SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1

Article 15 of The European Convention on Human Rights and The Notion of State of Emergency

İnsan Hakları Avrupa Sözleşmesi'nin 15. Maddesi ve Olaganüstü Kavramı

Joseph ZAND
Pages
159–224
Publication Date
2016-07-13
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Further, it will consider the case of A and Others v. the United Kingdom which will indicate the new challenges that the European Court of Human Rights will have to address in the future

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article will critically evaluate the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights specifically with regards to Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights and its development since its inception.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Provisions such as Article 15 of the Convention should be in place to protect the life and territorial integrity of a nation in times of war and other emergency situations.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Further, it will consider the case of A and Others v. the United Kingdom which will indicate the new challenges that the European Court of Human Rights will have to address in the future
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi 15. Madde · Olağanüstü Hal Kavramı · Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi

Abstract

This article will critically evaluate the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights specifically with regards to Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights and its development since its inception. There is no doubt that departure from normal human rights standards in certain circumstances is unavoidable. Provisions such as Article 15 of the Convention should be in place to protect the life and territorial integrity of a nation in times of war and other emergency situations. Article 15 incorporates, in effect, the principle of necessity common to all legal systems. It allows a government to derogate from the Convention standards in times of public emergency. This article will review the reasons for Article 15, the requirements of the right to derogate and the procedure of derogation. Further, it will consider the case of A and Others v. the United Kingdom which will indicate the new challenges that the European Court of Human Rights will have to address in the future

Özet

Bu makale Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin içtihatlarını özellikle Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nin 15. Maddesi ve yürürlüğe girdiği günden bu zamana gelişimi hususunda eleştirel olarak değerlendirmektedir. Belirli şartlar altında normal insan hakları standartlarından vazgeçmenin kaçınılmaz olduğu aşikârdır. Sözleşmenin 15. maddesindeki gibi hükümler savaş ve diğer olağanüstü durumlarda bir ulusun yaşam ve toprak bütünlüğünü korumak amacı ile yürürlükte olmaya devam etmektedir. 15. madde esas itibariyle tüm hukuk sistemleri için ortak bir zorunluluk ilkesini bünyesinde barınmaktadır. Bu madde olağanüstü durumlarda devletlere Sözleşmenin standartlarını askıya alma imkânı sağlar. Bu makalede 15. maddenin gerekçeleri, askıya alma koşulları ve usulü incelenecektir. Ayrıca, makale Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin gelecekte ele alması gereken yeni sorunları gösteren A ve Diğerleri v. Birleşik Krallık davası incelenmiştir

🔖

Cite This Article

ZAND, J. (2016). Article 15 of The European Convention on Human Rights and The Notion of State of Emergency. İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1, 159–224. https://ajindex.com/articles/674824

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. A (FC) et al (FC) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56. A and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56. A and Others v. The United Kingdom, Appl. no. 3455/05, 19 May 2009.
  2. Agamben, G., State of Exception, Trans. Kevin Attell, Chicago U.P., 2005. Aksoy v Turkey, appl. no. 21987/93, Judgement of 18 December 1996. Al-Skeini and Others v. United Kingdom, Appl. no. 55721/07, 7 July 2011.
  3. Alston, P., et al., International Human Rights Law in Context: Law, Politics, Morals, Oxford U.P., 3rd ed., 2007. The Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, available at:. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, available at:. BBC News Special Report, ‘London attacks’, available at: Bonner, D, ‘Managing terrorism While Respecting Human Rights? European Aspect of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001’ (2002) 8 European Public Law 497-525.
  4. Bonner, D. and Cholewinski, R., (2005) Immigration and Asylum Law: the impact of terrorism in the United Kingdom, ‘A Contrast of the Responses of its Legal and constitutional Orders to the First Gulf War (1990-91) and the Post 9/11 ‘War’ on Terrorism’, in Guild, E. and Baldaccini, A., (eds.) Terrorism and the Foreigners: A Decade of Tension Around the Rule of Law in Europe (Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy in Europe, 11), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007.
  5. Bonner, D., Emergency Powers in Peace Time, Sweet & Maxwell: London, 1985, p. 17. Bonner, D., Executive Measures, Terrorism and National Security: Have the Rules of the Game Changed?, Ashgate, 2007. Brannigan and McBride v. United Kingdom, 25 May 1993 (Appl. No. 14553/89; 14554/89). Brogan and Others v. United Kingdom, Appl. Nos. 11209/84, 11266/84, 11386/85, Merit, Judgment (29 Nov. 1988).
  6. Cassel, D., ‘Pretrial and Preventive detention of Suspected Terrorists: Options and Constraints under International Law’, 98 J. Crim. and Criminology (2008) 811, p. 829. Chahal v. The United Kingdom, Appl. no. 22414/93, 15 November 1996
  7. Cherif Bassiouni, M., International Criminal Law, vol. 2, Multilateral and Bilateral Enforcements Mechanism, Brill, 2008.
  8. Clapham, A., ‘Terrorism, National Measures and International Supervision’, in A. Bianchi and Y. Naqvi (eds.), Enforcing International Law Norms Against Terrorism, Hart Publishing, 2004. Comments on Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ["European Convention on Human Rights"] concerning t