D. European Human Rights Law

• European Convention on Human Rights: Four stages of institutional development
• Adoption and coming into force of the Convention itself, with creation of the Commission (1950-1953)
• Eff. date of Commission's power to hear individual complaints (1955), as against member states agreeing to permit it (art. 25) (minimum number required
• Establishment of the Court (1958) with jurisdiction similar to that of the ICJ:
• Only the Commission and member states can be parties to proceedings (art. 44), can only begin after Commission certifies failure to reach "friendly settlement" (art. 47)
• Only issues concerning interpretation of the Convention
• Any case which the parties submit to it by agreement (art. 45)
• Provision for submission to compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (art. 46)
• Only the following have standing to bring a case (art. 48):
• Commission
• member state whose national is the victim of the alleged violation
• member state which referred the matter to the Commission
• member state against which the complaint is lodged
• Merger of the Commission into the Court, by Protocol #11 (in force 11/1/1998)
• three levels: Committees (3 j), Chambers (7 j.), Grand Chamber (17 j.)
• Committees screen cases (admissibility), can dismiss unanimously
• Chambers hear cases not dismissed, render judgments
• Grand Chamber hears cases on referral (by Ch. or any party)
• by Ch. before jgmt., if important issue or conflict w/ prec.
• after Ch. judgment, if important issue of interp. or principle
• panel of 5 judges determines admissibility
• compulsory jur. of Court, including individual petitions, automatic
• advisory opinions, but only for Council of Ministers and not on issues that could be raised in proceedings under the Convention
• THE SUNDAY TIMES CASE, p. 367 (ECtHR1979)
• 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?
• 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?
• In what sense, if any, does the majority's opinion represent a "continental European" approach to the interpretation of texts, as distinguished from a "common law" approach (n. 2 p. 340)?
 
• THE SOERING CASE, p. 380 (1989)
• 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)?
• Was the UK bound under the European Convention to refrain from extraditing Soering, where there is a substantial possibility that the death penalty will be imposed?

 

 

E.  International Criminal Law

• Two kinds of Int’l Criminal Courts: ad hoc and permanent: how do they differ?
• Why should the U.S. have been so adamant about establishing the Yugoslavia tribunal, and so adamantly opposed to the permanent International Criminal Court?