Introduction

This book concerns the role played by international and domestic courts of general jurisdiction in implementing and developing international human rights law. For the purposes of this volume, such “courts of general jurisdiction” differ from “human rights courts” proper in that they have not been established to deal specifically and exclusively with human rights. As such, courts of general jurisdiction also encompass regional (economic) integration courts and all other courts with jurisdiction over non-human rights matters

Judging International Human Rights. Courts of General Jurisdiction as Human Rights Courts

Item does not contain fulltextThis book attempts to establish how courts of general jurisdiction differ from specialized human rights courts in their approach to the implementation and development of international human rights. Why do courts of general jurisdiction face particular problems in relation to the application of international human rights law and why, in other cases, are they better placed than specialized human rights courts to act as guardians of international human rights? At the international level, this volume focusses on the International Court of Justice and courts of regional economic integration organizations in Europe, Latin America and Africa. With regard to the judicial implementation of international human rights and human rights decisions at the domestic level, the contributions analyze the requirements set by human rights treaties and offer a series of country studies on the practice of domestic courts in Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia. This book follows up on research undertaken by the International Human Rights Law Committee of the International Law Association. It includes the final Committee report as well as contributions by committee members and external experts.XV, 665 p

Europarecht. Handbuch für die deutsche Rechtspraxis

Item does not contain fulltext2700 p

The International Court of Justice and Its Contribution to Human Rights Law. Final Report of the ILA International Human Rights Law Committee (Part 1).

One of the two mandates of the ILA Human Rights Law Committee (2009–2016) was to examine the contribution by the ICJ to international human rights law. The Committee reported on this at the Washington Conference 2014. This report discusses the ICJ’s treatment of decisions by human rights bodies. In addition, it focuses on some of the contributions by the ICJ to human rights law in specific areas, even without a clear direct impact of the case law of the human rights bodies. The discussion, covering case law until 2013, includes the Court’s attitude toward the position of the individual in general, its case law on the extraterritorial application of human rights treaties, and its practice regarding provisional measures involving human beings. Finalized by Eva Rieter This is a slightly edited version, for purposes of this volume, of paras 19–88 of the interim report of the ILA Committee on International Human Rights Law, Washington Conference 2014, reprinted in ILA Report 2014, at 476–501. The report was finalized by ILA Rapporteur Eva Rieter, with input by the other Committee members, in particular Stefan Kadelbach, Liliana Jubilut, Christina Cerna, the late Nigel Rodley and the late Peter van Krieken, as well as by those participating in the ILA committee meeting in Bellagio, Italy, June 13–14, 2012. The findings of the report were endorsed by the ILA Johannesburg Conference in Resolution No. 2/2016, reprinted in ILA Report 2016, at 20–21

The International Court of Justice and Provisional Measures Involving the Fate of Persons

This chapter examines the use of provisional measures by the ICJ to protect interests beyond those of states alone. The ICJ has shown sensitivity toward the plight of individuals through its use of provisional measures ordered pending judicial proceedings. The chapter posits that a clarification of this practice is one step toward answering the question whether the ICJ could contribute to the development of human rights law, especially since it is a court of general jurisdiction as opposed to a human rights court. It discusses types of situations in which the ICJ has used provisional measures in the general interest, for example, by often referring to the non-aggravation of the conflict. The chapter examines recent and older examples of the use of provisional measures, moving away somewhat from the traditional principle of consent. It shows how the ICJ has at times been less strict in the application of four traditional aspects of provisional measures when faced with situations involving human beings at risk. The chapter also discusses the ICJ’s confirmation of the binding nature of its provisional measures in the LaGrand judgment (2001). This has had a significant impact on human rights adjudication, at least within Europe. At the same time, its determination that its provisional measures are legally binding has also been argued to require a more cautious approach toward the use of provisional measures, clinging more closely to the traditional principle of consent. The chapter discusses a development involving the requirement to show a ‘plausible case’ already at the stage of provisional measures. This indeed indicates a more limited approach by the Court to ordering provisional measures, also when human rights are involved. The chapter concludes by exploring the question how the ICJ deals with states that ignore its provisional measures