il15.out

1. European Convention on Human Rights: Four stages of institutional development

a. Adoption of the Convention itself, with creation of the Commission (1950-1953)

b. Eff. date of Commission’s power to hear individual complaints (1955), as against member states agreeing to permit it (art. 25) (minimum number required)

c. Establishment of the Court (1958) with jurisdiction similar to that of the ICJ:

i. Only Commission and member states could be parties (old art. 44)

ii. Only issues concerning interpretation of the Convention

iii. Any case which the parties submit to it by agreement (old art. 45)

iv. submission to compulsory jurisdiction (old art. 46) (min. number required)

d. Merger of the Commission into the Court, by Protocol #11 (in force 11/1/1998)

i. three levels: Committees (3 j), Chambers (7 j.), Grand Chamber (17 j.)

(1) Committees screen cases (admissibility), can dismiss unanimously

(2) Chambers hear cases not dismissed, render judgments

(3) Grand Chamber hears cases on referral (by Ch. or any party)

(a) by Ch. before jgmt., if important issue or conflict w/ prec.

(b) after Ch. judgment, if important issue of interp. or principle

ii. compulsory jur. of Court, including individual petitions, automatic

iii. advisory opinions, but only for Council of Ministers and not on issues that could be raised in proceedings under the Convention

2. THE SUNDAY TIMES CASE, p. 390 (ECtHR1979)

a. What was the legal standard pursuant to which the English courts issued the injunction in dispute? Was it a rule of English law, or a rule of European human rights law, that the English courts were applying?

b. What was the legal standard pursuant to which the ECtHR found the injunction improper? Was it a rule of English law, or a rule of European law? How did it differ from the rule applied by the English courts?

c. In what sense, if any, does the majority’s opinion represent a “continental European”, rather than “common law” approach to the interpretation of texts?

3. THE SOERING CASE, p. 403 (EctHR 1989)

a. Was the UK bound under its extradition treaty with the US to extradite Soering, once the assurance in question was given (to convey to the sentencing court the wish of the UK that Soering not be executed)?

b. Was the UK bound under the European Convention to refrain from extraditing Soering, where there is a substantial risk that the death penalty will be imposed?

E. International Criminal Law