| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
115749
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
147699
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the decisions of governments to enter reservations upon ratification of international human rights treaties. I argue that, in the context of the human rights regime, reservations are simply attempts to avoid international legal obligations where they would be consequential. I develop an explanation for their use that focuses on the following two factors: the legal constraints that already exist in domestic law and the likelihood that international agreements will be enforced by domestic courts. Using an original measure of domestic legal protection of civil, political, and personal integrity rights, I find evidence that governments are more likely to enter reservations when domestic legal standards are lax compared to those in the treaty and when judiciaries are likely to enforce treaty-based obligations. This suggests that full adoption of international human rights treaties is more likely when treaties will not create genuine domestic legal constraints and that explanations for treaty adoption and implementation must take reservations into account. It also suggests that adoption of international human rights law is best explained by the specific legal institutions that relate to domestic enforcement rather than broad distinctions between democratic/autocratic political institutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
060476
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Jan 2005.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the United Kingdom's Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002 (Cth) from an international human rights law perspective. It argues that both pieces of legislation raise serious concerns in relation to international legal obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Both international treaties allow for ‘derogation’ from certain provisions in times of ‘public emergency’. While the United Kingdom has officially derogated from some of its treaty obligations, Australia has yet to submit a similar notification. This article argues, however, that the United Kingdom's derogation is unlawful. Likewise, current circumstances in Australia would not permit lawful derogation from the ICCPR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
076636
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
187409
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Geneva Declaration on Human Rights at Sea was officially launched on 1 March 2022. The document was produced by the nongovernmental organization Human Rights at Sea, and responds to an undoubted need to prevent human rights violations at sea and to provide redress to victims of such abuses. Connecting the international human rights regime with the law of the sea has been one of many challenges to respond to this issue. This article explores the content of the Geneva Declaration and its alignment with existing law of the sea. Beyond the jurisdictional complexities presented, it is important to consider how this informal instrument holds relevance for international lawmaking. While there are obstacles, the Geneva Declaration creates a needed opportunity to bring attention to and clarity around the legal protections of human rights at sea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
102581
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This note analyses the 2005 Isayeva cases of the ECtHR, involving a non-international armed conflict, in order to show whether the Court applied only and directly the stricter standards of HRL (right to life in Article 2 of the ECHR) and, if not, how the Court substantially relied on IHL, by focusing on the differences of the principles of necessity and proportionality for the use of force between HRL and IHL. It concludes, contrary to what some authors insist, that even in the absence of the invocation of a public emergency in Article 15 of the ECHR by the State concerned, and therefore cautiously, the Court did indirectly apply IHL as an interpretive guideline for HRL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
099968
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, KW Publishers, 2010.
|
| Description |
xii, 268p.
|
| Standard Number |
9789380502434, hbk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 055448 | 341.754/JHA 055448 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
134178
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This essay addresses the legal status of Palestinian political prisoners under international humanitarian and human rights law. At the heart of this issue lies the fundamental question of Israel's right to arrest hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, put them on trial before arbitrary military courts, and treat them as criminals in its capacity as the occupying power given the internationally-recognized right of Palestinians to resist occupation and pursue self-determination. This question takes on all the more urgency considering the illegal nature of the Israeli occupation1 and given that the laws and rules of war are applicable to Palestinian detainees as their status conforms to the definition of prisoners of war and civilians under occupation pursuant to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
097080
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The international legal discourse, whether in theory or practice, has long focused on how situations gravely affecting the national security of States would impact their legal rights and obligations. In a way, the discourse on threats is essentially about whether international law could retain its validity as a body of neutral rules in situations where extreme emergencies are arguably involved, as has been witnessed in arguments from the ancient notion of self-preservation to modern claims of exceptional legality that are developed in the context of counter-terrorist activities and encompass multiple areas of international law including jus ad bellum, humanitarian law and human rights law. This contribution examines whether the discourse on threats is inherently extra-legal, that is, if it qualifies the validity of law due to policy considerations that are external, and thus alien, to it; or whether and to what extent international law actually provides for the entitlement of States to act in the face of serious national emergencies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|