Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Problems the European Court of Human Rights Faces in Applying International Humanitarian Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Humanitarian Challenge

  • 972 Accesses

Abstract

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is increasingly receiving applications relating to armed conflict or other types of situations of violence. In the past, the most notable cases concerned Northern Ireland or the conflict between Cyprus and Turkey that led to the issuing of several judgments during the 1980s and 1990s. At the moment, one of the most difficult issues for the Court is the involvement of troops belonging to member States of the Council of Europe in foreign countries. The problems stem mainly from the scenario left by the war in Former Yugoslavia and from the conflict in Iraq. A number of cases arising from Russia’s disputes with Chechnya and Turkey’s differences with the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) have also been examined by the Court recently. In order to deal with these cases, the Strasbourg Court relies almost exclusively on interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and it has therefore become the applicable legal instrument for those types of violent situation.

This contribution is an updated version of the Spanish language article Abrisketa Uriarte J (2012) Los problemas del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos para aplicar el Derecho Internacional Humanitario. Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo 43:875–899.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    The case of Maktouf and Damjanovic v. Bosnia Herzegovina, concerning convictions for war crimes handed down by a domestic court, is still awaiting settlement by the ECtHR, N° 2312/08 and N° 34179/08 respectively.

  2. 2.

    Very recently, among other cases, the Court was already confronted with this issue in the case known as the Katyn massacre, Janowiec et al. v. Russia, N° 55508/07 and N° 29520/09, of 19 April 2012.

  3. 3.

    Article 15 (1): “In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law”. (2): “No derogation from Article 2, except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from Articles 3, 4 (paragraph 1) and 7 shall be made under this provision.” (emphasis added).

  4. 4.

    The ICJ recalled that “under customary international law, as reflected in Article 42 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, territory is considered to be occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army”, ICJ, Judgment concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), 19 December 2005, § 172.

  5. 5.

    ECtHR Judgment of 18 December 1996, Loizidou v. Turkey, N° 15318/89, §12.

  6. 6.

    Ibidem, § 26.

  7. 7.

    Ibidem, § 31.

  8. 8.

    Ibidem, § 52.

  9. 9.

    Ibidem, § 56.

  10. 10.

    Only Judge Pettiti argued that IHL should have been considered in the judgment. He maintained that an overall assessment of the situation would have made it possible to review the criteria relating to the occupation and the application of the 1949 Geneva Conventions in Northern Cyprus. Indeed, if Mrs Loizidou was expelled from the area occupied by Turkey in Northern Cyprus, then there is no reason to disregard article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention concerning the forced displacement of the population of occupied territories and the Hague Rules of 1907 (articles 42 and 43), which are clearly applicable. Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pettiti, ibidem, pp. 39–40.

  11. 11.

    ECtHR Judgment of 18 September 2009, Varnava and others v. Turkey, N° 16064/90, N° 16065/90, N° 16066/90, N° 16068/90, N° 16069/90, N° 16070/90, N° 16071/90, N° 16072/90 and N° 16073/90.

  12. 12.

    Ibidem, § 178.

  13. 13.

    “Article 2 must be interpreted in so far as possible in light of the general principles of international law, including the rules of international humanitarian law which play an indispensable and universally-accepted role in mitigating the savagery and inhumanity of armed conflict. The Court therefore concurs with the reasoning of the Chamber in holding that in a zone of international conflict Contracting States are under obligation to protect the lives of those not, or no longer, engaged in hostilities”, ibidem, § 185.

  14. 14.

    ECtHR judgment of 19 December 2001, Banković and others v. Belgium, N° 52207/99.

  15. 15.

    Ibidem, § 47, 52, 75 and 80.

  16. 16.

    Ibidem, § 71.

  17. 17.

    Ibidem, § 37.

  18. 18.

    In the Issa v. Turkey case, the Court applied a broader criterion for interpreting article 1 of the Convention. It unambiguously recognised the applicability of the ECHR to the military operations conducted by the Turkish Army in Northern Iraq in 1995. The driving force behind its response was the same as in the Loizidou judgment in that it combined two criteria: it first referred to the theory concerning effective control and, secondly, accepted that the concept is applicable outside of the legal space of the member States of the Convention, even with regard to temporary military operations, whether or not they are legitimate. ECtHR judgment of 16 November 2004, Issa and others v. Turkey, N°. 31821/96. In more recent cases, such as those of Al-Saadoon v. The United Kingdom and Medvedyev v. France, among others, the Court again adopted a broad interpretation of the concept of jurisdiction. In the former it condemned the United Kingdom for violations of the ECHR committed in Iraqi territory occupied by British forces and, in the latter, it condemned France for violations committed during the boarding of a ship by the French Army (ECtHR judgment of 2 March 2009, Al-Saadoon v. The United Kingdom, N° 61498/08, and ECtHR judgment of 29 March 2010, Medvedyev v. France, N° 3394/03).

  19. 19.

    ECtHr judgment of 19 December 2001, Banković and others v. Belgium, op.cit., § 75.

  20. 20.

    ECtHR judgment of 2 May 2007, Behrami and Behrami v. France, N° 71412/01, and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway, N° 78166/01.

  21. 21.

    Ibidem, § 132–143.

  22. 22.

    ECtHR judgment of 7 July 2011, Al-Jedda v. The United Kingdom, N° 27021/08, § 42–44.

  23. 23.

    ECtHR judgment of 7 July 2011, Al-Jedda v. The United Kingdom, op.cit., § 80–84.

  24. 24.

    Article 2 states: “Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence…” (emphasis added).

  25. 25.

    ECtHR judgment of 5 September 1995, McCann v. The United Kingdom, N° 18984/91.

  26. 26.

    Ibidem, § 143–144.

  27. 27.

    Ibidem, §194.

  28. 28.

    As shown in ECtHR judgment of 28 July 1998, Ergi v. Turkey, N° 23818/94; ECtHR judgment of 24 February 2005, Isayeva v. Russia, N° 57950/00; ECtHR judgment of 15 September 2011, Kerimova and others v. Russia, Nos. 17170/04, 20792/04, 23360/04, 5681/05 and 5684/05; and ECtHR judgment of 3 May 2011, Khamzayev and others v. Russia, N° 1503/02.

  29. 29.

    ECtHR judgment of 28 July 1998, Ergi v. Turkey, op. cit., § 1.

  30. 30.

    Ibidem, § 2.

  31. 31.

    “Under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1, the State may be required to take certain measures in order to “secure” an effective enjoyment of the right to life. In light of the above considerations, the responsibility of the State is not confined to circumstances where there is significant evidence that misdirected fire from agents of the State has killed a civilian. It may also be engaged where they fail to take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of a security operation mounted against an opposing group with a view to avoiding and, in any event, to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life” (emphasis added), ibidem, § 79.

  32. 32.

    Articles 57 (2) (a) (ii) and 58 of Protocol I of 1977.

  33. 33.

    ECtHR judgment of 28 July 1998, Ergi v. Turkey, op.cit., § 79.

  34. 34.

    Ibidem, § 82.

  35. 35.

    ECtHR judgment of 18 February 1998, Kaya v. Turkey, N° 22729/93.

  36. 36.

    ECtHR judgment of 24 February 2005, Isayeva v. Russia, op.cit.

  37. 37.

    ECtHR judgment of 24 February 2005, Isayeva v. Russia, op.cit., and ECtHR judgments of 24 February 2005, Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, N° 57942/00, and Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v. Russia, N° 57947/00, N° 57948/00 and N° 57949/00.

  38. 38.

    Kerimova and others v. Russia, op.cit., and Khamzayev and others v. Russia, op.cit.

  39. 39.

    ECtHR judgment of 24 February 2005, Isayeva v. Russia, op.cit., § 224.

  40. 40.

    Ibidem, § 150, 153, 180 and 191.

  41. 41.

    Ibidem.

  42. 42.

    Ibidem.

  43. 43.

    Protocol I of 1977 states: “In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.” (Article 48).

  44. 44.

    ECtHR judgment of 24 February 2005, Isayeva v. Russia, ibidem, § 173 and 191.

  45. 45.

    “Given the context of the conflict in Chechnya at the relevant time, those measures could presumably include the deployment of army units equipped with combat weapons, including military aviation and artillery. The presence of a very large group of armed fighters in Katyr–Yurt, and their active resistance to the law-enforcement bodies, which are not disputed by the parties, may have justified use of lethal force by the agents of the State, thus bringing the situation within paragraph 2 of Article 2” (emphasis added), § 180.

  46. 46.

    Ibidem, § 173–175.

  47. 47.

    These obligations are established in article 57 (2) of Protocol I and are also considered to be customary norms.

References

  • Abresch W (2005) A human rights law of internal armed conflicts: the ECHR in Chechnya. Eur J Int Law 16(4):741–767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrisketa J (2012) La presunción de armonía entre las resoluciones del Consejo de Seguridad y el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos y la responsabilidad conjunta de organizaciones y Estados: nuevas interpretaciones en la sentencia Al-Jedda contra el Reino Unido del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos de 7 de julio de 2011. Revista General de Derecho Europeo 26

    Google Scholar 

  • Barcelona Llop J (2009) El derecho a la vida en la Carta Europea de los Derechos Fundamentales. Las enseñanzas del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. In: Arranz De Andrés C, Serna Vallejo M (coords) Estudios de Derecho español y europeo. Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, pp 79–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanc Artemir A (2006) El conflicto de Chechenia: implicaciones en el ámbito del Derecho Internacional Humanitario y de los Derechos humanos. In: Soroeta Liceras J (ed) Conflictos y protección de derechos humanos en el orden internacional. Cursos de Derechos Humanos de Donostia-San Sebastián, pp 67–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruscoli F (2002) The rights of individuals in times of armed conflict. Int J Hum Rights 6:45–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgorgue-Larsen L, Úbeda De Torres A (2011) War in the jurisprudence of the interAmerican court of human rights. Hum Rights Q 33:148–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cáceres Brun J (2009) El Derecho Internacional Humanitario y el Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos. In: Rodríguez-Villasante Y Prieto JL (coords) Derecho internacional humanitario, 2nd edn. Tirant Monografías, Cruz Roja Española and Centro de Estudios de Derecho Internacional Humanitario, Valencia, pp 953–969

    Google Scholar 

  • Chevalier-Watts J (2010) Has human rights become lex specialis for the European Court of Human Rights in right to life cases arising from internal armed conflicts? Int J Hum Rights 14(4):584–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Jonathan G (2002) Observations: la territorialisation de la jurisdiction de la Cour européene des droits de l’homme. Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme 52:1073

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa JP, O’Boyle M (2011) The European court of human rights and international humanitarian law. In: Spielman D, Tsirli M, Voyatzis P (eds) The European convention on human rights, a living instrument. Essays in honour of Christos L. Rozakis. Bruylant, Brussels, pp 107–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Draper G (1972) Human rights and the law of war. Virginia J Int Law 12:326–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Forowicz M (2010) The reception of international law in the European court of human rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 313–351

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gaggioli G, Kolb R (2007) L’apport de la Cour Européenne des droits de l’homme au droit international humanitaire en matière de droit à la vie. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Internationales und Europäisches Recht 17(1):3–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardan J (2001) The contribution of the international court of justice to international humanitarian law. Leiden J Int Law 14:349–365

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioia A (2011) The role of the European court of human rights in monitoring compliance with humanitarian law in armed conflict. In: Ben-Naftali O (ed) International humanitarian law and international human rights law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 200–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Guellali A (2007) Lex specialis, droit international humanitaire et droits de l’homme: Leur interaction dans les nouveaux conflits armés. Revue Générale de Droit International Public 111(3):539–575

    Google Scholar 

  • Heintze HJ (2002) The European court of human rights and the implementation of human rights standards during armed conflicts. In: German yearbook of international law, vol. 45. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 60–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Henckaerts JM, Doswald-Beck L (2007) El derecho internacional humanitario consuetudinario, Vol. I: Normas. Comité Internacional de la Cruz Roja, Buenos Aires

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission (2006) Fragmentation of International Law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of International Law, United Nations Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Meron T (2003) How do human rights humanize the law of war? In: Bergsmo M (ed) Human rights and criminal justice for the downtrodden, essays in honour of Asbjorn Eide. Nijhoff, The Hague, pp 157–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Milanovic M, Papic T (2008) As bad as it gets: the European court of human right’s Behrami and Saramati decision and general international law. Int Comp Law Q 58:267–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili A (2008) The interaction between human rights and humanitarian law: fragmentation, conflict, parallelism, or convergence? Eur J Int Law 19(1):161–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pejic J (2011) The European court of human rights’ Al-Jedda judgment: the oversight of international humanitarian law. Int Rev Red Cross 93(883):837–851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez González M (1998) Las relaciones entre el Derecho internacional de los derechos humanos y el Derecho internacional humanitario. Cursos Euromediterráneos Bancaja de Derecho Internacional, vol I. Ed. Aranzadi, Pamplona, pp 315–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez González M (2006) La protección de los derechos humanos en situaciones de conflicto: el parámetro del Derecho internacional humanitario. Nueva Época 4:13–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Rüth A, Trilsch M (2003) International decisions: Banković v. Belgium Am J Int Law 97:170–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassòli M (2007) Le droit international humanitaire, une lex specialis par rapport aux droits humaines? In: Auer A, Flückinger A, Hottelier M (eds) Les droits de l’homme et la constitution: Études en l’honneur du Professeur Giorgio Malinverni, Collection Genovoise. Schultess, Geneva, pp 375–395

    Google Scholar 

  • Weckel P (2005) Chronique de jurisprudence international. Revue Générale de Droit Int 2:465–477

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of International Law and International Relations, Pedro Arrupe Institute of Human Rights at Deusto University, Bilbao, Spain

    Joana Abrisketa Uriarte

Authors
  1. Joana Abrisketa Uriarte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joana Abrisketa Uriarte .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Agriculture and Food Science, School Of Agriculture & Food Science, Dublin 4, Ireland

    Pat Gibbons

  2. Institute for International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict, Bochum, Germany

    Hans-Joachim Heintze

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Uriarte, J.A. (2015). The Problems the European Court of Human Rights Faces in Applying International Humanitarian Law. In: Gibbons, P., Heintze, HJ. (eds) The Humanitarian Challenge. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13470-3_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation