Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Influence of Human Rights on International Law pp 93–110Cite as

Human Rights Protection and the Notion of Responsibility: Some Considerations About the European Case Law on State’s Activities Under U.N. Charter

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1657 Accesses

Abstract

The notion of “responsibility” is a major topic of legal analysis and studies. The word comes from the Latin verb respondere, which means to vouch for further actions. In international law, it means “that a particular internationally wrongful act may be the source of new legal relations, not only between the guilty State and injured State, but also, between the former State and other States or, especially, between the former State and organizations of States”. Responsibility is then a network of relationships between various subjects of international law. Actually, responsibility appears as the stereotype of law, a “necessary corollary of law”, a concept “at the heart of international law”. Indeed, the law seems effective when the State or International Organisation responsible for a violation can be found: “the existence of an international legal order postulates that the subjects on whom duties are imposed should equally be responsible in case of a failure to perform these duties.” The responsibility arises “historically from the moral sense of obligation recognized by mankind everywhere; it is a necessary principle of social cooperation, and as such it has become embodied in all legal systems”. This importance of the responsibility mechanism relies in fact on two elements: on one hand, the responsibility itself, which is a purely legal institution, and, on the other hand, its practical consequences, which pertain to the peaceful settlement of disputes mechanisms. This contribution will focus on the first element and not on the mechanisms of the legal accountability, not because of the irrelevance of the latter but because of the more eloquent aspect regarding the influence of Human Rights Law of the former.

I would like to thank Miss Nili Cytrynowicz for her helpful and insightful comments during the preparation of this article.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Villey (1977), p. 46.

  2. 2.

    Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1970, vol. II, p. 184, §22. For further explanations see: Guggenheim (1954), pp. 99 and following; Eustathiades (1955), p. 433; Tunkin (1965), pp. 191, 220 and following.

  3. 3.

    Pellet (2010), p. 3.

  4. 4.

    Reuter (1991), p. 390.

  5. 5.

    Anzilotti (1929 new edition 1999), p. 467.

  6. 6.

    Eagleton (1950), p. 323.

  7. 7.

    Reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations, Advisory opinion of 11th April 1949, ICJ Reports 1949, p. 177.

  8. 8.

    Pellet (2010), pp. 6–8.

  9. 9.

    See Article 2 on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts and Article 4 on Responsibility of International Organizations.

  10. 10.

    Stern (2010), pp. 200 and 201.

  11. 11.

    United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Judgment of 24 May 1980, ICJ Reports 1980, p. 3.

  12. 12.

    Pellet (1996), p. 287.

  13. 13.

    Scobbie (1998), p. 886; Bastid (1968–1969), p. 240; Dominicé (1997), pp. 70–72; Eagleton (1950), pp. 324 and 325; Higgins (1995), p. 252; Rodriguez Carrion (1994), p. 317; Zacklin (1991), p. 91.

  14. 14.

    See for example: von Bogdandy and Steinbrück Platise (2012), pp. 67–76.

  15. 15.

    Stern (1996), p. 589.

  16. 16.

    Condorelli and Kress (2010), p. 221.

  17. 17.

    Caicedo (2005), p. 8. See also Wellens (2002), pp. 22 and 44.

  18. 18.

    Monaco (1974), p. 154; Ahlborn (2011), pp. 4–12; Beulay (2012), pp. 99–101.

  19. 19.

    Pellet (2012), p. 321.

  20. 20.

    Klein (2010), pp. 297–329.

  21. 21.

    Condorelli and Kress (2010), p. 221.

  22. 22.

    Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1973, vol. II, p. 184, §14.

  23. 23.

    Al-Skeini and others v. The United Kingdom, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, Judgement of 7 July 2012, Application no 55721/07, § 130. See also Ilascu and others v. Moldova and Russia, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, Judgement of the 8 July 2004, § 311. About the particular notion of State jurisdiction, see Milanovic (2008), p. 446.

  24. 24.

    See De Schutter (2005), pp. 7–10; Loucaides (2006), pp. 394 and 395.

  25. 25.

    Orakhelashvili (2003), p. 540.

  26. 26.

    Al-Skeini and others v. Secretary of State for Defence, House of Lords, Judgement of the 13 June 2007, [2007] UKHL 26, §64.

  27. 27.

    Collected edition of the “travaux préparatoires” of the European Convention on Human Rights IV, p. 927.

  28. 28.

    De Schutter (2010), pp. 94–96.

  29. 29.

    Costa (2004), pp. 483–500.

  30. 30.

    Bankovic and others v. Belgium and others, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, Decision of 12 May 2002, Application no 52207/99, §59.

  31. 31.

    Condorelli and Kress (2010), p. 222.

  32. 32.

    Daillier (2012), pp. 155 and 156.

  33. 33.

    Tavernier (2013), p. 105.

  34. 34.

    Behrami and Behrami v. France and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, Decisions of 2nd May 2007, Applications no 71412/01 and 78166/01.

  35. 35.

    Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Irland, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, Judgement of 30 June 2005, Application no 45036/98.

  36. 36.

    Tavernier (2013), p. 106.

  37. 37.

    Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union and European Commission, Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of European Communities, Judgement of 3rd September 2008, Applications C-402/05P and C-415/05P, Reports 2008, I-06351.

  38. 38.

    See: Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro in Yassin Abdullah Kadi v. Council of the European Union and European Commission, C-402/05P; Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union and European Commission, Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of European Communities, Judgement of 3rd September 2008, Applications C-402/05P and C-415/05P, Reports 2008, I-06351, §316; Loizidou v. Turkey, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, Judgement of 23 March 1995, Application no 15318/89, §75.

  39. 39.

    Jacqué (2009), p. 171.

  40. 40.

    Al-Jedda v. The United Kingdom, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, Judgement of 7 July 2011, Application no 27021/08, §80.

  41. 41.

    Panoussis (2012), pp. 659 and 660.

  42. 42.

    Al-Skeini and others v. The United Kingdom, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, Judgement of 7 July 2012, Application no 55721/07, §149.

  43. 43.

    Youssef Mustapha Nada v. Switzerland, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, Judgement of 12 September 2012, Application no 10593/08, § 120–121.

  44. 44.

    Gaja (2009), p. 97.

  45. 45.

    See on this topic Protocol no 15 adopted on 26 April 2013 amending the European Convention on Human Rights, which introduces a reference to the principle of subsidiarity and the doctrine of the margin of appreciation.

  46. 46.

    Stern (2010), pp. 210 and 211.

  47. 47.

    See, for example, Delmas-Marty and Izorche (2000), pp. 753–780.

  48. 48.

    Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

  49. 49.

    Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union and European Commission, Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of European Communities, Judgement of 3rd September 2008, Applications C-402/05P and C-415/05P, Reports 2008, I-06351.

  50. 50.

    Al-Jedda v. The United Kingdom, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, Judgement of 7 July 2011, Application no 27021/08, §102.

  51. 51.

    Youssef Mustapha Nada v. Switzerland, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, Judgement of 12 September 2012, Application no 10593/08, §170.

  52. 52.

    Tavernier (2013), p. 110.

  53. 53.

    Tavernier (2013), pp. 111 and 112.

  54. 54.

    Concurring opinion of Judge Bonello under Al-Skeini and others v. The United Kingdom, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, Judgement of 7 July 2012, Application no 55721/07, §18.

  55. 55.

    Youssef Mustapha Nada v. Switzerland, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, Judgement of 12 September 2012, Application no 10593/08, §196.

  56. 56.

    Youssef Mustapha Nada v. Switzerland, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, Judgement of 12 September 2012, Application no 10593/08, §§ 176–197.

  57. 57.

    See Economides (2010), pp. 371–382.

  58. 58.

    Sayadi and Vinck v. Belgium, Decision of the U.N. Committee on Human Rights of the 9 December 2008, Communication no 1472/2006.

  59. 59.

    Youssef Mustapha Nada v. Switzerland, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, Judgement of 12 September 2012, Application no 10593/08, §197.

  60. 60.

    General Comment no 31: The Nature if the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, adopted on 29 March 2004 by the U.N. Human Rights Committee. In: Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, May 2004, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7, § 10.

  61. 61.

    Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 February 1946.

  62. 62.

    On this particular issue, see Reinisch (2008), pp. 285–306.

  63. 63.

