297 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 However, Kirchner, Stefan, Relative Normativity and the Constitutional Dimension of International Law: A Place for Values in the International Legal System?, 5 German L. J. 47, 60–61 (2004)Google Scholar, is attributing the pouvoir constituant to the international community as a whole.

5 See, e.g., Schwarzenberger, Georg, International Jus Cogens?, 43 Tex. L. Rev. 455 (1965)Google Scholar; Weil, Prosper, Towards Relative Normativity in International Law?, 77 Am. J. Int'l L. 413 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 See, e.g., Weiler, Joseph H. H. & Paulus, Andreas L., The Structure of Change in International Law or Is there a Hierarchy of Norms in International Law?, 8 Eur. J. Int'l. L. 545 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, discussing contemporary scepticism and Dupuy, Pierre-Marie, Droit International Public 14 et seq. (3rd ed. 1995Google Scholar).

7 Cf. the pertinent discussion by Seiderman, Ian D., Hierarchy in International Law. The Human Rights Dimension passim (2001)Google Scholar; further Shelton, supra note 3, at 299 et seq.

8 Tomuschat, Christian, International Law: Ensuring the Survival of Mankind on the Eve of a New Century, 281 Recueil des Cours 9, 81 et seq. (2001)Google Scholar; Shelton, supra note 3, at 322–23.

9 Kirchner, supra note 4, at 53.

10 For the issue of a constitutionalization of international law see Frowein, Jochen A., Konstitutionalisierung des Völkerrechts, 39 Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht 427 (2000)Google Scholar.

11 Cf. Suy, Eric, The Constitutional Character of Constituent Treaties of International Organizations and the Hierarchy of Norms, in Recht Zwischen Umbruch und Bewahrung, Festschrift für Rudolf Bernhardt 267 (Beyerlin, Ulrich ed., 1995)Google Scholar; Wölker, Ulrich, Die Normenhierarchie im Unionsrecht in der Praxis, 42 Europarecht 32 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 D'Amato, Anthony, International Law as an Autopoietic System, in Developments of International Law in Treaty Making 335, 349 et seq. (Wolfrum, Rüdiger & Röben, Volker eds., 2005)Google Scholar.

13 Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 2006, I.C.J. 126 (Feb. 3), at ¶ 64, reprinted in 45 I.L.M. 562, 579 (2006).

14 Cf. Simma, Bruno & Alston, Philip, The Sources of Human Rights Law: Custom, Jus Cogens, and General Principles, 12 Australian Yearbook of International Law 82 (1988–1989)Google Scholar.

15 A famous and rather successful attempt has been made by The American Law Institute, see Restatement of the Law Third, the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 102, reporters note 6 and § 702 cl. (a)-(f) (1987)Google Scholar.

16 Shelton, Dinah, International Law and ‘Relative Normativity’, in International Law 145, 170 (Evans, Malcolm D. ed., 2003)Google Scholar.

17 Shelton, Dinah, Hierarchy of Norms and Human Rights: Of Trumps and Winners, 65 Univ. Saskatchewan L. Rev. 301 (2002)Google Scholar.

18 U.N. Convention and Optional Protocol on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, G.A. Res. 61/106, Annex I, U.N. GAOR, 61st Sess., Supp. No. 49, at 65, U.N. Doc. A/RES/61/106 (Sept. 11, 2006). Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on Dec., 13, 2006 and opened for signature on Mar. 30, 2007, reprinted in 46 I.L.M. 443.

19 Meron, supra note 2, at 2.

20 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.157/23, ¶5 (July 12, 1993); cf. Tahvanainen, Annika, Hierarchy of Norms in International and Human Rights Law, 24 Nordisk Tidskrift For Menneskerettigheter 191, 201 (2006)Google Scholar; de Wet, Erika, The Prohibition of Torture as an International Norm of jus cogens and Its Implications for National and Customary Law, 15 Eur. J. Int'l L. 97, 119 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Supra note 15.

22 Dupuy, supra note 6, at 15; Salcedo, Juan Antonio Carrillo, Reflections on the Existence of a Hierarchy of Norms in International Law, 8 Eur. J. Int'l L. 583, 585 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 For more on non-derogability clauses see G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), U.N. Doc. A/6316 (Dec. 16, 1966), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), U.N. Doc. A/6316, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force Mar. 23, 1976 [hereinafter ICCPR] European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 15, Sept. 3, 1953, 213 U.N.T.S. 222; Organization of American States, American Convention on Human Rights, art. 27, Nov. 22, 1969, O.A.S.T.S. 36, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123 [hereinafter ACHR]. Concerning the lack of a corresponding provision in the African [Banjul]Charter on Human and People's Rights, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, reprinted in 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982), entered into force Oct. 21, 1986 [hereinafter ACHPR] see Shelton, supra note 16, at 164.

24 Of course, rough times as times of emergency may influence the outcome of the balancing of conflicting values under the auspices of the principle of proportionality quite differently from normal times.

25 Cf. Koji, Teraya, Emerging Hierarchy in International Human Rights and Beyond: From the Perspective of Non-derogable Rights, 12 Eur. J. Int'l L. 917, 927 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 See also Tahvanainen, supra note 20, at 199 et seq.

27 See, e. g., ICCPR, supra note 23, art. 41 which reflects this idea.

28 Cf. generally to this concept Ragazzi, Maurizio, The Concept of International Obligations Erga Omnes (1997)Google Scholar.

29 Meron, supra note 2, at 9; Tahvanainen, supra note 20, at 196 et seq.

30 In this sense also the Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc John Dugard, ¶ 4, DRC v. Rwanda, supra note 13, reprinted in 45 I.L.M. 609, 610 (2006)Google Scholar.

31 In fact, it is the abundance of reservations declared by states that has motivated the Human Rights Committee as well as other committees to deal with this issue in a quite progressive way, but not completely denying the admissibility of reservations; see Human Rights Committee, General Comment 24, General Comment on Issues Relating to Reservations Made upon Ratification or Accession to the Covenant or the Optional Protocols thereto, or in Relation to Declarations under Article 41 of the Covenant, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.6 (1994).

32 See Klein, Eckart, A Comment on the Issue of Reservations to the Provisions of the Covenant Representing (Peremptory) Rules of General International Law, in Reservations to Human Rights Treaties and the Vienna Convention Regime 59 (Ziemele, Ineta ed., 2004)Google Scholar.

33 Dugard, supra note 30, ¶ 5.

34 See, e. g., Shelton, supra note 3, at 322-23; Carrillo Salcedo, supra note 22, at 592; Koji, supra note 25, at 921.

35 Cf. the references with Shelton, supra note 3, at 303.

36 See ICCPR, art. 2; European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 15; ACHR, art. 4 ACHPR (see supra note 23).

37 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, arts. 53 & 64, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331; reprinted in 8 I.L.M. 679 (1969)Google Scholar.

38 Meron, supra note 2, at 20; Tomuschat, supra note 8, at 82.

39 Federal Constitution of Switzerland, art. 139,¶ 3 (1998); cf. also de Wet, supra note 20, at 101.

40 Basic Law of the Federal Republic, art. 25, (1949); Steinberger, Helmut, Allgemeine Regeln des Völkerrechts, in Handbuch des Staatsrechts vol. VII, at 525, 551 et seq. (Isensee, Josef & Kirchhof, Paul eds., Heidelberg 1992)Google Scholar.

41 Order of 26 October 2004—2 BvR 955/00, 1038/01—Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsge richts (BVerfGE, Official Collection of Judgments), vol. 112, p. 1, 33 et seq. (English translation available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/decisions/rs20041026_2bvr095500en.html, ¶ ¶ 115 et seq.).

42 Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, U.N. Doc. A/RES/56/83 Annex (Jan. 28, 2002).

43 See id. arts. 40, 41, 48 and 54.

44 In this sense, see, e. g., Orakhelashvili, Alexander, Peremptory Norms in International Law 490 (2006)Google Scholar.

45 Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, 2001-XI Eur. Ct. H.R. 79 (GC judgment of Nov. 21,2001); see also Kalogeropoulou v. Greece & Germany, 2002-X Eur. Ct. H.R. (judgment of Dec. 12, 2002).

46 Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, supra note 45, ¶ 3, dissent by eight (out of 17).

47 Jones v. Ministry of Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya AS Saudiya [2006] UKHL 26, (appeal taken from [2004] EWCA Civ 1394; Fang v. Jiang, (2006) High Court of New Zealand, judgment of Dec. 21, 2006) CIV 2004-404-5843. Cf. further Eckart Klein, Al-Adsani Case, Max-Planck-Encyclopedia of Public International Law, available at http://www.mpepil.com/.

48 East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), 1995 I.C.J. 102, ¶ 29 (June 30); DRC v. Rwanda, supra note 13, ¶ 164. See also Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), 2007 I.C.J. (Feb. 26) ¶ 147.

49 Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1, Judgment, ¶¶ 155 et seq. (Dec. 10, 1998), reprinted in 38 I.L.M. 317 (1999)Google Scholar.

50 McCann v. United Kingdom, 324 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at ¶ 146 (G.C. judgment Sept. 27, 1995).

51 Streletz, Kessler & Krenz v. Germany, 2001-II; Eur. Ct. H.R. at ¶¶ 72 & 94 (GC judgment Mar. 22, 2001). Tysiąc v. Poland, Appl. No. 5410/03, Eur. Ct. H.R. (Fourth Section) (judgment of Mar. 20, 2007) at ¶ 102, available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Tysi%u0105c%20%7C%20v.&sessionid=15442881&skin=hudoc-en.

52 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, supra note 23, art. 3

53 Soering v. United Kingdom, 11 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at ¶ 88 (1989). Chahal v. United Kingdom, 1996-V Eur. Ct. H.R. (GC judgment of Nov. 15, 1996) at para. ¶ 79; Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, supra note 45, at para. 59.

54 Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, supra note 45, at para. ¶ 60.

55 Concurring opinion of Judge Costa, Keenan v. United Kingdom, 2001-III, 242 (judgment of Apr. 3, 2001).

56 See also Shelton, supra note 3, at 314.

57 Cf. the Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, supra note 45.

58 Tahvanainen, supra note 20, at 193.

59 This seems to be misunderstood by D'Amato, supra note 12, at 395.

60 See Klein, Eckart, Human Dignity in German Law, in The Concept of Human Dignity in Human Rights Discourse 145 (Kretzmer, David & Klein, Eckart eds., 2002)Google Scholar.

61 Cf. Gäfgen v. Germany, Appl. No. 22978/05 (GC judgment of June 30, 2008), available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int./tkp 197/search.asp?skin=hudoc-en.

62 Cf. Brugger, Winfried, Darf der Staat ausnahmsweise foltern?, 35 Der Staat 67 (1996)Google Scholar.

63 Judgment of Feb. 15, 2006, 1 BvR 357/05, Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (BverfGE, Official Collection of Judgments), vol. 115, at 118Google Scholar.

64 We should also not overlook the issue of power that is always involved in the establishment of hierarchies of whatever sort; cf. Koskenniemi, supra note 1, at 571; Weiler & Paulus, supra note 6, at 563.

65 General Comment No. 24, supra note 31, at ¶ 10.