Hassan诉联合王国:人权法和国际人道主义法在武装冲突中剥夺自由问题上的相互作用

IF 0.3 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Cedric De Koker
{"title":"Hassan诉联合王国:人权法和国际人道主义法在武装冲突中剥夺自由问题上的相互作用","authors":"Cedric De Koker","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.DB","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Hassan v United Kingdom , the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights reviewed the deprivation of liberty of a young male by British armed forces during the phase of active hostilities in Iraq, which had raised issues relating to extraterritoriality, the right to liberty and security in times of armed conflict and the relationship between international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights law (HRL).1 In its judgment of 16 September 2014, the Court ruled that by reason of the co-existence of the safeguards provided by IHL and by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in time of armed conflict, the grounds of permitted deprivation of liberty found in both bodies of law should, as far as possible, be accommodated and applied concomitantly. The greatest merit of the judgment is that for the first time it explicitly offered its view on the interaction between IHL and HRL and did not rely on the lex specialis principle, the traditional but flawed method for explaining the relationship between these spheres of law. However, the judgment is also a missed opportunity as the Court limited its analysis to the case at hand and provided limited guidance for the future, leaving a number of questions unaddressed.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":"31 1","pages":"90-96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2015-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hassan v United Kingdom: The Interaction of Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law with regard to the Deprivation of Liberty in Armed Conflicts\",\"authors\":\"Cedric De Koker\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/UJIEL.DB\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Hassan v United Kingdom , the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights reviewed the deprivation of liberty of a young male by British armed forces during the phase of active hostilities in Iraq, which had raised issues relating to extraterritoriality, the right to liberty and security in times of armed conflict and the relationship between international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights law (HRL).1 In its judgment of 16 September 2014, the Court ruled that by reason of the co-existence of the safeguards provided by IHL and by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in time of armed conflict, the grounds of permitted deprivation of liberty found in both bodies of law should, as far as possible, be accommodated and applied concomitantly. The greatest merit of the judgment is that for the first time it explicitly offered its view on the interaction between IHL and HRL and did not rely on the lex specialis principle, the traditional but flawed method for explaining the relationship between these spheres of law. However, the judgment is also a missed opportunity as the Court limited its analysis to the case at hand and provided limited guidance for the future, leaving a number of questions unaddressed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30606,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"90-96\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.DB\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.DB","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: 5

摘要

在“哈桑诉联合王国”一案中,欧洲人权法院大分庭审查了英国武装部队在伊拉克境内敌对行动活跃期间剥夺一名年轻男子自由的案件,这一案件提出了与治外法权、武装冲突时期的自由和安全权利以及国际人道主义法与人权法之间的关系有关的问题在2014年9月16日的判决中,法院裁定,由于国际人道法和《欧洲人权公约》(ECHR)在武装冲突期间提供的保障措施共存,这两个法律体系中允许剥夺自由的理由应尽可能予以包容并同时适用。该判决的最大优点在于,它首次明确提出了对国际人道法和人权法之间相互作用的看法,而没有依赖于特别法原则,即解释这些法律领域之间关系的传统但有缺陷的方法。然而,该判决也是一个错失的机会,因为法院将其分析局限于手头的案件,并为未来提供有限的指导,留下了一些未解决的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hassan v United Kingdom: The Interaction of Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law with regard to the Deprivation of Liberty in Armed Conflicts
In Hassan v United Kingdom , the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights reviewed the deprivation of liberty of a young male by British armed forces during the phase of active hostilities in Iraq, which had raised issues relating to extraterritoriality, the right to liberty and security in times of armed conflict and the relationship between international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights law (HRL).1 In its judgment of 16 September 2014, the Court ruled that by reason of the co-existence of the safeguards provided by IHL and by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in time of armed conflict, the grounds of permitted deprivation of liberty found in both bodies of law should, as far as possible, be accommodated and applied concomitantly. The greatest merit of the judgment is that for the first time it explicitly offered its view on the interaction between IHL and HRL and did not rely on the lex specialis principle, the traditional but flawed method for explaining the relationship between these spheres of law. However, the judgment is also a missed opportunity as the Court limited its analysis to the case at hand and provided limited guidance for the future, leaving a number of questions unaddressed.
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
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