    Waite and Kennedy v. Germany, Grand Chamber of the European court of Human Rights, Judgement of 18 February 1999, Application no 26083/94, §68; Beer and Reagan v. Germany, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, Judgement of 18 February 1999, Application no 28934/95, §68.

  64. 64.

    Waite and Kennedy v. Germany, Grand Chamber of the European court of Human Rights, Judgement of 18 February 1999, Application no 26083/94, §59; Richard Chapman v. Belgium, Fifth Section of the European Court on Human Rights, Decision of the 5 March 2013, Application no 39619/06, §§ 47–53.

  65. 65.

    Flauss (2009), p. 84.

  66. 66.

    Geslin (2005), p. 543. See also, Murray (2011), pp. 291–347.

  67. 67.

    See, for example, Tigroudja (2000), pp. 83–106; Lloyd-Jones (2003), pp. 463–472; Pingel (2004); Angelet and Weerts (2007), pp. 1–26; Reinisch and Weber (2004), pp. 59–110.

  68. 68.

    See, for example, Mothers of Srebrenica and al. v. The Netherlands, Court of Appeals of the Netherlands, Judgement adopted the 30 March 2010, Case 00.022.151/01; Janet E. Atkinson v. The Inter-American Development Bank and alii, U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit, Judgement of the 9 October 1998, 156 F. 3d 1335; Banque africaine de développement v. Degboe, French Cour de Cassation, Social Chamber, Judgement of the 25 January 2005, Bull. 2005 V, no 16, p. 13.

  69. 69.

    About this particular topic, see Reinisch (2010), 302 p and Reinisch (2013), 400 p.

  70. 70.

    For another example, see the World Bank Inspection Panel Orakhelashvili (2005), pp. 57–102.

  71. 71.

    For a brief analysis of this topic, see Chinkin (2012) and Beulay (2013a,b).

  72. 72.

    Kolb et al. (2005), pp. 241 and 242.

  73. 73.

    Hasan Nuhanovic v. The Netherlands, Supreme Court of the Netherlands, Judgement adopted the 6 September 2013, Case 12/03324.

  74. 74.

    Szymczak and Touzé (2011), p. 618.

  75. 75.

    Resolution 1730 (2006) of the Security Council of the United Nations adopted the 19 December 2006, S/RES/1730(2006). See on this topic: Miron (2009), pp. 363 and 364.

  76. 76.

    See the last case law where the European Court of Justice is evaluating the quality of the proof: Yassin Abdullah Kadi, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice, Judgement of the 18 July 2013, Joint applications no C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P, C-595/10 P.

References

  • Ahlborn C (2011) The rules of international organizations and the law of international responsibility. A.C.I.L. Research Paper no 2011-03. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1825182. Accessed 28 July 2014

  • Angelet N, Weerts A (2007) Les immunités des organisations internationales face à l’article 6 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’Homme. J.D.I. 1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Anzilotti D (1929 new edition 1999) Cours de droit international. Panthéon-Assas/LGDJ, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastid S (1968–1969) Cours de droit international public. Les cours de droit, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Beulay M (2012) Les traités constitutifs de l’Union européenne. In: Benlolo-Carabot M, Candas U, Cujo E (eds) L’Union européenne et le droit international. Pedone, Paris, pp 95–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Beulay M (2013a) Human rights advisory panel: La décision B.A. c. MINUK, illustration du sérieux d’une solution initialement cosmétique. Lettre “Actualités Droits-Libertés” du CREDOF, 24 avril 2013. http://revdh.org/2013/04/24/human-rights-advisory-panel-minuk-serieux-cosmetique/. Accessed 28 July 2014

  • Beulay M (2013b) Human Rights Advisory Panel: Un approfondissement inédit de l’obligation des Nations Unies en matière d’enquête. Lettre “Actualités Droits-Libertés” du CREDOF, 27 Septembre 2013. http://revdh.org/2013/09/27/human-rights-advisory-panel-obligation-nations-unies-enquete/. Accessed 28 Sept 2013

  • Caicedo J-J (2005) La répartition de la responsabilité internationale entre les organisations internationales et les Etats membres. Thesis from Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (unpublished)

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinkin C (2012) The Kosovo human rights panel. http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/International%20Law/260112summary.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2014

  • Condorelli L, Kress C (2010) The rules of attribution: general considerations. In: Crawford J, Pellet A, Olleson S (eds) The law of international responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, pp 221–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa J-P (2004) Qui relève de la juridiction de quel(s) Etat(s) au sens de l’Article 1e de la CEDH? In: Libertés, justice, tolérance: Mélanges en hommage au doyen Gérard Cohen-Jonathan. Bruylant, Bruxelles, pp 483–500

    Google Scholar 

  • Daillier P (2012) Le cas du Kosovo: l’administration internationale en vue de la (re)construction d’un Etat. In: Bories C (ed) A global administrative law? Pedone, Paris, pp 155–163

    Google Scholar 

  • De Schutter O (2005) Globalization and jurisdiction: lessons from the European Convention on human rights. CRIDHO Working Paper, no 4. http://cridho.uclouvain.be. Accessed 28 July 2014

  • De Schutter O (2010) International human rights law. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Delmas-Marty M, Izorche M-L (2000) Marge nationale d’appréciation et internationalisation du droit. Réflexions sur la validité formelle d’un droit commun pluraliste. Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé 4:753–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dominicé C (1997) La personnalité juridique dans le système du droit des gens. In: L’ordre juridique international entre tradition et innovation – Recueil d’études. P.U.F., Paris, pp 147–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagleton C (1950) International organizations and the law of responsibility. R.C.A.D.I., Tome 76, pp 319–425

    Google Scholar 

  • Economides C-P (2010) Content of the obligation: obligations of means and obligations of result. In: Crawford J, Pellet A, Olleson S (eds) The law of international responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, pp 371–382

    Google Scholar 

  • Eustathiades CT (1955) Les sujets du droit international et la responsabilité internationale – Nouvelles tendances. Recueil des cours de l’Académie de la Haye, 1953(III):401–627

    Google Scholar 

  • Flauss J-F (2009) Immunité des organisations internationales et droit international des droits de l’homme. In: S.F.D.I. (ed) La soumission des organisations internationales aux normes internationales relatives aux droits de l’homme. Pedone, Paris, pp 71–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaja G (2009) Responsabilité des Etats et/ou des organisation internationales en cas de violations des droits de l’homme: la question de l’attribution. In: S.F.D.I., I.I.D.H. (eds) La soumission des organisations internationales aux normes internationales relatives aux droits de l’homme. Pedone, Paris, pp 95–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Geslin A (2005) Réflexions sur la répartition de la responsabilité entre l’organisation internationale et ses Etats membres. R.G.D.I.P. 3:539–579

    Google Scholar 

  • Guggenheim P (1954) Traité de droit international Tome II. Georg et Cie S.A. Librairie de l’Université, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins R (1995) The legal consequences for member states of the non-fulfilment by international organizations of their obligations toward third parties. A.I.D.I. 66(I):249–469

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacqué J-P (2009) Primauté du droit international versus protection des droits fondamentaux. R.T.D.E. 2009:161–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein P (2010) The attribution of acts to international organizations. In: Crawford J, Pellet A, Olleson S (eds) The law of international responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, pp 297–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb R, Porretto G, Vité S (2005) L’application du droit humanitaire et des droits de l’Homme aux organisations internationales – Forces de paix et administrations civiles transitoires. Bruylant, Collection du Centre Universitaire de Droit International Humanitaire, Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd-Jones D (2003) Article 6 Echr and immunities arising in public international law. I.C.L.Q. 463–472

    Google Scholar 

  • Loucaides L (2006) Determining the extra-territorial effect of the European Convention: facts, jurisprudence and the Bankovic Case. Eur Hum Rights Law Rev 491–407

    Google Scholar 

  • Milanovic M (2008) From compromise to principle: clarifying the concept of state jurisdiction in human rights treaties. Hum Rights Law Rev 411–448

    Google Scholar 

  • Miron A (2009) Les “sanctions ciblées” du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies – Réflexions sur la qualification juridique des listes du Conseil de sécurité. R.M.C.U.E 529:355–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Monaco R (1974) Le caractère constitutionnel des actes institutifs des organisations internationales. In: La Communauté internationale – Mélanges Rousseau. Pedone, Paris, pp 153–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray O (2011) Piercing the corporate veil: the responsibility of member states of an international organization. Int Organ Law Rev 8:291–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili A (2003) Restrictive interpretation of human rights treaties in the recent jurisprudence of the European Court of human rights. Eur J Int Law 14:529–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili A (2005) The World Bank inspection panel in context – institutional aspects of the accountability of international organizations. Int Organ Law Rev 2:57–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panoussis I-K (2012) L’application extraterritoriale de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme en Irak. R.T.D.H. 91:647–669

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellet A (1996) Remarques sur une révolution inachevée. Le projet d’Articles de la CDI sur la responsabilité des Etats. A.F.D.I. 42:7–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellet A (2010) The definition of responsibility in international law. In: Crawford J, Pellet A, Olleson S (eds) The law of international responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, pp 3–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellet A (2012) Remarques sur la jurisprudence récente de la C.I.J. dans le domaine de la responsabilité internationale. In: Perspectives of international law in the 21st century. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 321–345

    Google Scholar 

  • Pingel I (2004) Droit des immunités et exigences du procès équitable. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch A (2008) The immunity of international organizations and the jurisdiction of their administrative tribunals. Chin J Int Law 7(2):285–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch A (2010) Challenging acts of international organizations before National Courts. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch A (2013) The privileges and immunities of international organizations in domestic courts. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch A, Weber U-A (2004) In the shadow of Waite and Kennedy – the jurisdictional immunity of international organizations, the individual’s right of access to the courts and administrative tribunals as alternative means of dispute settlement. Int Organ Law Rev 1:59–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reuter P (1991) Trois observations sur la codification de la responsabilité internationale des Etats pour fait illicite. In: Le droit international au service de la paix, de la justice et du développement – Mélanges Michel Virally. Pedone, Paris, pp 389–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez Carrion A (1994) Lecciones de derecho internacional public, 3rd edn. Tecnos, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Scobbie I (1998) International organizations and international relations. In: Dupuy R-J (ed) Manuel sur les organisations internationales. Académie de droit international, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, pp 831–896

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern B (1996) What, exactly, is the job of international organization? ASIL Proc 90:583–593

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern B (2010) The elements of an internationally wrongful act. In: Crawford J, Pellet A, Olleson S (eds) The law of international responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, pp 193–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Szymczak D, Touzé S (2011) Cour européenne des droits de l’homme et droit international général. A.F.D.I. 2011(LVII):611–637

    Google Scholar 

  • Tavernier J (2013) La responsabilité des Etats au regard de la Convention européenne des droits de l’Homme pour la mise en œuvre de résolutions adoptées dans le cadre du Chapitre VII de la Charte des Nations Unies – Cour EDH, Grande Chambre, arrêt du 12 septembre 2012, Nada c. Suisse, Requête no 10593/08. R.G.D.I.P. 2013(1):101–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Tigroudja H (2000) L’immunité de juridiction des organisations internationales et le droit d’accès à un tribunal. R.T.D.H. 83:83–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunkin GI (1965) Droit international public – Problèmes théoriques. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Villey M (1977) Esquisse historique sur le mot responsable. Annuaire de Philosophie du Droit XXII 45–58

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bogdandy A, Steinbrück Platise M (2012) ARIO and human rights protection: leaving the individual in the cold. Int Organ Law Rev 9:67–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellens K (2002) Remedies against international organizations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zacklin R (1991) Responsabilité des organisations internationales. In: S.F.D.I. (ed) La responsabilité dans le système juridique international – Colloque du Mans. Pedone, Paris, pp 91–100

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Paris West Nanterre La Défense, Nanterre, France

    Marjorie Beulay

Authors
  1. Marjorie Beulay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marjorie Beulay .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

    Norman Weiß

  2. Université Paris Ouest Nanterre la Défense, Nanterre la Défense, Hauts-de-Seine, France

    Jean-Marc Thouvenin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Beulay, M. (2015). Human Rights Protection and the Notion of Responsibility: Some Considerations About the European Case Law on State’s Activities Under U.N. Charter. In: Weiß, N., Thouvenin, JM. (eds) The Influence of Human Rights on International Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12021-8_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation