In recent decades we can watch heated debates on the legal and moral permissibility of State-sponsored targeted killings involving representatives from Governments, academic circles, military and police forces, intelligence services, human rights groups, humanitarian institutions, intergovernmental organizations a and the mass media. These debates are even more intense after the killing of Osama bin Laden, leader of the terrorist group Al Qaeda, in May 2011. The aim of the thesis is to answer to the question: Are targeted killings a permissible method of fight against terrorism? The legality of targeted killings is analyzed in term of lex lata international law, namely under human rights law, international humanitarian law and law of international security. The thesis is composed of six chapters. Chapter One defines basic terminology used in the thesis. The Chapter is subdivided into two parts. Part One defines the concept of targeted killings. Part Two defines the notion of terrorism. Chapter Two examines the legality of targeted killings in term of law of international security. Chapter Three describes the parallel application of human rights law and international humanitarian law. Chapter Four analyzes the legality of targeted killings under human rights law. The Chapter is subdivided into two...

Thesis advisor: James M. O'Toole / This dissertation explores the formative years of the right-to-life movement in the decade prior to Roe v. Wade and explains how early right-to-lifers built a vast and powerful movement in the 1960s and 1970s. Whereas most previous studies have focused on the connection between right-to-life organizing and the conservative ascendancy in religion and politics in the 1970s and 1980s, this dissertation studies the movement’s origins in state and local organizing in the years before Roe v. Wade and its growth into a national political crusade in the 1970s. During these years, grassroots activists fostered a vision for a broad-based right-to-life movement—a movement consisting of Americans from across the political and religious spectrums. This movement was made up of Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, lay people as well as religious leaders—all of whom opposed legalized abortion for a range of reasons. Right-to-lifers believed their broad-based approach was the most effective way to fight abortion, and they embraced this diverse coalition, attacking abortion on a number of fronts with strategies ranging from legislative lobbying to alternatives to abortion to nonviolent direct action. Though their coalition eventually broke apart in the 1980s, this eclectic group of right-to-lifers built a dynamic and diverse movement and proved the powerful resonance of the abortion issue in American society. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2018. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: History.

<p>The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) was adopted in 1950. One of the most important rights established therein is the right to life, which can be found in article 2.</p><p>The purpose of this thesis is to examine how far the scope of this right reaches concerning the beginning and the end of life. This is mainly done by examining the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) which is set to monitor the observance of the rights. To make this thesis manageable, the three areas of abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty have been chosen as the starting-point of the examination.</p><p>The position of the three areas among the member states varies. Abortion and euthanasia have been regarded by the Court as sensitive areas in which the states have a wide margin of appreciation to decide on their own. This is much due to the lack of consensus within the states as to how they should be regulated.</p><p>Whether the unborn foetus is protected by the Convention and in such case to what extent is still in dispute. This is also the case concerning when life begins. The Court has stated that any right the foetus may possess is limited by the rights of the mother. They have also said that they do not want to impose a certain view on the member states.</p><p>The Commission has stated that if the foetus would have an absolute right to life under the Convention, then it would lead to serious implications for the mother, as she would not be able to have an abortion in any circumstance. Also, in <em>Vo v. France</em> one of the dissenting judges stated that the foetus’ right to life have to be narrower in scope than the right of the born.</p><p>In the case <em>Pretty v. the United Kingdom</em> the Court unanimously ruled that article 2 does not include a right to die. However some member states, like the Netherlands, have made euthanasia legal without being found to violate its obligations under the Convention. Consequently, it does not seem to be against the Convention for states to make their own legislation allowing for euthanasia to be practiced.</p><p>One important aspect to this debate is whether one considers life to be inalienable or not. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has said that even though the rights of the terminally ill should be respected, it does not mean that one has the right to die at the hands of someone else. The Court has also said that in this area, it is important to protect those vulnerable from being used, and therefore states have the right to legislate against euthanasia.</p><p>The situation is different when it comes to the death penalty. Two additional protocols have been adopted restricting or completely abolishing the penalty since the adoption of the Convention. In 1950 there was no possibility to exclude the right to use the death penalty from the Convention since many European states still retained it in their domestic laws. However, the development since has moved towards a complete abolition. This is for instance evident since aspiring members of the Council of Europe have to be willing to abolish the penalty to be accepted.</p><p>The Court has dealt with the death penalty in several cases. In <em>Soering v. the United Kingdom</em> they said that extraditing someone to a state where he or she risks being executed not automatically means a violation of the right to life or the prohibition of torture. In <em>Öcalan v. Turkey</em> they established that the imposition of the death penalty after an unfair trial was a violation of article 3. Also, they considered the death penalty to now be regarded as an unacceptable punishment in peace time. Abolition of the death penalty is something the Council of Europe has worked for in decades to realise.</p>

A modern democratic nation is responsible to taking care its people¡¦s basic needs. This is not only the essential reason for the existence of a nation, but also its responsibility and obligation. The right to life is an important issue in international treaties and constitutions of variable nations. People are entitled to claim care from their countries to maintain a reasonable living standard. Countries are obliged to safeguard its people¡¦s right to life through legislation, to provide basic living needs which meet human nature dignity. A nation has many obligations include the maintaining of individual health, ensuring sound environment, social relief and social insurance. Financial operation is a key issue in managing a nation. Therefore, in fulfilling the obligations, a nation must consider its financial affordability seriously so as not to deteriorate its finance for overly taking care of its people. Due to rapid aging of population and low fertility, Japan implemented Long Term Care Insurance in 2000; however, many a relative legal issue was encountered while conducting such system. For instance, for the purposes of convenience and efficiency in collecting premiums, a special levy is applied to 90% of No. 1 insurees whose age were over 65, the premiums were pre-deducted from their perpetual pensions, which may cause the qualms about trenching on the capability of people to maintain a lowest living standards and the abuse of the power of administrative decision. Eyed on financial consideration, Japanese government carried out the Law for Long Term Care Insurance, refuses its service to those whose premiums were over due, and suppresses the accessibility for the poor. The group that was supposed to be taken care of by the government is totally neglected while the middle class taking advantages from the system and waste more public fund. This is completely opposite to the objectives of the long term care system legislation. This also caused the disputes that the right to life regulated in the article 25 of Japanese Constitution is violated by administrative power. Our nation is confronted with population aging and low fertility as well lately. The total fertility rate has declined to 0.895, which is the lowest in the world. In the aging society, the long term care need of the elders and the disabled, and related heavy financial burdens are already far beyond the capacities of individuals or families and become a ¡§Social Risk.¡¨ Such a risk will need a coercive risk managing technique enforced by the nation, to organize a social insurance structure so as to share the risk and reduce individuals¡¦ burdens. Our government is engaging in planning a long term care system. The flaws of Japan¡¦s Law for Long Term Care Insurance, both in legislation and enforcement, can be valuable lessons for us. This essay discussed the legalization of the long term care system of our nation, reviewed its jurisprudence and raised integrated long term care concept. Some suggestions concerned with operation subject, insurance objects and financial plans were provided in hope with a comprehensive guideline on policy making, legislation and enforcement and system construction can be established.

Žmogaus teisės yra prigimtinės asmens teisės, priklausančios be išimties ir vienodai kiekvienam žmogui. Teisė į gyvybę yra svarbiausia žmogaus prigimtinė teisė, nes ji apsaugo individo biologinį procesą be kurio nebūtų įmanomas jo egzistavimas. Tačiau nėra sutariama dėl to, ar ši teisė yra neatimama žmogaus teisė, kurios pats žmogus, net būdamas nepagydomas ligonis ir kentėdamas nežmoniškas fizines kančias, negali atsisakyti; ar ši teisė gali būti aiškinama ir kaip leidžianti žmogui pačiam spręsti, ar įgyvendinti jam priklausančią teisę į gyvybę, ar savanoriškai atsisakyti jos. Vieningai sutariama, jog teisė į gyvybę yra svarbiausia ir fundamentaliausia žmogaus teisė, tačiau visos žmogaus teisės yra tarpusavyje susiję ir negali būti dalomos. „Teisės į mirtį“ šalininkai valstybės draudimą dėl eutanazijos ar asistuotos savižudybės dažniausiai laiko tokių žmogaus teisių, kaip teisės į autonomiją ir elgesio laisvę, teisės į privatumą bei teisės į orumą pažeidimu. Tokiu „teisės į mirtį“ teisiniu pagrindu remiasi ir ją legalizavusios šalys. Tačiau „teisės į mirtį“ legitimumas yra žmogaus svarbiausios ir fundamentaliausios prigimtinės teisės pažeidimas, kuris yra identifikuojamas ir plačiau analizuojamas šiame darbe. Jau antikos laikais buvo svarstoma apie gyvybės, kaip teisinės vertybės, svarbą. Didieji antikos filosofai savižudybės idėją smerkė. Hipokrato priesaikoje yra aiškiai nustatomas asmens gyvybės neliečiamumas. Vėliau, Vakarų kultūroje įsigaliojus krikščionybei, gyvybės... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / Human rights are inherent rights of individual, the implementation of which forms human worldview, helps him to develop and grow as a person. Person acquires these rights from birth not only as inalienable conditions of the existence, but also as worth of life and aim. The right to life is the most important human natural right, because it protects the individual’s biological process and the human existence would not be possible without it. For this reason the state is obliged to ensure the person protection of life, i.e. laws should determine responsibility for a man’s homicide. However, there is no consensus on, is this right inalienable human right and man by himself, even being terminally ill and suffering serious physical throes, can not refuse it, or can we interpret this right as allowing a person by himself to decide or to implement his right to life, or voluntary surrender of it. There is unanimous agreement that the right to life is the most important and most fundamental human right, because without it implementation of other human rights and freedoms would not be possible. The right to life is consolidated in documents of the universal and regional human rights protection. In order to emphasize its importance, in these documents it is regulated in the beginning of articles. „Right to die” protagonists for the most part suppose that the state’s ban on euthanasia or assisted suicide is the breach of human rights, such as the right to autonomy and freedom of behavior... [to full text]

The subject of this Paper is „The right to life regulation under the European Convention on Human Rights“. The right to life is the most basic human right. It is guaranteed under many international conventions and it is protected by constitutions of all states of the world. The right to life is the first right guaranteed in the European Convention of Human Rights. Scope of this right has changed during the years. It was strongly influenced by the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.

The right to life has properly been characterized as an inherent and as the supreme human right, since without effective guarantee of this right, all other rights of the human being would be devoid of meaning. One of the most controversial issues related to this right is the one of the death penalty. For a very long time death penalty was considered as one of the exceptions to the right to life. Therefore, when most of the universal and regional human rights documents were adopted death penalty was still used as a form of punishment in most of the countries worldwide. While attention to the protection of human rights has recently increased, the status of death penalty in international law became very ambiguous. The aim of this thesis is firstly to analyze and compare the content of the right to life in the documents of the different human rights systems. Secondly, to answer the question whether there is universal understanding of this fundamental right. This thesis consists of the introduction, three chapters and the conclusions. The first chapter deals with the general features of the right to life and its position in the context of the other rights. In addition, it approaches the problem of the death penalty. The second chapter consists of the comparative analysis of the universal and regional (European and Inter – American) human rights systems. In the third chapter, decisions of the supreme courts of different countries, which represent different human right systems, are... [to full text]

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) was adopted in 1950. One of the most important rights established therein is the right to life, which can be found in article 2. The purpose of this thesis is to examine how far the scope of this right reaches concerning the beginning and the end of life. This is mainly done by examining the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) which is set to monitor the observance of the rights. To make this thesis manageable, the three areas of abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty have been chosen as the starting-point of the examination. The position of the three areas among the member states varies. Abortion and euthanasia have been regarded by the Court as sensitive areas in which the states have a wide margin of appreciation to decide on their own. This is much due to the lack of consensus within the states as to how they should be regulated. Whether the unborn foetus is protected by the Convention and in such case to what extent is still in dispute. This is also the case concerning when life begins. The Court has stated that any right the foetus may possess is limited by the rights of the mother. They have also said that they do not want to impose a certain view on the member states. The Commission has stated that if the foetus would have an absolute right to life under the Convention, then it would lead to serious implications for the mother, as she would not be able to have an abortion in any circumstance. Also, in Vo v. France one of the dissenting judges stated that the foetus’ right to life have to be narrower in scope than the right of the born. In the case Pretty v. the United Kingdom the Court unanimously ruled that article 2 does not include a right to die. However some member states, like the Netherlands, have made euthanasia legal without being found to violate its obligations under the Convention. Consequently, it does not seem to be against the Convention for states to make their own legislation allowing for euthanasia to be practiced. One important aspect to this debate is whether one considers life to be inalienable or not. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has said that even though the rights of the terminally ill should be respected, it does not mean that one has the right to die at the hands of someone else. The Court has also said that in this area, it is important to protect those vulnerable from being used, and therefore states have the right to legislate against euthanasia. The situation is different when it comes to the death penalty. Two additional protocols have been adopted restricting or completely abolishing the penalty since the adoption of the Convention. In 1950 there was no possibility to exclude the right to use the death penalty from the Convention since many European states still retained it in their domestic laws. However, the development since has moved towards a complete abolition. This is for instance evident since aspiring members of the Council of Europe have to be willing to abolish the penalty to be accepted. The Court has dealt with the death penalty in several cases. In Soering v. the United Kingdom they said that extraditing someone to a state where he or she risks being executed not automatically means a violation of the right to life or the prohibition of torture. In Öcalan v. Turkey they established that the imposition of the death penalty after an unfair trial was a violation of article 3. Also, they considered the death penalty to now be regarded as an unacceptable punishment in peace time. Abolition of the death penalty is something the Council of Europe has worked for in decades to realise.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States of America, there has been a shift in the policies of many countries to combat terrorism. Terrorism has had a devastating effect on many. These include „the enjoyment of the right to life, liberty and physical integrity of victims. In addition to these individual costs, terrorism can destabilise Governments, undermine civil society, jeopardise peace and security, and threaten social and economic development.‟ All of these also had a real impact on the enjoyment of human rights. Therefore the fight to curb further terrorist attacks is paramount. States are charged with the responsibility of curbing terrorism by their citizens. But with responsibility comes obligations to the citizenry. States should therefore not engage in policies or actions that further deprive others of their enjoyment of human rights. This is well put by Hoffman when he says „history shows that when societies trade human rights for security, most often they get neither.‟ / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2010. / A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Law University of Pretoria, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Masters of Law (LLM in Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa). Prepared under the supervision of Mr. Lukas Muntingh at the Community Law Centre, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa. 2010. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/ / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / Ethical considerations of the human embryo have involved heated dispute and seem always to result in the same interminable debate. A history of this debate, however, shows a shift in the language used to distinguish between degrees of moral status – while the debate once focused on the presence or absence of “human life,” now it is more likely to hear whether the qualifications for “personhood” have been met. In other words, any member of the human species may deserve some level of respect, but only the “persons” deserve full moral respect. This leaves open the possibility for a human being who is not actually a person – a “nonperson human being.” As an answer to the question of exactly what kind of respect to give the human embryo, Aristotelian moral philosophy offers a unique perspective, one which is distinctive from the familiar debate. Aristotle’s concept of ergon, or function, is a key to understanding what is essential in any human being, because it reveals the importance of potentiality to our nature as rational beings. A philosophical view of function, combined with the data of modern embryology, makes the case that our proper function is the vital part of who we are as human beings, and that a disruption of human function constitutes a true harm. This thesis contrasts Aristotelian proper human function with the modern understanding of a “nonperson human being,” especially as articulated within the ethical theory of Peter Singer. This understanding of function, revealing the essence of human potential and linked with human development, offers a sort of “common-sense morality” response to modern views on personhood.