Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction: Perspectives on the Protective Potential of Interim Measures in Human Rights Cases and the Legitimacy of Their Use

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Urgency and Human Rights

  • 411 Accesses

Abstract

In the face of time constraints, adjudicators have developed practices dealing with urgent cases, including through interim measures. Indeed, in urgent human rights cases, petitioners continue to request the use of interim measures. At the same time, at UN and regional level states have at times shown their displeasure with the use of interim measures and have sometimes done so in a concerted manner. Thus, there is a need to consider how these measures can be as persuasive as possible. This chapter explores the issues of legitimacy and the protective potential of interim measures and refers to obstacles undermining this potential, which are discussed further by different authors throughout this book. This chapter sets out the approach taken in this book, and introduces the subsequent chapters, where various practitioners and scholars further analyse the protective potential and legitimate use of interim measures and other practices dealing with urgent cases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    CJEU (Grand Chamber) Order in Case C-619/18 R Commission v Poland, 17 December 2018. On 19 October 2018, the Vice-President had already ordered Poland to suspend the effects of the Judiciary Reform Act and, in particular, to ensure that no sitting judge is removed as a result of the new retirement age. On the practice of the CJEU see Chap. 3 by Prechal and Pahladsingh.

  2. 2.

    Council of Europe Special Representative of the Secretary General on migration and refugees, ‘ECHR grants an interim measure in case concerning the Sea-Watch 3 vessel’, Newsletter February 2019. On the interim measures practice of the ECtHR in the context of non-refoulement see Chap. 7 by Zwaan.

  3. 3.

    The Hungarian Helsinki Committee, ‘Hungary Continues to Starve Detainees in the Transit Zones, Information update by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC), 23 April 2019 https://www.helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/Starvation-2019.pdf.

  4. 4.

    See e.g. Shelton’s contribution, Chap. 2.

  5. 5.

    Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2017, also noting that ‘legitimate may apply to a legal right or status but also, in extended use, to a right or status supported by tradition, custom, or accepted standards.’

  6. 6.

    See e.g. Bodansky 1999; Kumm 2004; Peters 2006; and Weiler 2004.

  7. 7.

    See e.g. Keller and Ulfstein 2012; Grossman 2009, 2013; Dzehtsiarou and Coffey 2014; Føllesdahl 2013a; Helfer and Alter 2013; Thomas 2014; Ulfstein 2014; Voeten 2013; and Von Bogdandy and Venzke 2012a, b.

  8. 8.

    See e.g. Franck 1990.

  9. 9.

    See e.g. Hernández 2014; Von Bogdandy and Venzke 2012a, b, 2013; Petersen 2011; Tzanakopoulos 2011; and Ulfstein 2009.

  10. 10.

    See e.g. Føllesdal 2013b.

  11. 11.

    Thomas Franck focused on procedural legitimacy, ‘generally accepted principles of right process’. Franck 1990.

  12. 12.

    On motivation, see e.g. Ruiz Fabri and Sorel 2008.

  13. 13.

    Franck 1990, 52, 94, 142.

  14. 14.

    See e.g. Rieter 2019. On the approach by the ICJ to provisional measures in general see the contributions by Thirlway, Wittich, Sparks and Somos, Le Floch, Rieter, Tanaka, and Marotti in: Palombino et al. 2021. On the approaches of the ICJ, ITLOS and arbitral tribunals, see Miles 2017.

  15. 15.

    See e.g. ICJ Order for provisional measures in Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v Russian Federation), 19 April 2017, para 99.

  16. 16.

    In the context of the ICJ now often referred to as conditions.

  17. 17.

    On the controversy, see e.g. the individual opinions attached to the ICJ Order for provisional measures in Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v Russian Federation), 19 April 2017. See further Rieter 2019 and the discussions on the ICJ in Palombino et al. 2021.

  18. 18.

    ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Gambia v. Myanmar), Order of 23 January 2020.

  19. 19.

    See e.g. Rieter 2021.

  20. 20.

    Rieter 2010.

  21. 21.

    See also Rieter 2012.

  22. 22.

    Miles 2017.

  23. 23.

    E.g. Bodansky 1999.

  24. 24.

    More closely, see e.g. Shany 2014; Shaw 2011; https://www.asil.org/blogs/idea-effective-international-law; Couvreur 2017.

  25. 25.

    E.g. is the test whether a state has paid compensation? Or is the test whether it has taken concrete measures to help prevent similar violations in the future, and if so, how concrete should these measures be?

  26. 26.

    Expert seminar Urgency and Human Rights, Radboud University Nijmegen, 29-30 May 2015. The seminar was organised by Rosa Möhrlein and Eva Rieter (Research Centre for State and Law, Radboud University, in collaboration with Karin Zwaan (Centre for Migration Law, Radboud University), Yves Haeck and Clara Burbano Herrera (Ghent University) and Andrea Saccucci (Università della Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”) and with financial contribution from Radboud University International Office and Ghent University. Next to the contribution of scholars, well-known practitioners offered new and refreshing insights. Speakers were Clara Burbano Herrera & Yves Haeck (Ghent University); Oksana Chelisheva (journalist), Carla Ferstman (REDRESS; University of Essex)), Brian Griffey (OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights); Jelle Klaas (director Public Interest Litigation Program); Philip Leach (Middlesex University; European Human Rights Advocacy Centre); Placide Ntole (SOS Information Juridique Multisectorielle, South Kivu), Róisín Pillay (International Commission of Jurists), Sacha Prechal (judge at the Court of Justice of the European Union; Utrecht University), Andrea Saccucci (Università della Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”; Saccucci & Partners; Doughty Street Chambers); Dinah Shelton (George Washington University; former President Inter-American Commission on Human Rights); Amrit Singh (Open Society Justice Initiative); Özlem Ülgen (Birmingham City University); Richard van Elst (Radboud University); Theo van Boven (Maastricht University, former UN Special Rapporteur against Torture); William Worster (Hague University of Applied Sciences). The participating scholars and practitioners argued from diverse perspectives but agreed on the need for further development of ideas to improve the tools available in urgent human rights cases importance arrived at a common understanding of the importance of improving the legitimacy and protective potential of interim measures. This book aims to contribute to the further discussion in this respect.

  27. 27.

    See e.g. Griffey (Chap. 8); Leach (Chap. 9); Zwaan (Chap. 7); Burbano Herrera and Haeck (Chap. 10).

  28. 28.

    See the literature referenced above.

  29. 29.

    See e.g. Griffey (Chap. 8).

  30. 30.

    Recently on the ICJ, as a court of general jurisdiction, and its approach to provisional measures specifically in human rights cases, see Rieter 2019. In general on the ICJ’s approach to provisional measures, see the contributions in Palombino et al. 2021.

  31. 31.

    See e.g. Shelton (Chap. 2); Prechal and Pahladsingh (Chap.3); Pillay (Chap. 4); Ebobrah (Chap. 5); and Harrington (Chap. 6).

  32. 32.

    The contributors work in academia, with practical experience in the field, or are specialists in international organisations. Most of the contributors are both scholar and practitioner, most notably Dinah Shelton (former Commissioner with the Inter-American Human Rights Commission), Sacha Prechal (Judge at the Court of Justice of the European Union), Aniel Pahladsing (lawyer at the Dutch Council of State) and Philip Leach (director at the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre).

  33. 33.

    As discussed elsewhere, the ICJ has also ordered provisional measures in the context of armed conflict, including in response to provisional measures requests by Ukraine. Specifically on ICJ Ukraine v Russia, see e.g. Rieter 2019. See also the discussions in Palombino et al. 2021. See further ITLOS Case concerning the detention of three Ukrainian Naval Vessels (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Order for provisional measures of 25 May 2019.

  34. 34.

    See Griffey (Chap. 8).

References

  • Bernhardt R (ed) (1994) Interim measures indicated by international courts. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg/Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky D (1999) The legitimacy of International Governance: A Coming Challenge for International Environmental Law? AJIL p 601

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Jonathan G, Flauss J-F (eds) (2005) Mesures Conservatoires et Droits Fondamentaux. Bruylant, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Couvreur P (2017) The International Court of Justice and the Effectiveness of International Law. OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Dzehtsiarou K, Coffey DK (2014) Legitimacy and Independence of International Tribunals: An Analysis of the European Court of Human Rights. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 37(2):271–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Føllesdahl A (2013a) LJIL Symposium: Explaining and Justifying International Courts as Agents and Actors (9 April 2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Føllesdal A (2013b) The Legitimacy Deficits of the Human Rights Judiciary: Elements and Implications of a Normative Theory. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 14:339

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck Th (1990) The power of legitimacy among nations. OUP, pp 24, 52, 94, 142

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman N (2009) Legitimacy and International Adjudicative Bodies. Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. 41:107, 115

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman N (2013) The Normative Legitimacy of International Courts. Temple Law Review 2013, p 68–79 (Dec. 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfer L, Alter K (2013) Legitimacy and Lawmaking: A Tale of Three International Courts. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 14(2):479–504

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernández GI (2014) The International Court of Justice and the Judicial Function. OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller H, Ulfstein G (eds) (2012) UN Treaty Bodies, Law and Legitimacy. CUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumm M (2004) The Legitimacy of International Law: A Constitutionalist Framework of Analysis EJIL 15(5):907–931, 929

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Floch G (2008) L’urgence devant les juridictions internationales. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles C (2017) Provisional measures before international courts and tribunals. CUP, pp 275–476

    Google Scholar 

  • Palombino F, Virzo R, Zarra G (eds) (2021) Provisional Measures Issued by International Courts and Tribunals. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters A (2006) Compensatory Constitutionalism: The Function and Potential of Fundamental International Norms and Structures. Leiden JIL 19:579–610

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen N (2011) Lawmaking by the International Court of Justice - Factors of Success. German Law Journal 12(5):1295–1316

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieter E (2010) Preventing Irreparable Harm: Provisional Measures in International Human Rights Adjudication. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieter E (2012) Provisional measures: binding and persuasive? Enabling human rights adjudicators to follow up on state disrespect? NILR pp 165–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieter E (2019) The ICJ and provisional measures involving the fate of persons. In: Kadelbach S, Rensmann T, Rieter E (eds) Judging international human rights. Courts of General Jurisdiction as Human Rights Courts. Springer, Heidelberg/Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieter E (2021) Autonomy of Provisional Measures. In: Palombino FM, Virzo R, Zarra G (eds) Provisional Measures Issued by International Courts and Tribunals. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz Fabri H, Sorel J-M (eds) (2008) La motivation des décisions des juridictions internationales. Pedone

    Google Scholar 

  • Saccucci A (2006) Le misure provvisorie nella protezione internazionale dei diritte umani. Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Shany Y (2014) Assessing Effectiveness of International Courts. OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw GJ (2011) The idea of effective international law. ASIL 11 April 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas C A (2014) Uses and Abuses of Legitimacy in International Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 34(4):729–758, 746

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzanakopoulos A (2011) Domestic Courts in International Law: The International Judicial Function of National Courts L.A. Int’L Comparative Law Review

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulfstein G (2009) The International Judiciary. In: Klabbers J et al (eds) The Constitutionalization of International Law. OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulfstein G (2014) International Courts and Judges: Independence, Interaction, and Legitimacy. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 46(3): 849–866

    Google Scholar 

  • Voeten E (2013) Public Opinion and the Legitimacy of International Courts/ Theoretical Inquiries in Law 14(2):411–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bogdandy A, Venzke I (2012a) In Whose Name? An Investigation of International Courts & Tribunals; Public Authority and its Democratic Justification. European Journal of International Law 23(1):78–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bogdandy A, Venzke I (2012b) Beyond Dispute: International Judicial Institutions as Lawmakers. German Law Journal, p 986

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bogdandy A, Venzke I (2013) On the Functions of International Courts: An Appraisal in Light of their Burgeoning Public Authority. Leiden Journal of International Law 926:49–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler J (2004) The Geology of International Law – Governance, Democracy and Legitimacy. ZaöRV

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for State and Law, Radboud University Nijmegen, Montessorilaan 10, 6525 HR, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Eva Rieter

Authors
  1. Eva Rieter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva Rieter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for State and Law, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Eva Rieter

  2. Centre for State and Law, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Karin Zwaan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rieter, E. (2021). Introduction: Perspectives on the Protective Potential of Interim Measures in Human Rights Cases and the Legitimacy of Their Use. In: Rieter, E., Zwaan, K. (eds) Urgency and Human Rights. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-415-0_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-415-0_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-414-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-415-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation