Evaluating the ratio of the Principle of Necessity and the Principle of Proportionality in the Realm of Limitation and Suspension of Human Rights

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. in International Law, Department of International Law, School of Law, Shahid Beheshti University.

2 Assistant Professor in International Law, Department of Public & International Law, School of Law & Political Sciences, Shiraz University

Abstract

Necessity and proportionality are among the most widely used principles in international human rights law, their relationship is not very clear, the present article after explaining the concept and position of the mentioned principles in the scope of international human rights Rules, it measures the ratio of each of them to each other in a four-way relationship. based on the approach of the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” and the “European Convention on Human Rights”, the principles in the field of limitation and suspension of human rights are compared. the question is when a human right is restricted or suspended, In order to preserve the nature and essence of that right, which of these two principles should be given priority? despite the lack of consensus among the regulatory bodies of the two documents, it appears in time of public emergency and the suspension of the right by the state, the principle of necessity should be used as a criterion in the concept of "less intrusive means". since the basis of the principle of proportionality and the interpretation of the principle of necessity in its shadow, increases the discretion of the state in suspending rights and intensifies the risk of slipping into the trap of utilitarianism, applying the principle of necessity can prevent this damage to a great extent.

Keywords

References

Alexy, Rober (2014) “Constitutional Rights and Proportionality”, Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law, No. 22, pp. 51-56.
Boed, Roman (2000) “State of Necessity as a Justification for Internationally Wrongful Conduct”, Yale Human Rights and Development Journal, Vol. 3, No.1, pp.1-44.
Conde, H. Victor (2004) A Handbook of International Human Rights Terminology, Nebraska, University of Nebraska Press.
Cottier Thomas et al (2012) “The Principle of Proportionality in International Law”, SSRN Electronic Journal, No. 38, pp.1-34.
Cowell, Frederick (2013) “Sovereignty and the Question of Derogation: An Analysis of Article 15 of the ECHR and the Absence of a Derogation Clause in the ACHPR”, Birkbeck Law Review, Vol. 1, pp. 139-157.
de Búrca, Gráinne (1993) “The Principle of Proportionality and its Application in EC Law”, Yearbook of European Law, Vo.13, No.1 pp. 105-150.
Gerards, Janneke (2013) “How to improve the necessity test of the European Court of Human Rights”, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol.11, Issue. 2, pp. 466-490.
Hartman, John F. (1981) “Derogations from Human Rights treaties in Public Emergencies -A Critique of Implementation by the European Commission and Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations”, Harvard International Law Journal, Vol.22, No.1, pp. 1-26.
Lehmann, Julian M. (2011) “Limits to Counter-Terrorism: Comparing Derogation from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights”, Essex Human Rights Review, Vol. 8, No.1, pp. 103-122.
Letsas, George (2015) “Rescuing Proportionality”, in: Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights, Edited by Rowan Cruft, S. Matthew Liao, and Massimo Renzo, New York: Oxford University Press.
Newton, Michael & May, Larry (2014) Proportionality in International Law, New York, Oxford University Press.
Nowak, Manfred (2005) U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary, Germany: N.P. Engel.
Shany, Yuval (2005) “Toward a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in International Law?”, The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 16, No.5, pp. 907-940.
Tsakyrakis, Stavros (2009) “Proportionality: An Assault on Human Rights?”, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 7, Issue. 3, pp. 468–493,
Verdirame, Guglielmo (2015) “Rescuing Human Rights from Proportionality”, in: Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights, Edited by Rowan Cruft, S. Matthew Liao, and Massimo Renzo, New York: Oxford University Press.
Williams, Rebecca (2017) “Structuring Substantive Review”, Public Law Journal (PL 99), pp.109-123, Available at: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:a9c97da4-3f48-4631-ba91-0be33345fbe2/download_file?file_format=pdf&safe_filename=Rebecca%2BWilliams%252C%2BStructuring%2Bsubstantive%2Breview.pdf&type_of_work=Journal+article
Documents
Human Rights Committee, General Comment on Article 4, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11 31 August 2001.
International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts with Commentaries, UN Doc. A/56/10, 2001
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms European Convention on Human Rights), 1950.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
 
Cases
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1. C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226.
European court of human rights (ECHR), case of Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996. appl. no. 21987/93.
ECHR, Ürper and Others v. Turkey, 20 October 2009, appl. nos. 14526/07, 14747/07, 15022/07, 15737/07, 36137/07, 47245/07, 50371/07, 50372/07 and 54637/07.
ECHR, case of Daróczy v. Hungary, 1 July 2008, appl. no. 44378/05.
 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics