Batura, Justine

Risini, Isabella

English

<intR>²Dok

On Current Developments and ReformsIsabella Risini, Justine Batura 2021-04-26T10:00:04What is the significance of inter-State cases within the European System of HumanRights? And what does their constant increase over the last decade mean for theEuropean Court of Human Rights? An ongoing reform process within the Council ofEurope is addressing these questions, with the aim of an effective processing andresolution of inter-State cases.To inform this reform process, an online conference in mid-April 2021 has broughttogether academics and practitioners to reflect on various aspects of the procedureand discuss possible strategies to tackle some of the many challenges ahead.With this Symposium, we aim to take up and expand the discussing initiated duringthe aforementioned conference. The contributions will reflect on selected aspectsof the inter-State procedure under the European convention. We hope for an opendialogue, new perspectives, criticism and, ideally, constructive ideas. In this vein, weheartily invite to engage critically with the contributions in the comments section.In this introductory note, we will briefly outline the context of inter-State applicationsbefore the European Court of Human Rights. We will then provide an overview of thecontributions that will be published throughout the week (here).BackgroundAs of April 2021, there are ten sets of inter-State proceedings pending before theCourt, some of which combine multiple applications. In 2020, the use of the inter-State mechanism reached an all-time high with six applications within one year. TheCourt has never had to deal with a comparable number of inter-State cases at onetime, prompting the reference to a renaissance or ‘golden age’ of inter-State cases.- 1 -It is worth noting that most of the inter-State applications concern a large number ofalleged victims and their fate in situations of acute or protracted armed conflict. In thesituation of the cases between Georgia and Russia, Ukraine and Russia, as well asthe cases centering around the conflict in Nagorno Karabakh, the persons living theaffected territories number in the millions.Most of the inter-State proceedings involve a large number of overlapping individualapplications. Currently, approximately 15% of the individual applications before theCourt arise within the context an inter-State conflict. According to the informationpublished in the draft report ofthe Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) of15 March 2021, more than 15,500 applications lodged relate to the aforementionedthree inter-State conflicts alone. The Symposium’s contributions at a glanceAgainst this background, we would like to present the contributions of theSymposium. With a historical perspective, Ed Bates (University of Leicester) offersan important preface to this symposium and gives an insight into the origins and- 2 -typology of inter-State proceedings in the framework of the European Convention onHuman Rights (here).Drawing on her experience as a former judge and vice-president of the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights, Angelika Nußberger (University of Cologne) offers threepragmatical ideas with the aim to ensure the timely administration of justice. In turn,Peter Tzeng’s considerations are influenced by his experience as a counsel beforevarious international courts and tribunals. He offers a comparative perspective oninterim measures in inter-State cases in Strasbourg and before the InternationalCourt of Justice in The Hague. While interim measures have always been part ofinter-State proceedings in Strasbourg, they have gained relevance in the Court’sremedial toolbox since the outbreak of hostilities in Georgia v Russia II in 2008,in the proceedings between Ukraine v Russia since 2014, and in the Nagorno-Karabakh cases since 2020.In the same spirit of inspiration from other international fora, a perspective into thepractice of regional and universal bodies is offered next. In the African System ofHuman Rights, the use of the inter-State mechanism has been scarce. By analyzingthe only case which was decided on the merits, the so-called  ‘DRC case’, FransViljoen (University of Pretoria) outlines the reasons for the reluctance of States touse the inter-State mechanism in the African Human Rights system. At first sight,a similarly low amount of inter-State cases has reached the Inter-American systemof Human Rights. However, Jorge Contesse (Rutgers University) pulls back thecurtains on ‘disguised inter-State cases’ in the Americas, which are actually behind anumber of recent requests for advisory opinions.Although only two inter-State cases so far have been resolved through friendlysettlements in the European System, the academic debate surrounding thisresolution option is rich and reveals promising avenues for inter-State complaints.Drawing further on the idea of mutual enrichment from other fora, David Keane(Dublin City University) argues that the inter-State communications under theConvention against Racial Discrimination may inform a better understanding ofamicable solutions in human rights.Helen Keller (University of Zurich, former judge at the European Court of HumanRights) and Réka Piskóty (University of Zurich) explore the untapped potentialof friendly settlements in inter-State proceedings and suggest the creation of aframework that could guide the negotiating parties. In light of this proposal, NicolaWenzel (Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection) offers a criticalperspective from the perspective of an experienced State agent before the Court.The challenge of fact-finding in inter-State cases is daunting, albeit notinsurmountable. In fact, most inter-State proceedings relate to factually complexsituations such as armed conflicts. Philip Leach (Middlesex University) makes thecase for fact-finding by the Court and points to the potential of new technologies tofacilitate fact finding. In a comparative analysis, Alina Miron (University of Angers)  underlines the essential role of States in the endeavor and takes note of theincreasing, but timid steps that courts have taken to ensure the good administrationof justice.- 3 -Finally, we will offer reflections on inter-State cases from cross-cutting perspectives.To this end, Hélène Tigroudja (University of Aix-Marseille) examines theoverlap of inter-State and individual applications and offers observations onunsolved challenges. In a similarly cross-cutting approach, Laurence Burgorgue-Larsen (Sorbonne University Paris) joins the search for innovation in inter-Stateproceedings, drawing on the practice within the Inter-American System of HumanRights.Concluding the Symposium, Isabella Risini (Ruhr University of Bochum), GeirUlfstein (University of Oslo) and Andreas Zimmermann (University of Potsdam) willbring together the threads and provide an outlook on the reform process.- 4 -

On Current Developments and Reforms

https://intr2dok.vifa-recht.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/mir_derivate_00010307/On_Current_Developments_and_Reforms.pdf

On Current Developments and Reforms

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

<intR>²Dok