Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a legally binding and justiciable minority protection provision. It stipulates, “In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own lan-guage.” Perhaps due to its negative, weak and qualified terminology, too many legal scholars display a dismissive attitude toward this article suggesting that they deem it to be an inadequate measure of minority protection. This thesis seeks to address the question of whether article 27 is simply another inadequate measure or an underappreciated resource through analyses of four key questions: (i) the scope question, (ii) the definitional ques¬tion, (iii) the right-bearer question, and, (iv) the obligation question. Article 27’s cautious terminology has produced much confusion and controversy, but the United Nations Human Rights Com¬mittee’s practice has helped clarify many significant points of contention. Despite contesta¬tions to the contrary by many States parties, article 27 has a universal scope and applicability with only two minor, but significant, exceptions. The right-holder is a person belonging to a non-majority ethnic, national, indigenous, racial, religious or linguistic community, and she bears and exercises the rights protected by article 27 as an individual, even though she has a right to exercise them in concert with other members of her community. States parties are obligated to ensure that persons belonging to minority communities have these rights. Hence, I suggest that article 27 should be interpreted according to the following formulation: States parties have negative, and possibly also positive, obligations to ensure that persons belonging to non-majority ethnic, national, indigenous, racial, religious or linguistic communities have individual rights to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, and to use their own language, including also the right to exercise these rights in concert with other members of their community. / Thesis (Master, Law) -- Queen's University, 2013-10-01 18:37:15.416

MASTER'S THESIS Evolution of the protection of the freedom of assembly and association under the ECHR and the ICCPR in the Russian Federation. Author: Daria Solomina Supervisor: JUDr. Milan Lipovský, Ph.D. Study programme: MAIN Academic Year: 2020/2021 Abstract The rights of assembly and association are vital elements of the international system of human rights. The democratic society needs to protect those freedoms to let the population a chance to express important ideas, concerns, raise political and social issues and make sure the government knows what is important to pay attention to. The international legal system (in particular created by the ECHR and the ICCPR), has come up with fundamental basis for the realization of the rights of assembly and association. However, the main responsibility of the implementation of those rules and norms lays on the states and their domestic legal systems. This thesis researches the structure of the legal protection of the freedoms of assembly and association in the Russian Federation, discovers the significant discordances between it and the provisions of the ECHR and the ICCPR, and attempts to give the political reasoning that is behind those differences. Analyzing the case-law, historical developments of the political life of the Russian Federation and the...

The usage of pre-border control in order to prevent migration flows outside a state’s territory is a common phenomenon. Extraterritorial migration regulation and management is a top priority within the EU today and often settled through different kinds of bilateral agreements between receiving states and third countries. The results of these agreements, that allow interception of migrant boats in the Mediterranean Sea and different kinds of push-back measures, are however deeply concerning. Due to the violations of human rights and abuses of migrants in Libya the UNHCR has underlined that the country cannot be considered a safe place for the disembarkation of these people. In light of the state responsibility to protect human life at sea and respect the prohibition of refoulement, these extraterritorial measures may constitute violations of international refugee law and human rights law. The aim of this essay is to explore the extent of the principle of non-refoulement with regard to the obligation of states to rescue people in distress at sea and deliver them to a place of safety. In particular I examine the possible ways of extra-territorial jurisdiction in the high seas to determine whether states can be held responsible for returning – or more commonly in recent years for providing financial, technical and operative support in order to return – migrants to Libya. The study shows that Italy, through its cooperation with the Libyan coastguard, may be in breach of the principle of non-refoulement despite the lack of direct and physical control over the people concerned. Further it affirms that the prohibition on refoulement may have substantial significance in the assessment of the concept “place of safety”.

It has been two decades since the terrorist attacks on September 11. These events were the starting shot for the US war on terrorism, which has resulted in extreme challenges for human rights treaties. Several people have fallen victim to the US protection measures, which have included a detention and interrogation program and extraordinary renditions. The US protection measures have resulted in military invasions, kidnappings, detentions, and acts of torture. Even though black sites are no longer secret, has nobody ever been held responsible for these crimes. The question of who should be held responsible for the systematic violations of the United States is therefore necessary to discuss as this is a problem that characterizes the international legal system still today. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether the US legal argument for justifying enhanced interrogation techniques and extraordinary renditions is consistent with the human rights treaties. The study examines the extent to which the US exercises jurisdiction over people who are subject to extraordinary renditions. Furthermore, it is also important to investigate if extraordinary renditions conflict with two treaties that have been approved in the United States and consequently the legitimacy of the arguments will be tested against CAT and ICCPR. The problem has been analysed in the light of jurisdiction. The interpretation of the concept of jurisdiction in general international law and human rights treaties constitutes an essential issue regarding states’ responsibilities to uphold and respect the human rights within the research area and research questions. The study focuses primarily on the question of when a state has obligations under human right treaties outside of its own territory. The issue of jurisdiction has been discussed primarily in international courts since Bankovic. The investigation shows that people that have been subject to extraordinary renditions as well as the detention and interrogation program fall under US jurisdiction. According to case law, the study establishes that the United States exercises effective control over the people in the event of extraordinary renditions. Moreover, the study claims that state responsibility can be attributed to the US for having failed in its obligations to respect and protect human rights in the war on terrorism.

Under Swedish law, an alien convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment may be sentenced to deportation if there is reason to assume that the alien will reoffend, or if the offence is so serious that the alien should not be permitted to stay. Upon release, the alien may be held in immigration detention for the purpose of enforcing the deportation order. While detention is generally subject to maximum time limits, criminal deportees face indefinite detention. This exceptional treatment raises questions about the proper purpose of immigration detention and respect for the right to liberty. This paper investigates and critically analyses the Swedish regulatory framework for the detention of criminal deportees from a human rights perspective. It reveals how the alien’s criminal record and assumptions about the risk for reoffending play adecisive role both in the decision to detain and the length of detention. The right to liberty, which protects the individual against illegal and arbitrary detention, does not prohibit the use of immigration detention for crime prevention purposes, provided it is subsidiary to the primary purpose of enforcing the deportation order. Administrative detention is, however, arguably an inappropriate tool for the prevention of crime. Moreover, the Swedish legislation lacks a coherent and satisfactory basis. A thorough enquiry into the use of immigration detention as a crime prevention measure is necessary, to analyse data on the detention of criminal deportees and examine how criminal law measures could be more appropriately used to counter serious threats to public order, without unnecessary encroachment on the right to liberty.

This thesis examines the impacts of white supremacy on Jews’ freedom of religion in the United States. In what ways is the American white supremacist movement a threat to Jews’ freedom of religion, and to what extent is the federal state protecting this right in accordance with Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)? By using the Legal Analytical Method, and by applying Daniel Ian Rubin’s approach to Critical Race Theory (CRT), this thesis finds that the white supremacist movement is threatening Jews’ freedom of religion in three main ways: through physical attacks, psychological intimidation, and economic effects. Although the state provides Jewish communities with some protection from white supremacists, recent antisemitic attacks show that the U.S. government could do more to ensure that American Jews can fully enjoy Article 18 of the ICCPR.

In the early 1990s the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that the gravest effects of climate change could be on human migration, as millions would be displaced by coastal erosion, flooding, and drought. Today, this is considered a reality that is coming ever closer. Yet, there are currently no binding international frameworks dedicated to the issue of climate induced migration. In addition, the current regime of international refugee law is woefully inadequate at responding to the issue. Individuals that do not fall under the refugee definition are thus commonly left with the general scope of international human rights law standards, so-called complementary protection.   On these premises, this thesis sets out to examine the circumstances under which the non-refoulement principle in international human rights law could be applied in the context of climate change effects and especially slow onset processes, and how the principle could potentially be developed. Principally through examining jurisprudence concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, this thesis finds that while there is a possibility for non-refoulement obligations to arise due to the effects of climate change, the precise scope of such protection is unclear. Although case law has emerged and continues to do so, the complex nature of climate induced migration and the undeveloped jurisprudence on this issue leaves important questions unanswered. This thesis finds that there seems to be no obvious response to the question whether climate change is a relevant factor in the legal analysis of non-refoulement claims, and whether it should be. Furthermore, there are great challenges in discerning the required intensity of harm for the threshold to be met and protection to be granted. In addition, this thesis finds that applying the non-refoulement principle in the context of slow onset processes entails several difficulties, particularly concerning the timing and prediction of the harm. It is therefore concluded that, as long as there is no framework dedicated to the issue of climate induced migration, clarity will be much needed in case law as to the scope of non-refoulement obligations in the context of, especially, slow onset processes due to climate change.

No description available.

Le système arabe des droits de l’homme repose, pour l’essentiel, sur un traité international, la Charte arabe des droits de l’homme. Il est institué, en vertu de ladite Charte, un Comité arabe des droits de l’homme qui surveille et contrôle l’application des obligations incombant aux États parties à la Charte. Malgré sa mise en place tardive (2004) par rapport à d’autres systèmes régionaux de protection des droits de l’homme, il s’est avéré que cette Charte est unique en son genre. Elle combine des droits divins et naturels et verrouille, de par le contenu des dispositions liminaires et finales de la Charte, sa propre évolution. Elle présente des traits qui, dans l’ordre international, n’appartiennent qu’à elle. En s’écartant du modèle des Pactes onusiens, la Charte ne consacre non seulement des droits en régression par rapport à ceux garantis dans lesdits Pactes, mais aussi des droits rédigés en termes ambigus dont la transposition dans l’ordre interne des États parties élargira encore le creuset jusqu’à rendre incertain l’efficacité de cette Charte.En somme, la Charte en elle-même, ainsi que son application, sont loin, pour le moment, de renforcer les normes universelles des droits de l’homme ou même de les maintenir à cause du caractère global du niveau de protection, qui est inférieur à celui des standards internationaux. Il est vrai que l’affirmation par la Ligue des États arabes des droits et libertés est une chose et que la garantie du respect de ces droits en est une autre. Or, en matière de droits de l’homme, la justiciabilité de la règle conditionne l’efficacité de la garantie et de sa sanction. L’analyse du système arabe de protection des droits de l’homme a conduit à constater qu’il ne satisfait pas à cette condition, contrairement à d’autres systèmes régionaux. D’où l’urgence de reformuler le texte de la Charte arabe dans une optique de mise en conformité aux normes internationales des droits de l’homme. / The Arab human rights system relies essentially upon an international convention, the Arab Charter on human rights. An Arab human rights Committee in set up under the Charter that supervises and monitors the implementation of Charter obligations by States parties. Despite its late establishment (2004) compared to other regional systems of human rights protection, the Charter has proved to be unique in its kind. The Charter combines divine and natural rights and, by means of its general and final provisions, succeeds in curtailing its own future development. Some features of the Charter are original compared to what one finds in other international instruments. As for that, the Charter deviates from United Nations conventional standards, as it enshrines several human rights in somewhat regressive or ambiguous forms. Transposition of these rights into domestic law is expected to further widen discrepancies with United Nations human rights standards and render as a whole the efficiency of the Charter quite uncertain.In other words, the Charter itself and its implementation are far, for the time being, from strengthening universal human rights, or even maintaining for them a level of global protection near to that prevailing in accepted international standards. It is notable to address that it is one thing for the Arab League to affirm human rights, and quite another to guarantee those rights. Yet, in the human rights field, the efficiency and coerciveness of the norm is conditioned to the possibility of some kind of effective judicial review. The assessment of the Arab human rights system prompts to assert that this requirement is only poorly met, in contrast with other human rights regional systems. Hence, the urgency to revise the text of the Arab Charter on human rights in a perspective aiming at guaranteeing its progressive compliance with international human rights standards.

Minority protection mechanisms in international law aim to guarantee certain individual rights to persons belonging to ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities, such as freedom of culture, religion and language. These rights can be considered to be of collective interest for minority group identity and therefore often require the possibility of collective enjoyment. In addition to general human rights and principles of non-discrimination, minority protection can alternately be ensured through minority specific rights. However, minority specific rights would not operate effectively without evolving a concept of collective (or group) rights in international law. Hence, while this kind of approach can provide legal methods for balancing the interests of individuals, groups and the state, it creates the possibility of conflicts with the international framework of individual rights. The ottoman millet system sets a historical example of minority protection instruments based on a collective concept of human rights. Furthermore, the ottoman history offers an illustration of what could go terribly wrong with a collective rights model. By analyzing the millet system and the ottoman legal reforms in the nineteenth century I will discuss reoccurring issues with collective rights. I will argue that incorporating collective rights within a structure founded on individual rights is a problematic way of protecting individuals belonging to minorities and other vulnerably ethnic groups. Looking through the historical development of universal human rights some important aspects of its main principles will be brought up in this paper.