Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

International and Regional Human Rights Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Human Rights in the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism

  • 1794 Accesses

Abstract

Broadly speaking, human rights comprise rights and freedoms said to inherently belong to humans by virtue of their being human. The full spectrum of human rights and freedoms involve the respect for, and protection and fulfilment of, civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, as well as the right to development. Although the historical development of human rights has led to the categorisation by some of rights into first, second and third generation rights,1 it is recognised that human rights are universal, which means that they belong inherently to all human beings, as well as being inter-dependent and indivisible.2

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

Access this chapter

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 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In 1979 Karel Vasak, the then head of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), categorised human rights as falling into three categories: (1) first generation (civil and political) rights, which broadly speaking prevent the State from interfering with the day-to-day lives of its citizens (e.g. right to a fair trial and the freedom of expression); (2) second generation (economic, social and cultural) rights, which require the State to ensure that goods and services are evenly distributed throughout all levels of society (e.g. the rights to education and employment); and (3) third generation rights, said to require States to cooperate in order to achieve the progressive improvement of the lives of their entire populations (e.g. development and emergency assistance).

  2. 2.

    See, for example: World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, UN Doc A/CONF.157/23 (1993); the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, adopted under General Assembly resolution 217(III) (1948), article 2; and the Charter of the United Nations, article 55(c).

  3. 3.

    See the list of treaties set out in the website of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “The Core International Human Rights Instruments and their Monitoring Bodies”, online: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/index.htm#core. For a useful summary of the development of human rights law at the international level, including its various sources, see Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in cooperation with the International Bar Association, Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers (New York: United Nations, 2003), pp. 2–12.

  4. 4.

    Universal Declaration on Human Rights, GA Res 217(III), UN GAOR, 3rd sess, 183rd plen mtg, UN Doc A/Res/3/217 (1948).

  5. 5.

    International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 993 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 January 1976); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976); Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 302 (entered into force 23 March 1976); and Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 15 December 1989, 1642 UNTS 414 (entered into force 11 July 1991). See Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Fact Sheet No 2 (Rev 1), “The International Bill of Human Rights”, online: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet2Rev.1en.pdf.

  6. 6.

    Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, opened for signature 7 March 1966, 9464 UNTS 211 (entered into force 4 January 1969); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, opened for signature 18 December 1979, 1249 UNTS 13 (entered into force 3 September 1981); the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, opened for signature 10 December 1984, 1465 UNTS 112 (entered into force 26 June 1987); and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, opened for signature 20 November 1989, 1577 UNTS 43 (entered into force 2 September 1990).

  7. 7.

    International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted on 13 November 2006 by the Third Committee of the General Assembly; and International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities, adopted on 5 December 2006 by the Ad Hoc Committee of the General Assembly on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities.

  8. 8.

    Including, for example, the (European) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 222 (entered into force 3 September 1953); the American Convention on Human Rights, 1144 UNTS 123 (entered into force 18 July 1978); the Charter of the Organization of American States, opened for signature in 1948, 119 UNTS 3 (entered into force 13 December 1951); the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, opened for signature 27 June 1981, OAU Doc CAB/LEG/67/3 rev 5, (1982) 21 ILM 58 (entered into force 21 October 1986); and the Arab Charter on Human Rights, adopted by the Arab League Council and opened for signature 15 September 1994 (the Charter remains unratified; its unofficial English translation can be found in the ICJ Review 56/1996).

  9. 9.

    Human Rights Committee, General Comment 24: General comment on issues relating to reservations made upon ratification or accession to the Covenant or the Optional Protocols thereto, or in relation to declarations under article 41 of the Covenant, UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.6 (1994), para 8; and Human Rights Committee, General Comment 29: States of Emergency (Article 4), UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11 (2001), para 13.

  10. 10.

    International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with commentaries, 2001 (United Nations, 2005) 281 (n 675). See also Prosecutor v Furundzija Case IT-95-17/1 (judgment of 10 December 1998).

  11. 11.

    Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, “Statement on Racial Discrimination and Measures to Combat Terrorism”, in Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, UN Doc A/57/18, para 107.

  12. 12.

    Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America), Merits (1986) ICJ Reports, paras 172–201.

  13. 13.

    See the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331 (entered into force 27 January 1980), article 34.

  14. 14.

    Charter of the United Nations, articles 55(c) and 56.

  15. 15.

    Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 222 (entered into force 3 September 1953), article 59(2).

  16. 16.

    For a list of signatures and ratifications to the Convention and its Additional Protocols, see http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ListeTableauCourt.asp?MA=3&CM=16&CL=ENG.

  17. 17.

    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976), article 49.

  18. 18.

    Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights ‘Status of Ratifications of the Principal International Human Rights Treaties’. For a breakdown of party status to the ICCPR and its Optional Protocol, see Conte and Burchill (2009, Appendix 4).

  19. 19.

    On the nature and effect of this obligation see Nowak (2005, pp. 27–34 and 37–45); and Harris (1995, pp. 3–4).

  20. 20.

    This has now become a well established part of the Committee’s jurisprudence, see Länsman et al v Finland, Communication 1023/2001, UN Doc CCPR/C/83/D/1023/2001 (2005), para 6.1.

  21. 21.

    See Conte and Burchill (2009, Chap. 10).

  22. 22.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (n 13), article 28.

  23. 23.

    See, for example, the statement of the European Commission on Human Rights in Nielsen v Denmark (1959–1960) 2 Yearbook 412, p. 454.

  24. 24.

    Massera v Uruguay, Communication 5/1977, UN Doc CCPR/C/7/D/5/1977 (1979). See also Nowak (2005, pp. 855–856) and A et al v S, Communication 1/1976, UN Doc CCPR/C/OP/1 at 3 (1984), para (d).

  25. 25.

    De Becker v Belgium (1959–1960) 2 Yearbook 214.

  26. 26.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (n 13), article 56(2).

  27. 27.

    See, for example, article 25 of the ICCPR, the application of which is limited to citizens of the State.

  28. 28.

    See McGoldrick (1990, pp. 20–21) and Lillich (1984, p. 145). General Comment 15 states that: “the general rule is that each one of the rights of the Covenant must be guaranteed without discrimination between citizens and aliens” – see General Comment 15: The position of aliens under the Covenant, UN Doc CCPR General Comment 15 (1986).

  29. 29.

    Nowak (2005, pp. 38–39).

  30. 30.

    General Comment 31: Nature of the General Legal Obligations Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13 (2004), para 8.

  31. 31.

    General Comment 31 (ibid) para 8.

  32. 32.

    See Marckx v Belgium (1979–1980) 2 EHRR 330, and Aksoy v Turkey (1997) 23 EHRR 553.

  33. 33.

    Nowak (2005, pp. 45–57).

  34. 34.

    Ovey and White (2002, pp. 14–15).

  35. 35.

    See Evatt (2002, p. 283).

  36. 36.

    Ovey and White (2002, p. 16).

  37. 37.

    De Becker v Belgium (n 25), p. 234.

  38. 38.

    Part I of the ICCPR guarantees the right of all peoples to self-determination.

  39. 39.

    Interference with the freedom of expression, where such expression amounts to hate speech or speech which incites violence, is nevertheless capable of justification under article 10(2) of the European Convention. See, for example, Jersild v Denmark (1994) 19 EHRR 1. See also Ovey and White (2002, pp. 280–282).

  40. 40.

    The only specific reference to minorities in the European Convention on Human Rights is in article 14, which guarantees that the enjoyment of rights and freedoms in the Convention must be secured without discrimination on grounds including national or social origin, or association with a national minority. Although it contains no complaints mechanism for individuals or groups, the Council of Europe’s 1995 Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities should also be noted.

  41. 41.

    First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, article 2. The right to education is guaranteed under article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (n 5).

  42. 42.

    Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (n 5), article 1.

  43. 43.

    Ibid, article 2(1).

  44. 44.

    Compare this to Additional Protocol 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which abolishes the death penalty without exception and without the possibility of reservations or derogations.

  45. 45.

    As confirmed by the Human Rights Committee in its General Comment 24 (n 9), para 6.

  46. 46.

    Ibid, para 7.

  47. 47.

    ICCPR, article 28(2).

  48. 48.

    ICCPR, articles 32(1) and 28(3).

  49. 49.

    See, for example, Nowak (2005, p. 75).

  50. 50.

    See Tomuschat (1980) and Ando (1991).

  51. 51.

    See Selected decisions of the Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol. Volume 2, UN Doc CCPR/C/OP/2 (1990), pp. 1–2, where the Committee stated: “…the Committee is neither a court nor a body with a quasi-judicial mandate…”. For Further observations on the status of the Human Rights Committee, see: McGoldrick (1990, pp. 53–54).

  52. 52.

    Grant v South-West Trains Ltd [1998] ICR 449, ECJ case C-249/96, para 46.

  53. 53.

    See further Conte and Burchill (2009, Chap. 2).

  54. 54.

    ECHR, article 19.

  55. 55.

    ECHR, article 20.

  56. 56.

    As this applies to the ICCPR, see, for example, JB v Canada, Communication 118/1982, UN Doc CCPR/C/28/D/118/1982 (1986). As it applies to the ECHR, see Golder v United Kingdom (1979–1980) 1 ECHRR 524, para 29.

  57. 57.

    On treaty interpretation in general see Sinclair 1984. As this applies to the ICCPR, see Conte and Burchill (2009, pp. 13–18). As it applies to the ECHR, see Ovey and White (2002, pp. 31–35).

  58. 58.

    As this applies to the ICCPR, see, for example, JB v Canada (n 56). As it applies to the ECHR, see Ovey and White (2002, pp. 29–30).

  59. 59.

    See Steiner and Alston (2000, pp. 854–857).

  60. 60.

    ICCPR, article 40(4). On the evolution of the practice of issuing General Comments see McGoldrick (1990, pp. 89–96).

  61. 61.

    All of the Committee’s General Comments may be found at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/comments.htm.

  62. 62.

    ECHR, article 47.

  63. 63.

    ECHR, article 31(b).

  64. 64.

    This became the case since 1 November 1998 with the entry into force of Additional Protocol 11 to the European Convention on Human Rights. See Ovey and White (2002, pp. 6–9).

  65. 65.

    ECHR, article 28.

  66. 66.

    See Ovey and White (2002, pp. 8–9), who state that around one in four to one in seven applications have been declared admissible in recent years.

  67. 67.

    ECHR, articles 30, 31 and 43.

  68. 68.

    ECHR, articles 43(1) and 44(2).

  69. 69.

    ECHR, article 43(2).

  70. 70.

    First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, article 1.

  71. 71.

    Optional Protocol, articles 2, 3 and 5. See Conte and Burchill (2009, Chap. 2).

  72. 72.

    Optional Protocol, article 1.

  73. 73.

    Rule 91, Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee.

  74. 74.

    Optional Protocol, articles 2 and 5.

  75. 75.

    There is a model complaint form by which this might be done, but it is not necessary to use this as long as the requisite information is made available to the HRC.

  76. 76.

    Optional Protocol, article 4(2).

  77. 77.

    Optional Protocol, article 5(4).

  78. 78.

    ICCPR, article 41; ECHR article 33.

  79. 79.

    ICCPR, article 41.

  80. 80.

    ICCPR, article 40.

  81. 81.

    ICCPR, article 40(1)(a) and (b).

  82. 82.

    On this practice see Nowak (2005, pp. 730–733).

  83. 83.

    Non-pecuniary damages are often described as being awarded on an ‘equitable basis’, taking into account of what is fair in the circumstances, as was the case in Caballero v United Kingdom, Case 32819/96 judgment of 08/02/2000.

  84. 84.

    For a useful summary of the general principles utilised by the European Court of Human Rights when determining awards under article 41, see R v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte N [2003] EWHC 207.

  85. 85.

    McCann v United Kingdom (1995) 21 EHRR 97, para 219.

  86. 86.

    Kingsley v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 10.

  87. 87.

    See, for example: Zvozskov et al v Belarus, Communication 1039/2001, UN Doc CCPR/C/88/D/1039/2001 (2006); El Dernawi v Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Communication 1143/2002, UN Doc CCPR/C/89/D/1043/2002 (2007); Kornetov v Uzbekistan, Communication 1057/2002, UN Doc CCPR/C/88/D/1057/2002 (2006); Korneenko et al v Belarus, UN Doc 1274/2004, UN Doc CCPR/C/88/D/1274/2004 (2006); El Awani v Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Communication 1295/2004, UN Doc CCPR/C/90/D/1295/2004 (2007); Pimentel et al v the Philippines, Communication 1320/2004, UN Doc CCPR/C/89/D/1320/2004 (2007); Shafiq v Australia, Communication 1324/2004, UN Doc CCPR/C/88/D/1324/2004 (2006); Conde v Spain, Communication 1325/2004, UN Doc CCPR/C/88/D/1325/2004 (2006); Grioua v Algeria, Communication 1327/2004, UN Doc CCPR/C/90/D/1328/2004 (2007); Afuson v Cameroon, Communication 1353/2005, UN Doc CCPR/C/89/D/1353/2005 (2007); and X v Colombia, Communication 1361/2005, UN Doc CCPR/C/89/D/1361/2005 (2007).

  88. 88.

    This is the common formulation used by the Committee, as explained in its annual reports to the UN General Assembly. See, for example, the Report of the Human Rights Committee, UN Doc A/62/40 (2007), Volume I, para 186.

  89. 89.

    Rule 95, Rules of Procedure.

  90. 90.

    See Agiza v Sweden, CAT/C/233/2003 (2005); Alzery v Sweden, CCPR/C/88/D/1416/2005 (2006).

  91. 91.

    Celiberti v Uruguay, Communication 56/1979, UN Doc CCPR/C/13/D/56/1979 (1981), para 10.3; and Burgos v Uruguay, Communication 52/1979, UN Doc CCPR/C/13/D/52/1979 (1981).

  92. 92.

    General Comment 31 (n 30), para 10.

  93. 93.

    Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Advisory Opinion (2004) ICJ Reports, para 111. See also the Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee on Israel’s 1998 periodic report, UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add.93 (1998), para 10.

  94. 94.

    Ibid, para 113.

  95. 95.

    Loizidou v Turkey (Preliminary Objections) [1995] 20 EHRR 99, para 62, confirmed in Cyprus v Turkey [2001] ECHR 331. On the extraterritorial application of the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK), the instrument through which the United Kingdom incorporated the ECHR, see Al-Skeini and others v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26.

References

  • Ando, Nisuke. 1991. The Future of Monitoring Bodies – Limitations and Possibilities of the Human Rights Committee. Canadian Human Rights Yearbook 169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conte, Alex, and Burchill, Richard. 2009. Defining Civil and Political Rights: The Jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee. Dartmouth: 2nd edition, Ashgate Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evatt, Elizabeth. 2002. The Impact of International Human Rights on Domestic Law. In Huscroft, Grant, and Rishworth, Paul. Litigating Rights: Perspectives from Domestic and International Law. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, David. 1995. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Kingdom: An Introduction. In Harris, David, and Joseph, Sarah (editors), The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and United Kingdom Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lillich, Richard. 1984. The Human Rights of Aliens in Contemporary International Law. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGoldrick, Dominic. 1990. The Human Rights Committee: Its Role in the Development of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, Manfred. 2005. UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Kehl, Germany: 2nd revised edition, NP Engel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ovey, Clare, and White, Robin. 2002. The European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: 3rd ed, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, Ian. 1984. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Manchester: 2nd ed, Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, Henry, and Alston, Philip. 2000. International Human Rights in Context. Oxford: 2nd ed, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat, Christian. 1980. Evolving Procedural Rules: The United Nations Human Rights Committee’s First Two Years of Dealing with Individual Communications. 1 Human Rights Law Journal 249.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 127 Boulevard Raspail, 75006, Paris, France

    Dr. Alex Conte

Authors
  1. Dr. Alex Conte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alex Conte .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Conte, A. (2010). International and Regional Human Rights Law. In: Human Rights in the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11608-7_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation