Detention for Protection: Searching for a ‘Fair Balance’ between the Restrictions on Preventive Detention and the Obligation to Protect Individuals

Q2 Social Sciences
Oslo Law Review Pub Date : 2017-03-07 DOI:10.5617/OSLAW2349
Kjetil Mujezinović Larsen
{"title":"Detention for Protection: Searching for a ‘Fair Balance’ between the Restrictions on Preventive Detention and the Obligation to Protect Individuals","authors":"Kjetil Mujezinović Larsen","doi":"10.5617/OSLAW2349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The European Court of Human Rights has expressed that a State cannot rely on its positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights in order to justify the detention of individuals, unless the detention falls within one of the grounds listed in Article 5.1. The Court has also interpreted these grounds very narrowly, leaving little room for preventive detention. While this is ordinarily a commendable position, it may potentially be too rigid in specific situations where there is a conflict between one individual’s right to liberty and other individuals’ or the community’s interests under Article 2 on the right to life or Article 3 on the prohibition against torture. This article inquires whether the Court should instead adopt a more flexible approach where it searches for a ‘fair balance’ between Article 5 and Articles 2 and 3.","PeriodicalId":36793,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Law Review","volume":"2 1","pages":"1-22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oslo Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5617/OSLAW2349","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The European Court of Human Rights has expressed that a State cannot rely on its positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights in order to justify the detention of individuals, unless the detention falls within one of the grounds listed in Article 5.1. The Court has also interpreted these grounds very narrowly, leaving little room for preventive detention. While this is ordinarily a commendable position, it may potentially be too rigid in specific situations where there is a conflict between one individual’s right to liberty and other individuals’ or the community’s interests under Article 2 on the right to life or Article 3 on the prohibition against torture. This article inquires whether the Court should instead adopt a more flexible approach where it searches for a ‘fair balance’ between Article 5 and Articles 2 and 3.
为保护而拘留:在对预防性拘留的限制与保护个人的义务之间寻求“公平平衡”
欧洲人权法院表示,一国不能依靠《欧洲人权公约》规定的积极义务来为拘留个人辩护,除非拘留属于第5.1条所列的理由之一。法院对这些理由的解释也非常狭隘,几乎没有留下预防性拘留的余地。虽然这通常是一个值得赞扬的立场,但在根据关于生命权的第二条或关于禁止酷刑的第三条,一个人的自由权与其他个人或社区的利益之间存在冲突的特定情况下,这一立场可能过于僵化。本条询问法院在寻求第5条与第2条和第3条之间的“公平平衡”时,是否应该采取更灵活的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Oslo Law Review
Oslo Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信