Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Judging International Human Rights pp 3–18Cite as

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 874 Accesses

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    On this distinction, see Rensmann, Germany, in this Volume.

  2. 2.

    On the African Court’s explicit mandate to assess human rights violations under other international treaties see Jansen Reventlow and Curling, State Obligations in the African System, section 4.2, in this Volume.

  3. 3.

    Peters (2016).

  4. 4.

    Of the human rights treaties, only the ECHR includes due process rights of companies.

  5. 5.

    For a further discussion, concluding that these rights are “an element of the fair trial guarantee for foreigners” but “not human rights per se,” see Peters (2016), pp. 348–387.

  6. 6.

    Cf the ICJ itself in Diallo, para 66.

  7. 7.

    See ICJ, Judgment No 2867 of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization upon a Complaint Filed against the International Fund for Agricultural Development (advisory opinion), ICJ Reports 2012, 10, paras 42, 44–47. See generally on equality of arms, the separate opinion by Judge Cançado Trindade.

  8. 8.

    ICJ, Judgment No 2867 of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization upon a Complaint Filed against the International Fund for Agricultural Development (advisory opinion), ICJ Reports 2012, 10, declaration of Judge Greenwood, para 3. See also his pertinent observation about the approach of IFAD to the proceedings before the ICJ which “amounted to treating Ms Saez García as a spectator rather than a participant in proceedings whose outcome would have a direct and substantial effect upon her. In the end, I believe that the action taken by the Court prevented that approach from giving rise to a denial of justice but it is a graphic reminder of the deficiencies inherent in a system in which a judgment in favour of a staff member is challenged in proceedings to which the employing organization, but not the staff member, has direct access to the Court,” para 5.

  9. 9.

    See further Yakushiji, The International Court of Justice and Diplomatic Protection, in this Volume, and the references therein and Peters (2016), pp. 388–407.

  10. 10.

    See already e.g. IACtHR, Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights) (advisory opinion), OC-5/85, Inter-Am Ct HR (Ser A) No 5 (1985), para 52.

  11. 11.

    See e.g. ITLOS, Arctic Sunrise Case (Kingdom of the Netherlands v Russian Federation), order of 22 Nov 2013; cf Rieter (2014), pp. 603–619. See also Miles (2017), pp. 360–363 criticizing the inclusion in the diplomatic protection of persons unrelated to the boarding and detention of the Arctic Sunrise.

  12. 12.

    On ICJ Diallo (reparations judgment) see also ILA Report (Part 1), The International Court of Justice and its Contribution to Human Rights Law, in this Volume. For further references to Diallo, the recommendations by ILC Rapporteur Dugard and the ECtHR judgment in Cyprus v Turkey (reparations), see Yakushiji, The International Court of Justice and Diplomatic Protection, in this Volume, and Peters (2016), pp. 488–407.

  13. 13.

    ILA Report (Part 1), The International Court of Justice and its Contribution to Human Rights Law, in this Volume.

  14. 14.

    See Yakushiji, The International Court of Justice and Diplomatic Protection, and Rieter, The International Court of Justice and Provisional Measures Involving the Fate of Persons, both in this Volume.

  15. 15.

    See ICJ, Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v India, Pakistan and the UK) (preliminary objections), judgment of 5 Oct 2016. See further, e.g. the respective contributions by Vincent-Joël Proulx, Ingo Venzke, and George Galindo, to the Symposium on the Marshall Islands Case in AJIL Unbound, Vol 111. All available under https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/ajil-unbound. Accessed 21 Dec 2017.

  16. 16.

    See e.g. Marshall Islands v India, para 38.

  17. 17.

    See e.g. the separate opinions by Crawford, Cançado Trindade, Bennouna and Robinson.

  18. 18.

    See Rieter, The International Court of Justice and Provisional Measures Involving the Fate of Persons, in this Volume.

  19. 19.

    PCA, The “Arctic Sunrise” Arbitration (Netherlands v Russia), case 2014-02, judgment of 14 Aug 2015, paras 197, 226–228.

  20. 20.

    See Rieter, The International Court of Justice and Provisional Measures Involving the Fate of Persons, in this Volume.

  21. 21.

    ITLOS, Arctic Sunrise Case (Kingdom of the Netherlands v Russian Federation), order of 22 Nov 2013. Arctic Sunrise is an icebreaker which flies the flag of the Netherlands and is operated by Greenpeace International. See also Rieter (2014), pp. 603–619.

  22. 22.

    See ILA Report (Part 1), The International Court of Justice and its Contribution to Human Rights Law, para 64, in this Volume. For a different view, see Miles (2017), p. 361.

  23. 23.

    Joint separate opinion Wolfrum and Kelly, para 1.

  24. 24.

    As to the latter example, see Glamis Gold, Ltd. v United States of America, UNCITRAL (NAFTA), award of 8 June 2009.

  25. 25.

    Mavroidis (2000), pp. 73–88.

  26. 26.

    On WTO Dispute Settlement and human rights see e.g. Marceau (2002), pp. 753–818; Pauwelyn (2005), pp. 205–231. See further Lorenzmeier (2015), pp. 147–166; Joseph (2011), Joseph et al. (2009) and Abbot et al. (2006).

  27. 27.

    See e.g. Balcerzak (2017), Simma (2011), pp. 573–596; Simma and Kill (2009), pp. 678–707; Dupuy et al. (2009).

  28. 28.

    See e.g. IBM World Trade Corp. v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No ARB/02/10, decision on jurisdiction, 22 Dec 2003, para 72 and El Paso v Argentina, award, 31 Oct 2011, para 598; Hesham Talaat M. Al-Warraq v Republic of Indonesia, UNCITRAL, final award, 15 Dec 2014, paras 556–621. See Tulip Real Estate v Turkey, decision refusing annulment, 30 Dec 2015, paras 86–91.

  29. 29.

    Tulip Real Estate v Turkey, ICSID Case No ARB/11/28, decision refusing annulment, 30 Dec 2015, para 92.

  30. 30.

    Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa and The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/26, award of 8 Dec 2016. See e.g. Guntrip (2017) and Yilmaz-Vastardis (2017). Both available under https://www.ejiltalk.org/. Accessed 21 Dec 2017.

  31. 31.

    See e.g. the contributions in Lobba and Mariniello (2017).

  32. 32.

    Rodriguez Lemmo (2002), pp. 863–930; Porrata-Doria (2012), pp. 385–388.

  33. 33.

    See Franca Filho, Lixinski and Olmos Giupponi, Courts of Regional Economic Communities in Latin America and Human Rights Law, in this Volume.

  34. 34.

    As explained in detail in the contribution by Ebobrah, Courts of Regional Economic Communities in Africa and Human Rights Law, in this Volume.

  35. 35.

    As to the ICJ referring to the UN Human Rights Committee, see ILA Report (Part 1), The International Court of Justice and its Contribution to Human Rights Law, paras 29–46, in this Volume.

  36. 36.

    See ILA Report (Part 2), The Domestic Implementation of Judgments/Decisions of Courts and other International Bodies that Involve International Human Rights Law, paras 19–20, in this Volume.

  37. 37.

    See, for instance, IACtHR, Almonacid Arellano v Chile, judgment of 26 Sept 2006, Series C 154, para 124.

  38. 38.

    Flauss (2009), pp. 37–38.

  39. 39.

    Cf Abebe (2016), pp. 549–554.

  40. 40.

    The UN HRCtee, for instance, has found violations of the right to an effective remedy in Art 2(3) ICCPR, read in conjunction with Art 7 of the Covenant, because of the lack of effective investigation of torture allegations. See e.g. UN HRCtee Tyan v Kazakhstan, case No 2125/2011, 16 Mar 2017.

  41. 41.

    For a recent example see African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Republic of Kenya (Ogiek case), judgment of 26 May 2017, referring to Art 1 ACHPR, paras 214–217.

  42. 42.

    See e.g IACtHR, Case of López-Álvarez v Honduras (merits, reparations, and costs), judgment of 1 Feb 2006, Series C No 141, paras 169 and 174.

  43. 43.

    See, for instance, IACtHR, Miguel Castro – Castro Prison v Peru, judgment of 25 Nov 2005, Series C 160, paras 255 and 344.

  44. 44.

    Starting from IACtHR, Velasquez Rodriguez v Honduras, judgment of 29 July 1988, para 174; see the contribution by Cerna, State Obligations in the Inter-American System, in this Volume.

  45. 45.

    ECtHR, Mocanu v Romania, judgment of 17 Sept 2014, no 10856/09, paras 314–326.

  46. 46.

    For these requirements, see in detail Jansen Reventlow and Curling, State Obligations in the African System, in this Volume.

  47. 47.

    Ibid; cf AfCtHR, Zongo v Burkina Faso, judgment of 28 Mar 2014, no 013/2011; Abubakari v Tanzania, judgment of 3 June 2016, no 007/2013.

  48. 48.

    See supra n 6.

  49. 49.

    See further, e.g., Shelton (2011), Müller and Kjos (2017), Nollkaemper (2011) and Conforti and Francioni (1997).

  50. 50.

    See Cerna, Argentina & Mexico, in this Volume; but see e.g. Tribunal Supremo de Justicia de Venezuela – Sala Constitucional, Sentencia n° 1939, de 18 de diciembre de 2008; and Tribunal Constitucional de República Dominicana, Exp. TC­01­2005­0013, Sentencia TC/0256/14 de 4 noviembre 2014 (involving the Rafael Chavero Gazdik case).

  51. 51.

    Cf Weston Janis, United States of America, and Teraya, Japan, both in this Volume.

  52. 52.

    See, e.g., Wedam Lukić, Slovenia, in this Volume.

  53. 53.

    See Sciso, Italy, in this Volume.

  54. 54.

    See Christoffersen, Denmark, in this Volume.

  55. 55.

    See ILA Report (Part 2), The Domestic Implementation of Judgments/Decisions of Courts and other International Bodies that Involve International Human Rights Law, and the ILA Johannesburg Guidelines, both in this Volume.

References

  • Abbot FM, Breining-Kaufmann C, Cottier T (2006) International trade and human rights: foundations and conceptual issues. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  • Abebe D (2016) Does international human rights law in African Courts make a difference? Virginia J Int Law 56:527–583

    Google Scholar 

  • Balcerzak F (2017) Investor-state arbitration and human rights. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Conforti B, Francioni F (1997) Enforcing international human rights in domestic courts. Brill, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy P-M, Petersmann E, Francioni F (2009) Human rights in international investment law and arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Flauss J-F (2009) L’effectivité des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits d l’homme: du politique au juridique ou vice versa. RTDH 77:27–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Guntrip E (2017) Urbaser v Argentina: the origins of a host state human rights counterclaim in ICSID arbitration? Eur J Int Law Talk!, 10 Feb 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph S (2011) Blame it on the WTO?: A human rights critique. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Joseph S, Kinley D, Waincymer J (2009) The World Trade Organization and human rights, interdisciplinary perspectives. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lobba P, Mariniello T (2017) Judicial dialogue on human rights, the practice of international criminal tribunals. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzmeier S (2015) WTO and human rights. In: Weiß N, Thouveinin J-M (eds) The influence of human rights on international law. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 147–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Marceau G (2002) WTO dispute settlement and human rights. Eur J Int Law 13(4):753–818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mavroidis P (2000) Trade and environment after the Shrimp/Turtles litigation. J World Trade 34:73–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles C (2017) Provisional measures before international courts and tribunals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Müller A, Kjos HE (2017) Judicial dialogue and human rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nollkaemper A (2011) National Courts and the international rule of law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn J (2005) Human rights in WTO dispute settlement. In: Cottier T, Pauwelyn J, Bürgi E (eds) Human rights and international trade. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 205–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters A (2016) Beyond human rights, the legal status of the individual in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Porrata-Doria RA (2012) Andean Community of Nations, Court of Justice. In: Wolfrum R (ed) The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol I. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 385–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieter E (2014) Introductory note to the ‘Arctic Sunrise’ case (Netherlands v. Russia) (ITLOS). Int Law Mater 53:603–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez Lemmo MA (2002) Study of selected international dispute resolution regimes with an analysis of the decisions of the Court of Justice. Arizona J Int Comp Law 19:863–930

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelton D (2011) International law and domestic legal systems, incorporation, transformation, and persuasion. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (2011) Foreign investment arbitration: a place for human rights? Int Comp Law Q 60:573–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simma B, Kill T (2009) Harmonizing investment protection and international human rights: first steps towards a methodology. In: Binder C et al (eds) International investment law for the 21st century. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 678–707

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz-Vastardis A (2017) Is international investment law moving the ball forward on IHRL obligations for business enterprises? Eur J Int Law Talk!, 15 May 2017

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Stefan Kadelbach

  2. University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

    Thilo Rensmann

  3. Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Eva Rieter

Authors
  1. Stefan Kadelbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thilo Rensmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eva Rieter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva Rieter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Stefan Kadelbach

  2. Faculty of Law, Augsburg University, Augsburg, Germany

    Thilo Rensmann

  3. Faculty of Law, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Eva Rieter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kadelbach, S., Rensmann, T., Rieter, E. (2019). Introduction. In: Kadelbach, S., Rensmann, T., Rieter, E. (eds) Judging International Human Rights. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94848-5_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94848-5_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94847-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94848-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation