Since the entry into force of the European Convention on Human Rights there have been many serious conflicts in Europe. This article examines the role played by the Convention in two of those conflicts: that in Northern Ireland between supporters of the territory remaining part of the United Kingdom and supporters of Northern Ireland becoming part of a reunified Ireland, and that in Turkey between those who advocate for a unified Turkish State and those who want a Turkey which grants greater rights to Kurds and accepts greater autonomy for the Kurdish-dominated southeast region. The principal goal is to compare how the institutions in Strasbourg have responded to applications lodged by victims of human rights abuses allegedly committed during the two conflicts. The comparison seeks to identify to what extent the European Court of Human Rights has adopted principles and practices which can contribute to a reduction in human rights abuses during times of conflict.

The facts of the Bulger case and its legal consequences, in particular the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), are summarised. A review of the literature on child homicide indicates that this continues to be rare, can neither be predicted nor prevented, and suggests that the future outlook for such offenders may be good. The recommendations of a committee set up by Justice (1996) for changes in legislation and procedures concerning children who have killed, are congruent with the European Court's judgements, but still woefully at odds with public attitudes.