检察官与人身自由权:联合国人权事务委员会和欧洲人权法院判例分析

IF 1.7 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Laura-Stella Enonchong
{"title":"检察官与人身自由权:联合国人权事务委员会和欧洲人权法院判例分析","authors":"Laura-Stella Enonchong","doi":"10.1177/09240519221115280","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the approach of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to interpreting and applying the right to personal liberty, in particular in relation to the judicial control of the deprivation of liberty. It appears that both institutions adopt an interpretative approach that aligns with the object and purpose of the right. However, in the application to individual cases, unlike the ECtHR, the HRC fails to clarify the scope of the relevant provision of the ICCPR, specifically, the independence and impartiality of the public prosecutor as ‘an other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power’. That situation may ultimately undermine a more effective attainment of the object and purpose of the right to personal liberty. The article argues for the HRC to adopt a more systematic approach to interpreting and applying that right in particular and the provisions of the ICCPR in general.","PeriodicalId":44610,"journal":{"name":"Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights","volume":"86 1","pages":"222 - 243"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public prosecutors and the right to personal liberty: An analysis of the jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights\",\"authors\":\"Laura-Stella Enonchong\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09240519221115280\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article discusses the approach of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to interpreting and applying the right to personal liberty, in particular in relation to the judicial control of the deprivation of liberty. It appears that both institutions adopt an interpretative approach that aligns with the object and purpose of the right. However, in the application to individual cases, unlike the ECtHR, the HRC fails to clarify the scope of the relevant provision of the ICCPR, specifically, the independence and impartiality of the public prosecutor as ‘an other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power’. That situation may ultimately undermine a more effective attainment of the object and purpose of the right to personal liberty. The article argues for the HRC to adopt a more systematic approach to interpreting and applying that right in particular and the provisions of the ICCPR in general.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44610,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights\",\"volume\":\"86 1\",\"pages\":\"222 - 243\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09240519221115280\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09240519221115280","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文讨论了联合国人权事务委员会(HRC)和欧洲人权法院(ECtHR)解释和适用人身自由权的方法,特别是在对剥夺自由的司法控制方面。这两个机构似乎都采取了一种符合权利的目标和宗旨的解释办法。然而,在适用于个别案件时,与《欧洲人权公约》不同,人权委员会未能澄清《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》相关条款的范围,具体而言,即检察官作为“法律授权行使司法权的另一官员”的独立性和公正性。这种情况最终可能破坏更有效地实现人身自由权的目标和宗旨。文章认为,人权理事会应采取一种更系统的方法来解释和适用这项权利,以及一般意义上的《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》的规定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Public prosecutors and the right to personal liberty: An analysis of the jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights
This article discusses the approach of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to interpreting and applying the right to personal liberty, in particular in relation to the judicial control of the deprivation of liberty. It appears that both institutions adopt an interpretative approach that aligns with the object and purpose of the right. However, in the application to individual cases, unlike the ECtHR, the HRC fails to clarify the scope of the relevant provision of the ICCPR, specifically, the independence and impartiality of the public prosecutor as ‘an other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power’. That situation may ultimately undermine a more effective attainment of the object and purpose of the right to personal liberty. The article argues for the HRC to adopt a more systematic approach to interpreting and applying that right in particular and the provisions of the ICCPR in general.
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
2.40
自引率
6.20%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Human rights are universal and indivisible. Their fundamental importance makes it essential for anyone with an interest in the field to keep abreast of the latest developments. The Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights (NQHR) is an academic peer-reviewed journal that publishes the latest evolutions in the promotion and protection of human rights from around the world. The NQHR includes multidisciplinary articles addressing human rights issues from an international perspective. In addition, the Quarterly also publishes recent speeches and lectures delivered on the topic of human rights, as well as a section on new books and articles in the field of human rights. The Quarterly employs a double-blind peer review process, and the international editorial board of leading human rights scholars guarantees the maintenance of the highest standard of articles published.
×
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