Advertisement

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

  • Marjorie BeulayEmail author
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Security Council European Convention Legal Personality Grand Chamber European Court 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 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
  2. 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. 1–26Google Scholar
  3. Anzilotti D (1929 new edition 1999) Cours de droit international. Panthéon-Assas/LGDJ, ParisGoogle Scholar
  4. Bastid S (1968–1969) Cours de droit international public. Les cours de droit, ParisGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 95–109Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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 221–236Google Scholar
  11. 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 483–500Google Scholar
  12. 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 155–163Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. De Schutter O (2010) International human rights law. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 4:753–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 147–171Google Scholar
  17. Eagleton C (1950) International organizations and the law of responsibility. R.C.A.D.I., Tome 76, pp 319–425Google Scholar
  18. 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 371–382Google Scholar
  19. 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):401–627Google Scholar
  20. 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 71–94Google Scholar
  21. 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 95–103Google Scholar
  22. Geslin A (2005) Réflexions sur la répartition de la responsabilité entre l’organisation internationale et ses Etats membres. R.G.D.I.P. 3:539–579Google Scholar
  23. Guggenheim P (1954) Traité de droit international Tome II. Georg et Cie S.A. Librairie de l’Université, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  24. 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):249–469Google Scholar
  25. Jacqué J-P (2009) Primauté du droit international versus protection des droits fondamentaux. R.T.D.E. 2009:161–179Google Scholar
  26. 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 297–315Google Scholar
  27. 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, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  28. Lloyd-Jones D (2003) Article 6 Echr and immunities arising in public international law. I.C.L.Q. 463–472Google Scholar
  29. Loucaides L (2006) Determining the extra-territorial effect of the European Convention: facts, jurisprudence and the Bankovic Case. Eur Hum Rights Law Rev 491–407Google Scholar
  30. Milanovic M (2008) From compromise to principle: clarifying the concept of state jurisdiction in human rights treaties. Hum Rights Law Rev 411–448Google Scholar
  31. 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 529:355–366Google Scholar
  32. Monaco R (1974) Le caractère constitutionnel des actes institutifs des organisations internationales. In: La Communauté internationale – Mélanges Rousseau. Pedone, Paris, pp 153–172Google Scholar
  33. Murray O (2011) Piercing the corporate veil: the responsibility of member states of an international organization. Int Organ Law Rev 8:291–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Orakhelashvili A (2003) Restrictive interpretation of human rights treaties in the recent jurisprudence of the European Court of human rights. Eur J Int Law 14:529–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Orakhelashvili A (2005) The World Bank inspection panel in context – institutional aspects of the accountability of international organizations. Int Organ Law Rev 2:57–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Panoussis I-K (2012) L’application extraterritoriale de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme en Irak. R.T.D.H. 91:647–669Google Scholar
  37. Pellet A (1996) Remarques sur une révolution inachevée. Le projet d’Articles de la CDI sur la responsabilité des Etats. A.F.D.I. 42:7–32Google Scholar
  38. 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 3–16Google Scholar
  39. 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 321–345Google Scholar
  40. Pingel I (2004) Droit des immunités et exigences du procès équitable. Pedone, ParisGoogle Scholar
  41. Reinisch A (2008) The immunity of international organizations and the jurisdiction of their administrative tribunals. Chin J Int Law 7(2):285–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reinisch A (2010) Challenging acts of international organizations before National Courts. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reinisch A (2013) The privileges and immunities of international organizations in domestic courts. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 1:59–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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 389–398Google Scholar
  46. Rodriguez Carrion A (1994) Lecciones de derecho internacional public, 3rd edn. Tecnos, MadridGoogle Scholar
  47. 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 831–896Google Scholar
  48. Stern B (1996) What, exactly, is the job of international organization? ASIL Proc 90:583–593Google Scholar
  49. 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 193–220Google Scholar
  50. Szymczak D, Touzé S (2011) Cour européenne des droits de l’homme et droit international général. A.F.D.I. 2011(LVII):611–637Google Scholar
  51. 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):101–122Google Scholar
  52. Tigroudja H (2000) L’immunité de juridiction des organisations internationales et le droit d’accès à un tribunal. R.T.D.H. 83:83–106Google Scholar
  53. Tunkin GI (1965) Droit international public – Problèmes théoriques. Pedone, ParisGoogle Scholar
  54. Villey M (1977) Esquisse historique sur le mot responsable. Annuaire de Philosophie du Droit XXII 45–58Google Scholar
  55. von Bogdandy A, Steinbrück Platise M (2012) ARIO and human rights protection: leaving the individual in the cold. Int Organ Law Rev 9:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wellens K (2002) Remedies against international organizations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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 91–100Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University Paris West Nanterre La DéfenseNanterreFrance

Personalised recommendations