Jacobs, White &amp; Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights

Rainey, Bernadette; Wicks, Elizabeth; Ovey, Clare

doi:10.1093/he/9780199655083.001.0001

Cited by 74 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The introduction of a new condition for the admissibility of individual applicationssubstantial harmhas become an impetus for the intensification of discussions among scholars about the role of the new condition for the admissibility of an individual statement by the Court in the international legal mechanism for access to the Court (J. Gerards, L. Glas [5]), as well as with respect only to the general criteria for assessing (measuring) its availability or absence, regardless of the subject of the application (B. Rainey, E. Wicks and C. Ovey [6], N. Vogiatzis [7]). Despite a great number of fundamental scientific investigations by domestic and foreign scholars on the eligibility of individual statements to the European Court of Human Rights (Y. Bisaga [8], V. Mytsyk [9], etc.…”

Section: Literary Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Qualification features of the circumstances introducing activity for protection of the paragraph "b" clause 3 article 35 of the convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms

Deshko

2019

ScienceRise: Juridical Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

В статті проаналізовано умову прийнятності індивідуальних заяв до Європейського суду з прав людини, що була запроваджена Протоколом №14 до Конвенції про захист прав людини і основоположних свобод -«суттєва шкода, якої зазнав заявник», а також обставини, що вводять у дію застереження пп. «b» п. 3 ст. 35 Конвенції про захист прав людини і основоположних свобод, та їх кваліфікаційні ознаки. З'ясовано, що Європейський суд з прав людини, навіть припускаючи, що заявник не зазнав суттєвої шкоди, не може оголосити неприйнятною будь-яку iндивiдуальну заяву, яка порушує питання: застосування права, тлумачення норм Конвенції про захист прав людини і основоположних свобод, національного права. Встановлено, що повага до прав людини, навіть якщо є припущення, що заявник не зазнав суттєвої шкоди, вимагає оголошення Європейським судом з прав людини прийнятною таку індивідуальну заяву оскільки в ній були порушені питання загального характеру щодо дотримання норм Конвенції про захист прав людини і основоположних свобод: 1) необхідність уточнити зобов'язання держав згідно з Конвенцією; 2) примусити державу-відповідача вирішити структурну проблему, яка зачіпає інтереси інших осіб, що знаходяться у такому ж становищі, що й заявник. Виділено такі умови, за наявності яких повага до прав людини не вимагає розгляду заяви Європейським судом з прав людини: 1) відповідне національне законодавство та практику його застосування було змінено, а подібні питання вже було вирішено в інших справах, які розглянув Європейський суд з прав людини; 2) відповідний закон було скасовано, а заява мала лише історичний характер; 3) Європейський суд з прав людини або Рада Міністрів вже розглянули це питання як комплексну проблему Ключові слова: індивідуальна заява, умови прийнятності індивідуальної заяви, застереження, суттєва шкода 3. Purpose and tasks of the research. The purpose of the article is to implement a comprehensive analysis of the circumstances introducing Journal «ScienceRise: Juridical Science» №1(7)2019

show abstract

Section: Literary Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Qualification features of the circumstances introducing activity for protection of the paragraph "b" clause 3 article 35 of the convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms

Deshko

2019

ScienceRise: Juridical Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…136 The Court took this somewhat narrow approach to the duty to protect life due to the difficulties in policing modern society and the unpredictability of human conduct. 137 A broader approach was believed to place a disproportionate burden on the State. 138 However, applying this standard to the downing of MH17 means a need to demonstrate that prior to the downing of the plane, Ukraine knew or ought to have known specifically that there was a real risk to the lives of those onboard MH17, which would seem problematic.…”

Section: Ukraine's Obligation To Close Its Airspacementioning

confidence: 99%

Navigating the Legal Horizon: Lawyering the MH17 Disaster

Hoon¹

2017

Utrecht Journal of International and European Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On 17 July 2014, Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down over Eastern Ukraine, leaving no survivors. Since, victims' relatives, States, and the wider public are trying to understand what happened, how it could happen, who is responsible, and how to address these responsibilities. The efforts to find justice have faced many complications and legal complexities. This article aims to provide insight into these legal and political complexities. In particular, it discusses the core legal questions of the criminal accountability of the perpetrators and the State responsibility of those States involved -Ukraine and Russia-through the legal doctrines of public international law and the European Convention on Human Rights. It further offers some core considerations relating to civil liability of States and airline carriers. In addition to providing insight into why the road to justice is long and arduous, the legal options available, and the specific challenges of each, the article also emphasises that having a legal option does not necessarily mean that it is also the best choice to use it. That choice is up to victims' relatives and the States concerned. The article takes no position in this regard. Instead, it seeks to provide an analysis that may contribute to making such decisions in an informed manner.

show abstract

“…According to international human rights conventions, freedom of thought is an absolute right, which means that it should be not restricted in any situation for any reason (see Rainey et al , p4129). It is usually stated that absolute rights can only be negative rights, which obligate others in a negative sense (see Feinberg, p9510).…”

Section: Nussbaum’s Capabilities Approach and Freedom Of Thoughtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promoting the freedom of thought of mental health service users: Nussbaum’s capabilities approach meets values-based practice

Stenlund

2017

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article clarifies how the freedom of thought as a human right can be understood and promoted as a right of mental health service users, especially people with psychotic disorder, by using Martha Nussbaum's capabilities approach and Fulford's and Fulford 's values-based practice. According to Nussbaum, freedom of thought seems to primarily protect the capability to think, believe and feel. This capability can be promoted in the context of mental health services by values-based practice. The article points out that both Nussbaum's approach and values-based practice recognise that people's values differ. The idea of involving different actors and service users in mental healthcare is also common in both Nussbaum's approach and values-based practice. However, there are also differences in that values-based practice relies on a 'good process' in decision-making, whereas the capabilities approach is oriented towards a 'right outcome'. However, since process and outcome are linked with each other, these two approaches do not necessarily conflict despite this difference. The article suggests that absolute rights are possible within the two approaches. It also recognises that the capabilities approach, values-based practice and human rights approach lean on liberal values and thus can be combined at least in liberal societies.

show abstract

Jacobs, White & Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by 74 publications

References 0 publications

Qualification features of the circumstances introducing activity for protection of the paragraph "b" clause 3 article 35 of the convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms

Qualification features of the circumstances introducing activity for protection of the paragraph "b" clause 3 article 35 of the convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms

Navigating the Legal Horizon: Lawyering the MH17 Disaster

Promoting the freedom of thought of mental health service users: Nussbaum’s capabilities approach meets values-based practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About