Jones v. United Kingdom: The European Court of Human Rights Restricts Individual Accountability for Torture

IF 0.3 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Cedric Ryngaert
{"title":"Jones v. United Kingdom: The European Court of Human Rights Restricts Individual Accountability for Torture","authors":"Cedric Ryngaert","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.CN","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Jones and others v. United Kingdom (2014), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that granting immunity from jurisdiction to State officials in civil proceedings with respect to torture was not a violation of Article 6 ECHR. This is an unfortunate decision, as its application will often result in an accountability vacuum, as victims of torture may not have reasonable access to remedies in the State where they were tortured. Only bystander States, or their State of nationality could then offer relief by offering a forum. A proper avenue for such States is to make the exercise of jurisdiction and the conferral of immunity dependent on whether or not the territorial State offers an adequate forum for dispute-settlement. By further developing these principles, the notion that, under international law, persons are individually accountable for international crimes and should not be allowed to hide behind the State on whose behalf they act, could be finally realised.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2014-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.CN","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In Jones and others v. United Kingdom (2014), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that granting immunity from jurisdiction to State officials in civil proceedings with respect to torture was not a violation of Article 6 ECHR. This is an unfortunate decision, as its application will often result in an accountability vacuum, as victims of torture may not have reasonable access to remedies in the State where they were tortured. Only bystander States, or their State of nationality could then offer relief by offering a forum. A proper avenue for such States is to make the exercise of jurisdiction and the conferral of immunity dependent on whether or not the territorial State offers an adequate forum for dispute-settlement. By further developing these principles, the notion that, under international law, persons are individually accountable for international crimes and should not be allowed to hide behind the State on whose behalf they act, could be finally realised.
琼斯诉英国:欧洲人权法院限制个人对酷刑的问责
在Jones等人诉联合王国案(2014年)中,欧洲人权法院裁定,在涉及酷刑的民事诉讼中给予国家官员管辖豁免并不违反《欧洲人权公约》第6条。这是一个不幸的决定,因为它的适用往往会导致问责真空,因为酷刑受害者可能无法在遭受酷刑的国家获得合理的补救办法。只有旁观国家或其国籍国才能通过提供论坛来提供救济。这类国家的一个适当途径是,将管辖权的行使和豁免的授予取决于领土国是否为解决争端提供了适当的论坛。通过进一步发展这些原则,就可以最终实现这样一种观念,即根据国际法,个人对国际罪行负有个人责任,不应被允许躲在他们所代表的国家背后。
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
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
审稿时长
11 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