İnsan Hakları Avrupa Sözleşmesi'nin 15. Maddesi ve Olaganüstü Kavramı

Year 2014, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 159 - 224, 13.07.2016

Joseph Zand

Abstract

Bu makale Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin içtihatlarını özellikle Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nin 15. Maddesi ve yürürlüğe girdiği günden bu zamana gelişimi hususunda eleştirel olarak değerlendirmektedir. Belirli şartlar altında normal insan hakları standartlarından vazgeçmenin kaçınılmaz olduğu aşikârdır. Sözleşmenin 15. maddesindeki gibi hükümler savaş ve diğer olağanüstü durumlarda bir ulusun yaşam ve toprak bütünlüğünü korumak amacı ile yürürlükte olmaya devam etmektedir. 15. madde esas itibariyle tüm hukuk sistemleri için ortak bir zorunluluk ilkesini bünyesinde barınmaktadır. Bu madde olağanüstü durumlarda devletlere Sözleşmenin standartlarını askıya alma imkânı sağlar. Bu makalede 15. maddenin gerekçeleri, askıya alma koşulları ve usulü incelenecektir. Ayrıca, makale Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin gelecekte ele alması gereken yeni sorunları gösteren A ve Diğerleri v. Birleşik Krallık davası incelenmiştir

Keywords

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi 15. Madde, Olağanüstü Hal Kavramı, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi

Article 15 of The European Convention on Human Rights and The Notion of State of Emergency

Abstract

This article will critically evaluate the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights specifically with regards to Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights and its development since its inception. There is no doubt that departure from normal human rights standards in certain circumstances is unavoidable. Provisions such as Article 15 of the Convention should be in place to protect the life and territorial integrity of a nation in times of war and other emergency situations. Article 15 incorporates, in effect, the principle of necessity common to all legal systems. It allows a government to derogate from the Convention standards in times of public emergency. This article will review the reasons for Article 15, the requirements of the right to derogate and the procedure of derogation. Further, it will consider the case of A and Others v. the United Kingdom which will indicate the new challenges that the European Court of Human Rights will have to address in the future

Keywords

Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Notion of State of Emergency, European Convention on human Rights, European Court of Human Rights

References

• A (FC) et al (FC) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56.
• A and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56. A and Others v. The United Kingdom, Appl. no. 3455/05, 19 May 2009.
• Agamben, G., State of Exception, Trans. Kevin Attell, Chicago U.P., 2005.
• Aksoy v Turkey, appl. no. 21987/93, Judgement of 18 December 1996. Al-Skeini and Others v. United Kingdom, Appl. no. 55721/07, 7 July 2011.
• Alston, P., et al., International Human Rights Law in Context: Law, Politics, Morals, Oxford U.P., 3rd ed., 2007.
• The Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, available at: <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/23/ena cted>.
• The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, available at: <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/24/cont ents>.
• BBC News Special Report, ‘London attacks’, available at: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/londo n_blasts/what_happened/html Bianchi, A. & Naqvi, Y., International Humanitarian Law & Terrorism, Hart Publishing, 2011.
• Bonner, D, ‘Managing terrorism While Respecting Human Rights? European Aspect of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001’ (2002) 8 European Public Law 497-525.
• Bonner, D. and Cholewinski, R., (2005) Immigration and Asylum Law: the impact of terrorism in the United Kingdom, ‘A Contrast of the Responses of its Legal and constitutional Orders to the First Gulf War (1990-91) and the Post 9/11 ‘War’ on Terrorism’, in Guild, E. and Baldaccini, A., (eds.) Terrorism and the Foreigners: A Decade of Tension Around the Rule of Law in Europe (Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy in Europe, 11), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007.
• Bonner, D., Emergency Powers in Peace Time, Sweet & Maxwell: London, 1985, p. 17. Bonner, D., Executive Measures, Terrorism and National Security: Have the Rules of the Game Changed?, Ashgate, 2007.
• Brannigan and McBride v. United Kingdom, 25 May 1993 (Appl. No. 14553/89; 14554/89). Brogan and Others v. United Kingdom, Appl. Nos. 11209/84, 11266/84, 11386/85, Merit, Judgment (29 Nov. 1988).
• Cassel, D., ‘Pretrial and Preventive detention of Suspected Terrorists: Options and Constraints under International Law’, 98 J. Crim. and Criminology (2008) 811, p. 829. Chahal v. The United Kingdom, Appl. no. 22414/93, 15 November 1996
• Cherif Bassiouni, M., International Criminal Law, vol. 2, Multilateral and Bilateral Enforcements Mechanism, Brill, 2008.
• Clapham, A., ‘Terrorism, National Measures and International Supervision’, in A. Bianchi and Y. Naqvi (eds.), Enforcing International Law Norms Against Terrorism, Hart Publishing, 2004.
• Comments on Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ["European Convention on Human Rights"] concerning the abolition of the death penalty, adopted by the Council of Europe in 1982.
• Conte, A., Human Rights in the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism: Commonwealth Approaches: The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Springer, 2010.
• Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, Recommendation 1865 (2009) The Protection of Rights in Emergency Situations: Reply for the Committee of Ministers, adopted at the 1081st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies on 31 March 2010 (Doc. 12204, 16 April 2010) available at: <http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewPDF.as p?FileID=12849&Language=EN>.
• Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, the Protection of Human Rights in Emergency situations: Report for the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (Doc. 11858; 9 April 2009), Rapporteur: Mr Holger Haibach, Available at: <http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML .asp?FileID=12260&Language=EN Council of Europe, ‘Definition and Development of Human Rights and Popular Sovereignty in Europe (Science and Technique of Democracy), Council of Europe Publication, 2011.
• Council of Europe, Collected Edition of the “Travaux Preparatoires of the European Conventions on Human Rights/Recueil des Travaux Preparatoires de la Convention Europeene des Droits de L’homme, Vol. I: Preparatory Commission of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Consultative Assembly, 11 May-8 September 1949 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1975).
• Cyprus v Turkey, Decision of 26 May 1975, DR 125, para 8. Cyprus v. Turkey, Appl. no. 25781/94, 10 May 2001. Declaration contained in a note verbale from the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the Council of Europe, 18 December 2001. Demir and Others v. Turkey, Appl. nos. 21380/93, 21381/93, 21383/93), 23 September 1998, para 52. Dennis, M., ‘Application of Human Rights Treaties Extraterritorially to Detention of Combatants and Security Internees: Fuzzy Thinking All Round? ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law 495 (Spring 2006).
• Derogation contained in two Notes verbales from the Permanent Representation of Turkey, dated 12 September 1980, registered at the Secretariat General on 12 September 1980.
• Derogation contained in a letter from the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, dated 12 November 1998, registered at the Secretariat General on November 1998 – or. Engl. – and withdrawn by a letter from the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, dated 4 may 2006, registered at the Secretariat General on 5 May 2006
• Dickson, B., Human Rights and the United Kingdom Supreme Court, Oxford U.P., 2013.
• Dixon, M. and McCorquodale, R., Cases and Materials on International law, Oxford U.P., 2011.
• Doswald-Beck, L., ‘The Right to Life in Armed Conflict: Does International Humanitarian Law Provide all the Answers?’ IRRC, Vol. 88 Number 864 December 2006, 881-904.
• Doswold-Beck, L. and S. Vite, ,International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law’, (1993) No. 293 IRRC 94-119. Droege, C., ‘The Interplay between International Humanitarian Law and international Human Rights Law in Situations of Armed Conflict’, 40 Israel Law Review 310 2007.
• Dyzenhaus, D., The Constitution of Law: Legality in a Time of Emergency, Cambridge U.P., 2006. Erdem v. Turkey, Appl. no. 38321/97, 5 July 2001.
• Febbrajo, A. & Sadurski, W., Central and Eustern Europe after transition: Towards a New Socio-Legal Semantics, Ashgate, 2013.
• Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. United Kingdom, Appl. no. 12244/86; 12245/86, 12383/86, 30 August 1990.
• Gearty, C., ‘Democracy and Human Rights in the Court of Human Rights: a Critical Appraisal’ (2000) 51 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 381.
• Greece v United Kingdom, Appl. no. 176/57 (1958-1959) 2 Yearbook of the European Court of Human Rights, 525.
• Greer, S., The European Convention on Human Rights: Achievements, Problems and Prospects, Cambridge U.P., 2007. Gross, O. & Ni Aolain, F., Law in Times of Crisis: Emergency Powers in Theory and Practice, Cambridge U.P., 2006, p. 257.
• Gross, O. and Ni Aolain, F., ‘From Discretion to Scrutiny: Revisiting the Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Context of Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2001) 23 Human Rights Quarterly 625.
• Gross, O., ‘Once More unto the Beach: the Systematic Failure of Applying the European Convention on Human Rights to Entrenched Emergencies’, Yale Journal of International Law 23 (1998) 437.
• Guerrero v Colombia, Communication No. R.11/45 (5 February 1979), UN Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/37/40).
• Hampson, F., ‘Detention, the “War on Terror” and International Law’ in H. Hensel (sd.) the Law of Armed Conflict: Constraints on the Contemporary Use of Military Force, Ashgate, 2005.
• Hampson, F., ‘Using International Human Rights Machinery to Enforce the International Law of Armed Conflicts’, (1992) 31 Revue de droit militaire et de droit de la guerre 119-142.
• Handyside v. The United Kingdom, Appl. no. 5493/72, 7 December 1976. Harding, L., ‘Russia end anti-terrorism Operation in Chechnya’, the Guardian, 16 April 2009.
• Harris, D. J., O’Boyle, M., Bates, E. P., Buckley, C. M., Harris, O’Boyle & Warbrick, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford U.P., 2nd ed., 2009.
• Heintze, H-J., ‘On the Relationship between Human Rights, Protection and International Humanitarian Law’, IRRC, December 2004 Vol. 86 No. 856, p. 789.
• Higgins, R., ‘Derogations under Human Rights Treaties’, British Yearbook of International Law (1976) 48(1): 281- 319.
• The British Home Secretary’s statement to the British Parliament, Douglas Hurd, HC Debs. Standing Comm B, cols 234-5, 22 Dec 1988.
• House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee, The Operation of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Use of Special Advocates, Seventh Report of Session 0f 2004-05: House of Commons, Vol. 1 Report, Together with the Formal Minutes, Stationary Office Books, 2005.
• Intelligence & Sec. Comm., Report into the London Terrorist Attacks on 7 JULY 2005, 2006, Cm. 6785, at 2, Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7TH July 2005, 2006, H.C. 1087.
• International Convention on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism’, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations according to resolution 54/109 of 9 December 1999, entered into force on 10 April 2002, 39 ILM 270 (2000).
• Ireland v United Kingdom, Judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A No. 25; (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25. Isayeva v. Russia, Appl. No. 57950/00, 24 February 2005.
• Janis, M.W., Kay, R.S. and Bradley, A.W., European Human Rights Law: Text and Materials, Oxford U.P., 2008.
• Klass and Others v. Germany, Appl. No. 5029/71, 6 September 1978. Korbely v. Hungary, Appl. no. 9174/02, 19 September 2008
• Lawless v. Ireland, 19 December 1959 (Appl. No. 332/57).
• Lawless v Ireland, Judgments of 14 November 1960, 1 EHRR 15. Lawless v Ireland, Judgment of I July 1961, Series A No.2; (1979-80) 1 EHRR 13.
• Leach, P., ‘the Chechen Conflict: Analysing the Oversight of the European Court of Human Rights’, EHRLR 6 (2008) 732.
• Lee, H.P., Emergency Powers, Sydney: Law Book Co., 1984, p. 4; see also, e.g., The International Law Association Paris Report 61 (1984).
• Loizidou v. Turkey judgment of 18 December 1996 (merits), Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, p. 2223.
• Loveland, I., Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction, Oxford U.P., 6th ed., 2012.
• Madrid Train Attacks, 11 March 2004, available at: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/4570 00/457031/html/default.stm>. Marks, S., ‘Civil Liberties at the Margin: the UK Derogation and the European Court of Human Rights’, 15 Oxford JLS 69 (1995) 72.
• Marshall v. United Kingdom, Fourth Section Decision as to the Admissibility of Appl. no. 41571/98, 10 July 2001. Martinico, G and Pollicino, O., The Interaction between Europe’s Legal Systems: Judicial Dialogue and the Creation of Supranational Laws’, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012.
• McCann et al v United Kingdom (App n. 18984/91) ECHR 27 September 1995.
• McGoldrick, D., ‘The Interface between Public Emergency Powers and International Law’, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 2, Number 2, 2004.
• Mizock, A., ‘The Legality of the Fifty-Two Year state of Emergency in Israel’, 7 Davis Journal of International law and Policy 223 (2001).
• Murdoch, L.J., Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Protection of Liberty and Security of Person: Human Rights Files, 12 (rev), Council of Europe, 2004.
• Ni Alain, F., The Politics of Force: Conflict Management and State Violence in Northern Ireland, Belfast: Blackstaff Press, 2000.
• Ni Aolain, F., ‘Transitional Emergency Jurisprudence: Derogation and Transition’, pp. 24-51, in Buyse, A. & Hamilton, M. (eds.), Transitional Jurisprudence and the ECHR: Justice, Politics and Rights, Cambridge University Press, 2011.
• Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, ICCPR General Comment No. 1: Article 4 (Derogations) Adopted by the 13th Session of Human Rights Committee, on 31 July 1981(UN Doc. A/36/40).
• Opinion of the Commissioner of human Rights, Mr Alvaro Gil-Robes on Certain aspects of the UK 2001 derogation from Article 5 (1) of the European convention on Human Rights, CommDH (2002)7/28 August 2002.
• Oraa, J., Human Rights in States of Emergency in International Law, Oxford U.P., 1992.
• Pejic,j., ‘Procedural Principles and Safeguards for Internment/Administrative Detention in Armed Conflict and other Situations of Violence’ 858 IRRC 375-6.
• Pfanner, T., ‘Asymmetrical Warfare from the Perspective of Humanitarian Law and Humanitarian Action’, IRRC, vol. 87, No. 957, March 2006, pp. 149-174.
• President G.W. Bush, ‘Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks’ (14 September 2001), available at: <www.Whitehouse.gov/news/release/2001/09/2001 0914-4.html>.
• Protocol No. 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [European Convention on Human Rights] concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances, adopted by the Council of Europe in 2002.
• Resolution 1096 (1996) by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) on ‘measures to dismantle the heritage of the former communist totalitarian systems’, issued on 27 June 1996. Available at: <http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Document s/AdoptedText/ta96/ERES1096.htm>.
• Resolution 346 (1967) of 23 June 1967, 10 Yearbook of European Convention on Human Rights (1967). Richard Cheney addressing the Republican Governors Association, October 25, 2001, available at: <http://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/vicepresident/newsspeeches/speeches/vp20011025.html>.
• Rogers, A.P.V., ‘Unequal Combat and the Laws of War’, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, vol. 7, December 2004, pp 3-34, p. 5. Rosenfield, M., (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, Oxford U.P., 2012.
• Rossiter, C., (ed.), ‘The Federalist No. 23’, at 153 (Alexander Hamilton), The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union, New York Packet, Tuesday, December 18, 1787, Text available at: <http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa23.htm>.
• Sadurski, W., ‘Partnering with Strasbourg: Constitutionalisation of the European Court of Human Rights, the Accession of Central and East Europan States to the Council of Europe, and the Ideal of Pilot Judgments’, Human Rights Law Review 9:3(2009), 397-453, p. 435.
• Sakik and Others v. Turkey, appl. no. 87/1996/706/898-903, 26 November 1997. Sano, H-O., S. Lagoutte, S. and Scharff-Smith, P., Human Rights in Turmoil: Facing Threats, Consolidating Achievements, Brill, 2006.
• Sassoli, M., ‘Terrorism and War’, JICJ, vol. 4, No. 5, 959-981, (2006), p. 959. Schindler, D., ‘Human Rights and Humanitarian Law’, (1981-2) 31 American University Law Review, pp. 935-977.
• Solvang, O., ‘Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: The Price of Non-Cooperation’ (Winter 2008) Vol. 15 Human Rights Brief, Issue 2.
• Stubbins-Bates, et al., Terrorism and International Law: Accountability, Remedies and Reform: A Report of the IBA Taskforce on Terrorism, Oxford U.P., 2012.
• The Administration of Justice, in United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Bar Association, A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers United Nations Publications, 2005, 811-855.
• The Functioning of Democratic Institutions in Ukraine’, Assembly Debate on 30 January 2014 (7th Sitting) (see Doc. 13405 and Addendum, report of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), co-rapporteurs: Ms Mailis Reps and Ms Marietta de Pourbaix-Lundin). Text adopted by the Assembly on 30 January 2014 (7th Sitting).
• The Greek case, 5 November 1969 (Denmark v. Greece, Appl. No. 3321/67; Norway v. Greece, Appl. no. 3322/67; Sweden v. Greece, Appl. no. 3323/67; Netherlands v. Greece, appl. no. 3344/67), para 48-50.
• The report of John Rowe QC, Review of the Operation in 2000 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (Home Office, London, 2001).
• Tushnet, M., et.al., Routledge Handbook of Constitutional Law, Routledge, 2012, p. 87. UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment no 29, States of Emergency (Article 4), ICCPR/C/21/Rev. 1/Add. 11, 31 August 2001. Ukraine will not declare state of emergency’ Reuters, 21 January 2014, available at : <http://www.reuters.com/search?blob=ukraine+stat e+of+emergency>.
• UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment no 29, States of Emergency (Article 4), ICCPR/C/21/Rev. 1/Add. 11, 31 August 2001.
• United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Report of the HCHR and follow up to the world conference on Human Rights, E/CN.4/2002/18, 27 February 2002.
• United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) adopted by the Security Council at its 4385th meeting, on 28 September 2001.
• Walker, C., ‘Keeping Control of Terrorists without Losing Control of Constitutionalism’ Stan. L. Rev. 1395 (2007).
• Weigend, T., ‘The Universal Terrorist: the International Community Grappling with a Definition’, Journal of International Criminal Justice 4 (2006), 912-932, p. 920; see also
• White, R.C.A. & Ovey, C., European Convention on Human rights, Oxford U.P., 5th ed., 2010.
• Y. Arai-Takahashi, The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of ECHR, Intersentia Publishers, 2002.
• Yourow, H. The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Dynamics of European Convention on Human Rights Jurisprudence, The Hague: Kluwer, 1996.
• Zambrano Velez v Ecuador (Merits, Reparations and Costs) InterAmerican Court of Human Rights Series C No 166 (4 July 2007) 101