Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Aviation Security, Privacy, Data Protection and Other Human Rights: Technologies and Legal Principles pp 65–96Cite as

Other Human Rights in Aviation Security

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1087 Accesses

Part of the book series: Law, Governance and Technology Series ((ISDP,volume 37))

Abstract

As discussed, the rights to privacy and data protection are inadequate to capture all the aspects of aviation security, and all human rights are interdependent, indivisible and interrelated. Thus, aviation security versus privacy dilemma is actually broader than privacy and data protection rights only.

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   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
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.

    Bordunov. International Air Law (2007) p. 29.

  2. 2.

    See “Customer Bill of Rights”, “Conditions of Carriage”, or “Contract of Carriage” published by some of the carriers.

  3. 3.

    Averkiev. Why does a man need human rights? In: Civitas. Vol. 1 (2003) p. 19.

  4. 4.

    United Nations. The United Nations Human Rights Treaty System: An introduction to the core human rights treaties and the treaty bodies. Fact sheet No.30. United Nations Office in Geneva, 2005.

  5. 5.

    Adopted by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, was opened for signature on 19 December 1966, entry into force 23 March 1976.

  6. 6.

    Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entry into force 3 January 1976.

  7. 7.

    Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed at Rome on 4 November 1950, effective 3 September 1953.

  8. 8.

    See, for example, Preambles of UDHR, ICCPR and ICESCR, Art. 1 (3), 2 of ICCPR, Art. 1 (3), 2 of ICESCR.

  9. 9.

    The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition (1970–1979). http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/State+Territory

  10. 10.

    See Chap. 4.

  11. 11.

    See Chap. 4.

  12. 12.

    United Nations. International Human Rights Law. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/InternationalLaw.aspx

  13. 13.

    Art. 2(1) of ICESCR.

  14. 14.

    See, for example, ICCPR Art. 2(2).

  15. 15.

    ICCPR Art. 2 (3).

  16. 16.

    Kochenova. Respect to privacy in Russia: diagnosis and prognosis (2007) http://www.pgpalata.ru/reshr/privacy/art10.shtml#n77

  17. 17.

    Ibid.

  18. 18.

    E.g. Article 15(4) of Constitution of the Russian Federation of 12 December 1993; §3 of Norwegian Human Rights Act of 21 May 1999.

  19. 19.

    United Nations. Office of the United Nations, High Commissioner for Human Rights, World Health Organization. The right to health. Fact sheet No.31 (2008).

  20. 20.

    Scheinin and Vermeulen. Unilateral Exceptions to International Law: Systematic legal analysis and critique of doctrines to deny or reduce the applicability of Human Rights norms in the fight against terrorism. In: Essex Human Rights Review. Vol. 8 (2011) p. 28.

  21. 21.

    Ibid. pp. 28–29.

  22. 22.

    The ECtHR addressed these derogations in respective cases Lawless v. Ireland (1 July 1961), Ireland v. the UK (18 Jan 1978), Brannigan and McBride v. the UK (25 May 1993), Aksoy v. Turkey (18 Dec 1996), A. and Others v. the UK (19 Feb 2009, Grand Chamber).

  23. 23.

    Fact Sheet No.2 (Rev.1), The International Bill of Human Rights. United Nations, Geneva, June 1996.

  24. 24.

    Constitution of the Russian Federation of 12 December 1993.

  25. 25.

    Scheinin and Vermeulen (2011) p. 50.

  26. 26.

    UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, § 13.

  27. 27.

    Scheinin and Vermeulen (2011) p. 51.

  28. 28.

    Ibid. referring to A/HRC/13/37, § 17, and Etzioni. Implications of Select New Technologies for Individual Rights and Public Safety. In: Harvard Journal of Law and Technology. Vol. 15 (2002).

  29. 29.

    See Council of Europe (2005).

  30. 30.

    Kornblatt (2007) p. 403.

  31. 31.

    See The Council of Europe Guidelines. Human Rights and the fight against terrorism, March 2005.

  32. 32.

    No.13462/06, 10 Jan 2012.

  33. 33.

    See Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, No. 46477/99, 14 Mar 2002, § 55; and Bromiley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 33747/96, 23 Nov 1999, §83.

  34. 34.

    Bromiley v. the United Kingdom (Dec.), No. 33747/96, 23 Nov 1999, §83.

  35. 35.

    Ibid.

  36. 36.

    Although the probability of this is in fact much lower than other risks; see Chap. 4.

  37. 37.

    Finogenov and others v. Russia, No. 18299/03 and 27311/03, 20 Dec 2011.

  38. 38.

    Article 7(3) of Russian Federal law of 6 March 2006 N 35-FZ On counteraction against terrorism.

  39. 39.

    §153, Judgment of the First Senate of 15 February 2006. Zitierung: BVerfG, 1 BvR 357/05, http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20060215_1bvr035705en.html

  40. 40.

    First President of the Supreme Court, Judgment of 30 September 2008, K 44/07. Permissibility of shooting down a passenger aircraft in the event of a danger that it has been used for unlawful acts, and where state security is threatened, http://trybunal.gov.pl/fileadmin/content/omowienia/K_44_07_GB.pdf.

  41. 41.

    Adopted 18 October 1961, revised in 1966.

  42. 42.

    United Nations (2008).

  43. 43.

    WHO press release, 9 May 2002, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/release36/en/index.html

  44. 44.

    Neeman. Radiation in passenger screening: busting the myths. In: Aviation Security International. Vol. 21 (2015) p. 26.

  45. 45.

    Strasbourg, 16 Sept 1963.

  46. 46.

    Art.27 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 Apr 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

  47. 47.

    See more details in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fly_zone

  48. 48.

    Flight 31 Oct 2015 from Sharm el-Sheikh to St. Petersburg, 224 persons were killed.

  49. 49.

    No. 31008/02, 13 Oct 2005.

  50. 50.

    No. 23592/07, 24 Jan 2012.

  51. 51.

    No. 32190/96, 17 Mar 2013, § 96.

  52. 52.

    See respectively Prescher v. Bulgaria, No. 6767/04, 7 Jun 2011, § 47, and Riener v. Bulgaria, No. 46343/99, 23 May 2006, § 106.

  53. 53.

    No. 29713/05, 27 Nov 2012.

  54. 54.

    See, e.g. § 19 of Norwegian Regulation of 1 March 2011 No. 214 on the prevention of attacks against aviation security and Article 85(3) of Russian Air Code of 19 March 1997 N 60-FZ.

  55. 55.

    See, e.g. British Airways. General Conditions of Carriage (§7a6). http://www.britishairways.com/en-no/information/legal/british-airways/general-conditions-of-carriage

  56. 56.

    Articles 19 to 22 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (1990).

  57. 57.

    See Atger. The Abolition of Internal Border Checks in an Enlarged Schengen Area: Freedom of movement or a scattered web of security checks? (2008) p. 4, 18.

  58. 58.

    See Geyer. Taking Stock: Databases and Systems of Information Exchange in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (2008).

  59. 59.

    Amicelli. Surveillance and freedom of movement In: Surveillance, fighting crime and violence (2012b) p. 270.

  60. 60.

    Leese (2013) p. 486.

  61. 61.

    Bazian. The ‘Randomness’ of Islamophobia at US Airports, 3 September 2014, http://www.turkeyagenda.com/the-randomness-of-islamophobia-at-us-airports-1111.html

  62. 62.

    Articles 2, 7 of UDHR, Article 26 ICCPR and Article 21 of CFREU.

  63. 63.

    Vermeulen and Bellanova (2013) p. 306.

  64. 64.

    Rome, 4 Nov 2000.

  65. 65.

    Halstead. Unlocking human rights (2014) p. 298.

  66. 66.

    Ibid.

  67. 67.

    United Nations (2008).

  68. 68.

    Wright et al. (2015) p. 288.

  69. 69.

    Lyon (2007a) p. 5.

  70. 70.

    Common examples are personalized advertising and different “smart” applications which work best when they know a lot about a person.

  71. 71.

    Lyon (2004) p. 143 citing Zureik. Constructing Palestine through surveillance practices. In: British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies. Vol. 28 (2001).

  72. 72.

    FRA. Handbook on European non-discrimination law (2011a) p. 22.

  73. 73.

    Ibid. p. 29.

  74. 74.

    Huber v Bundesrepublic Deutschland, C-524/06, 16 Dec 2008, §80.

  75. 75.

    Rangelov v. Germany, No. 5123/07, 22 Mar 2012, §85.

  76. 76.

    Ibid.§86.

  77. 77.

    Ibid.§87.

  78. 78.

    Huber v Bundesrepublic Deutschland, C-524/06, 16 Dec 2008, § 75.

  79. 79.

    Rangelov v. Germany, §88.

  80. 80.

    Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, No. 27996/06 and 34836/06, 22 Dec 2009, §44.

  81. 81.

    Quinlan. Discrimination: the questionable effectiveness of screening based on race, religion, national origin or behavior. In: Aviation Security International. Vol. 21 (2015) p. 37.

  82. 82.

    Cyprus v. Turkey, No. 25781/94, 10 May 2001.

  83. 83.

    Wikipedia. Hijab by country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab#Hijab_by_country

  84. 84.

    E.g. Dahlab v. Switzerland, No. 42393/98, declared inadmissible 15 Feb 2001.

  85. 85.

    No. 43563/08, declared inadmissible 30 Jun 2009.

  86. 86.

    Leyla Sahin v. Turkey, No. 44774/98, 10 Nov 2005, Kervanci v. France, No. 31645/04, 4 Dec 2008.

  87. 87.

    No. 41135/98, 23 Feb 2010.

  88. 88.

    No. 15585/06, declared inadmissible 04 Mar 2008.

  89. 89.

    Peterson. Emperor’s New Scanner: Muslim Women at the Intersection of the First Amendment and Full-Body Scanners, The. In: Hastings Women’s LJ. Vol. 22 (2011).

  90. 90.

    Fiqh Council of North America, Statement on the use of full body scanners for security at the airports and other places (Issued 9 February 2010). http://www.fiqhcouncil.org/node/4 (date accessed: 31 Jan 2012).

  91. 91.

    Mazeina. Full-body scanner gets a second look (2011) http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Full-body+scanner+gets+a+second+look.-a0254431914

  92. 92.

    Mustapha. Aviation security provisions vs. basic fundamental human rights: an Islamic law perspective. In: Aviation Security International. Vol. 21 (2015) p. 35.

  93. 93.

    Bayatyan v. Armenia, No 23459/03, 7 July 2011, Erçep v. Turkey, No. 43965/04, 22 Nov 2011.

  94. 94.

    Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 Nov 1989.

  95. 95.

    Ibid. Art. 1.

  96. 96.

    La Fors-Owczynik. Minor protection or major injustice? – Children’s rights and digital preventions directed at youth in the Dutch justice system. In: Computer Law & Security Review. Vol. 31 (2015) p. 652.

  97. 97.

    Convention on the Rights of the Child Art. 3.

  98. 98.

    Ibid. Art. 3, CFREU Art. 24.

  99. 99.

    Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)13 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data in the context of profiling adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 23 Nov 2010.

  100. 100.

    See Chap. 2.

  101. 101.

    Federal law of 29 December 2010 N 436-FZ On protection of children from information which may harm their health and development.

  102. 102.

    State of democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Europe. Report by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Vienna, May 2014. SG (2014)1-FINAL, p. 69.

  103. 103.

    Travis. New scanners break child porn laws, The Guardian, 4 January 2010, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws.

  104. 104.

    Elias. Airport Body Scanners: The Role of Advanced Imaging Technology in Airline Passenger Screening (2012) p. 5.

  105. 105.

    UK Department for Transport. Equality Impact Assessment on the use of security scanners at UK airports (2013).

  106. 106.

    TSA. Advanced Imaging Technology. http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/advanced-imaging-technology (date accessed: 31 Jan 2015).

  107. 107.

    See more detail on margin of appreciation in Chap. 5.

Table of Legislation and Other Legal Texts

Reference Books and Articles

  • Kornblatt, Sara. “Are emerging technologies in airport passenger screening reasonable under the fourth amendment”. Loy. LAL Rev 41 (2007): 385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leese, Matthias. “Blurring the dimensions of privacy? Law enforcement and trusted traveler programs”. Computer Law & Security Review 29 (2013): 480–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, David. “Globalizing Surveillance Comparative and Sociological Perspectives”. International Sociology 19 (2004): 135–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, David. “Surveillance, security and social sorting emerging research priorities”. International criminal justice review 17 (2007): 161–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheinin, Martin and Mathias Vermeulen. “Unilateral Exceptions to International Law: Systematic legal analysis and critique of doctrines to deny or reduce the applicability of Human Rights norms in the fight against terrorism”. Essex Human Rights Review 8 (2011): 20–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen, Mathias and Rocco Bellanova. “European ‘smart’ surveillance: What’s at stake for data protection, privacy and non-discrimination?” Security and Human Rights 23 (2013): 297–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, David et al. “Questioning surveillance”. Computer Law & Security Review 31 (2015): 280–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Reports and Other Resources

  • Council of Europe (2005) Council of Europe Guidelines. Human Rights and the fight against terrorism, Strasbourg, March 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (2008) United Nations. Office of the United Nations, High Commissioner for Human Rights, World Health Organization. The right to health. Fact sheet No.31. United Nations Office in Geneva, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aviation and ICT Law Consulting, Langhus, Norway

    Olga Mironenko Enerstvedt

Authors
  1. Olga Mironenko Enerstvedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Enerstvedt, O.M. (2017). Other Human Rights in Aviation Security. In: Aviation Security, Privacy, Data Protection and Other Human Rights: Technologies and Legal Principles. Law, Governance and Technology Series(), vol 37. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58139-2_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58139-2_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-58138-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-58139-2

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation