从AS及其他人诉意大利案和AS及其他人诉马耳他案重新思考国际人权法在海上救援行动中的“管辖权”:海上被救助的新权利?

IF 0.7 Q2 Social Sciences
Silvia Dimitrova
{"title":"从AS及其他人诉意大利案和AS及其他人诉马耳他案重新思考国际人权法在海上救援行动中的“管辖权”:海上被救助的新权利?","authors":"Silvia Dimitrova","doi":"10.1017/s0021223722000140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In January 2021 the Human Rights Committee determined that Italy and Malta had both failed to protect the right to life of more than 200 migrants who perished in a shipwreck in 2013. The Committee tackled for the first time the question of extraterritorial application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to persons in distress at sea. While finding the decision against Malta to be inadmissible, the Committee engaged in a significant analysis of the concept of jurisdiction in both decisions. This article analyses how the decisions interpret the concept of ‘jurisdiction’ and juxtaposes this analysis against the approaches taken in other international legal regimes. The article then theorises on the impact of these two decisions in helping to crystallise a new ‘right to be rescued at sea’.","PeriodicalId":44911,"journal":{"name":"ISRAEL LAW REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rethinking ‘Jurisdiction’ in International Human Rights Law in Rescue Operations at Sea in the Light of AS and Others v Italy and AS and Others v Malta: A New Right to be Rescued at Sea?\",\"authors\":\"Silvia Dimitrova\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0021223722000140\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In January 2021 the Human Rights Committee determined that Italy and Malta had both failed to protect the right to life of more than 200 migrants who perished in a shipwreck in 2013. The Committee tackled for the first time the question of extraterritorial application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to persons in distress at sea. While finding the decision against Malta to be inadmissible, the Committee engaged in a significant analysis of the concept of jurisdiction in both decisions. This article analyses how the decisions interpret the concept of ‘jurisdiction’ and juxtaposes this analysis against the approaches taken in other international legal regimes. The article then theorises on the impact of these two decisions in helping to crystallise a new ‘right to be rescued at sea’.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44911,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ISRAEL LAW REVIEW\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ISRAEL LAW REVIEW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021223722000140\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ISRAEL LAW REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021223722000140","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

摘要

2021年1月,人权事务委员会认定,意大利和马耳他都未能保护2013年在海难中丧生的200多名移民的生命权。委员会首次讨论了《公民权利和政治权利国际盟约》对海上遇险人员的域外适用问题。委员会虽然认为针对马耳他的决定不可受理,但对这两项决定中的管辖权概念进行了重要的分析。本文分析了判决如何解释“管辖权”的概念,并将这种分析与其他国际法律制度所采取的方法并置。然后,文章从理论上分析了这两个决定在帮助明确新的“海上获救权”方面的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rethinking ‘Jurisdiction’ in International Human Rights Law in Rescue Operations at Sea in the Light of AS and Others v Italy and AS and Others v Malta: A New Right to be Rescued at Sea?
Abstract In January 2021 the Human Rights Committee determined that Italy and Malta had both failed to protect the right to life of more than 200 migrants who perished in a shipwreck in 2013. The Committee tackled for the first time the question of extraterritorial application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to persons in distress at sea. While finding the decision against Malta to be inadmissible, the Committee engaged in a significant analysis of the concept of jurisdiction in both decisions. This article analyses how the decisions interpret the concept of ‘jurisdiction’ and juxtaposes this analysis against the approaches taken in other international legal regimes. The article then theorises on the impact of these two decisions in helping to crystallise a new ‘right to be rescued at sea’.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
14.30%
发文量
19
×
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