Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Limiting Rights Under International Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Human Rights in the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism

  • 1809 Accesses

Abstract

The nature of international human rights law is such that, other than in the case of a limited number of absolute rights, the guarantee of rights and freedoms incorporates a level of flexibility. This allows States to give effect to those rights and freedoms, while at the same time pursue important democratic objectives designed to protect society (such as national security) and to maintain a balance between conflicting rights (such as freedom of expression, balanced against privacy or the right to a fair hearing). In the context of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),1 and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to which the United Kingdom is also party,2 this accommodation is effected through two means. Limitations are permitted by virtue of the particular expression of the right or freedom within the ICCPR and ECHR. There is also the capacity, under article 4 of the ICCPR or article 15 of the ECHR, to temporarily suspend the application of certain rights during a state of emergency which threatens the life of a nation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976).

  2. 2.

    Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 222 (entered into force 3 September 1953).

  3. 3.

    General Comment 29: States of Emergency (Article 4), UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11 (2001).

  4. 4.

    See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331 (entered into force 27 January 1980), article 31(3).

  5. 5.

    Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN Doc E/CN.4/1985/4 (1985), Annex.

  6. 6.

    Although the European Convention on Human Rights does not contain a provision equivalent to article 16 of the ICCPR, it should be noted that the principle is recognised as a “fundamental principle” in the preamble of Protocol 12 to the ECHR.

  7. 7.

    The ECHR does not list as non-derogable: the prohibition against imprisonment for failure to perform a contractual obligation; the principle of recognition before the law; and the right to manifest religious belief.

  8. 8.

    General Comment 29 (n 3) para 15.

  9. 9.

    General Comment 29 (n 3) para 16. See also Chap. 5 herein, and the Siracusa Principles (n 5) para 67.

  10. 10.

    General Comment 29 (n 3) paras 9–13.

  11. 11.

    General Comment 29 (n 3) para 13.

  12. 12.

    General Comment 29 (n 3) para 13(e).

  13. 13.

    General Comment 29 (n 3) para 13(D).

  14. 14.

    International Law Commission (1966). See also General Comment 29 (n 3) para 11.

  15. 15.

    General Comment 29 (n 3) paras 4 and 7.

  16. 16.

    Ibid, paras 7 and 11.

  17. 17.

    See Benvenisti (1999), Arai-Takahashi (2002), and Steiner and Alston (2000, pp. 854–857).

  18. 18.

    Macdonald (1987, p. 208).

  19. 19.

    Harris et al. (1995, pp. 12–15).

  20. 20.

    Hertzberg et al v Finland, Communication 61/1979, UN Doc CCPR/C/15/D/61/1979 (1982), para 10.3.

  21. 21.

    JB and others v Canada, Communication 118/1982, UN Doc CCPR/C/28/D/118/1982 (1986), para 6.2.

  22. 22.

    Toonen v Australia, Communication 488/1992, UN Doc CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992 (1994), para 8.6.

  23. 23.

    Ghandhi (1998, p. 14).

  24. 24.

    Schmidt (1995, p. 629).

  25. 25.

    Contrast Hadjianastassiou v Greece (1993) 16 EHRR 219 with Park v Republic of Korea, Communication 628/1995, UN Doc CCPR/C/64/D/628/1995 (1998).

  26. 26.

    Ireland v United Kingdom [1978] ECHR 1, para 207. See Marks (1995).

  27. 27.

    Siracusa Principles (n 5) para 5.

  28. 28.

    Sunday Times v United Kingdom (1978) 58 ILR 491. The Court also validated the authority of the Veterinary Surgeon’s Council to make professional rules as amounting to legal prescriptions in Barthold v Germany [1984] 7 EHRR 383.

  29. 29.

    Sunday Times (ibid), 524–527 (reaffirmed by the European Court in Silver v UK [1983] 5 EHRR 347). The principles of ‘clarity’ and ‘accessibility’ are contained within the Siracusa Principles also (n 5) para 17. See also Ovey and White (2002, pp. 199–204).

  30. 30.

    General Comment 29 (n 3) para 17.

  31. 31.

    Siracusa Principles (n 5) para 16.

  32. 32.

    Siracusa Principles (n 5) paras 8 and18.

  33. 33.

    General Comment 29 (n 3) para 4.

  34. 34.

    See: Faurisson v France, Communication 550/1993, UN Doc CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993(1996), para 8; and de Morais v Angola, Communication 1128/2002, UN Doc CCPR/C/83/D/1128/2002 (2005), para 6.8. See also the Siracusa Principles (n 5) para 10(d). See also Ovey and White (2002, p. 209), as this link applies to the European Convention.

  35. 35.

    General Comment 29 (n 3) paras 3–5; and the Siracusa Principles (n 5) para 51.

  36. 36.

    Siracusa Principles (n 5) paras 6 and 10(a). In the context of the European Convention, see also Ovey and White (2002, p. 204).

  37. 37.

    Siracusa Principles (n 5) para 10(b) and 10(c).

  38. 38.

    On this point, see paras 19–21 of the Siracusa Principles (n 5).

  39. 39.

    In the context of the right to freedom of association with others under article 22(2), see, for example, Zvozskov et al v Belarus, Communication 1039/2001, UN Doc CCPR/C/88/D/1039/2001 (2006), para 7.2.

  40. 40.

    Lee v Republic of Korea, Communication 1119/2002, UN Doc CCPR/C/84/D/1119/2002 (2005), para 7.2.

  41. 41.

    Silver v United Kingdom (n 29), para 97(c).

  42. 42.

    Siracusa Principles (n 5) para 11. Concerning the European Convention, see Silver v United Kingdom (ibid).

  43. 43.

    See, for example, Burgess v Australia, Communication 1012/2001, UN Doc CCPR/C/85/D/1012/2001 (2005), para 4.13.

  44. 44.

    See, for example: Pietraroia v Uruguay, Communication 44/1979, UN Doc CCPR/C/OP/1 at 65 (1984), para 16; Jong-Cheol v Republic of Korea, Communication 968/2001, UN Doc CCPR/C/84/D/968/2001 (2005), para 8.3; and de Morais v Angola (n 34) para 6.8.

  45. 45.

    Siracusa Principles (n 5) para 2.

  46. 46.

    See, for example: Jacobs v Belgium, Communication 943/2000, UN Doc CCPR/C/81/D/943/2000 (2004), para 9.5; Althammer et al v Austria, Communication 998/2001, UN Doc CCPR/C/78/D/998/2001 (2003), para 10.2; and Haraldsson and Sveinsson v Iceland, Communication 1306/2004, UN Doc CCPR/C/91/D/1306/2004 (2007), para 8.10.

  47. 47.

    See, for example, Sisters of the Holy Cross of the Third Order of Saint Francis in Menzingen of Sri Lanka v Sri Lanka, Communication 1249/2004, UN Doc CCPR/C/85/D/1249/2004 (2005), para 7.2.

  48. 48.

    Siracusa Principles (n 5) para 3.

  49. 49.

    See, for example, de Morais v Angola (n 34) para 6.8.

  50. 50.

    See, for example, Bodrožić v Serbia and Montenegro, Communication 1180/2003, UN Doc CCPR/C/85/D/1180/2003 (2006), para 7.2. See also, in the context of South Africa’s blanket ban on the use of cannabis, Prince v South Africa, Communication 1474/2006, UN Doc CCPR/C/91/D/1474/2006 (2007), para 4.6.

  51. 51.

    Siracusa Principles (n 5) para 9.

  52. 52.

    General Comment 29 (n 3) para 8.

  53. 53.

    Nowak (2005, pp. 99–100).

  54. 54.

    A and Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, per Lord Bingham at para 68.

  55. 55.

    See, for example, General Comment 16: The right to respect of privacy, family, home and correspondence, and protection of honour and reputation (Art 17), UN Doc CCPR General Comment 16 (1988), para 4. See also the Siracusa Principles (n 5) para 5.

  56. 56.

    Lithgow and others v United Kingdom [1986] 8 EHRR 329.

  57. 57.

    Ovey and White (2002, pp. 5, and 198–201).

  58. 58.

    Concerning the interpretation of these terms under the ICCPR, see Conte and Burchill (2009), Chaps. 20 (concerning non-disclosure of classified information), 21 (concerning investigative detention and control orders), and 23 (concerning fair trial and natural justice rights in the context of terrorist designations).

  59. 59.

    See further Conte and Burchill (2009, Chap. 5).

  60. 60.

    See, for example: de Polay v Peru, Communication 575/1994, UN Doc CCPR/C/53/D/575 (1995), para 8.8; and Kostoviski v The Netherlands [1990] 12 EHRR 434.

  61. 61.

    See, for example, van Alphen v The Netherlands, 305/1988, UN Doc CCPR/C/39/D/305/1988 (1990).

  62. 62.

    General Comment 25: The right to participate in public affairs, voting rights and the right of equal access to public service (Art 25), UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7 (1996), para 4. See also Sohn v Republic of Korea, Communication 518/1992, UN Doc CCPR/C/54/D/518/1992 (1995), para 10.4.

  63. 63.

    General Comment 25 (ibid) para 4. See further Conte and Burchill (2009, Chap. 4).

  64. 64.

    Toonen v Australia (n 22) para 8.3.

  65. 65.

    Siracusa Principles (n 5) para 7.

  66. 66.

    Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University press, 5th ed, 2002) 109.

  67. 67.

    See, for example: Mukong v Cameroon, Communication 458/1991, UN Doc CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991 (1994), para 9.8; and de Morais v Angola (n 34) para 6.1.

  68. 68.

    See: General Comment 16 (n 55) para 4; and García v Colombia, Communication 687/1996, UN Doc CCPR/C/71/D/687/1996 (2001).

  69. 69.

    Siracusa Principles (n 5) para 13.

  70. 70.

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted under General Assembly Resolution 217(III), UN GAOR, 3rd Session, 183rd Plenary Meeting (1948).

  71. 71.

    See also article 2(2) of the European Convention, concerning the deprivation of life resulting from the use of force.

  72. 72.

    General Comment 7: Article 7, UN Doc HRI\GEN\1\Rev.1 at 7 (1994), para 3. General Comment 7 was replaced by General Comment 20: Prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment (Art 7), UN Doc CCPR General Comment 20 (1992).

  73. 73.

    Lee v Republic of Korea (n 40) para 7.2. See also Belyatsky et al v Belarus, Communication 1296/2004, UN Doc CCPR/C/90/D/1296/2004 (2007), para 7.3.

  74. 74.

    Siracusa Principles (n 5) para 29.

  75. 75.

    Siracusa Principles (n 5) para 30.

  76. 76.

    Peltonen v Finland, Communication 492/1992, UN Doc CCPR/C/51/D/492/1992 (1994), para 8.4. Contrast with the individual dissenting opinion of Committee Member Bertil Wennergren.

  77. 77.

    As noted in Peltonen v Finland (ibid) para 8.3.

  78. 78.

    As in the case of Park v Republic of Korea (n 25), discussed above.

  79. 79.

    Ahani v Canada, Communication 1051/2002, UN Doc CCPR/C/80/D/1051/2002 (2004), para 10.4.

  80. 80.

    Zana v Turkey [1997] ECHR 94.

  81. 81.

    Klass and others v Germany [1978] 2 EHRR 214.

  82. 82.

    Rekvényi v Hungary [1999] ECHR 31.

  83. 83.

    Hadjianastassiou v Greece (1993) 16 EHRR.

  84. 84.

    Siracusa Principles (n 5) para 29.

  85. 85.

    As in Zana v Turkey (n 80).

  86. 86.

    Ovey and White (2002, p. 205).

  87. 87.

    Joana v Madagascar, Communication 132/1982, UN Doc CCPR/C/24/D/132/1982 (1985), para 14.

  88. 88.

    Siracusa Principles (n 5) paras 22–23.

  89. 89.

    Gauthier v Canada, Communication 633/1995, UN Doc CCPR/C/65/D/633/1995 (1999), para 13.5.

  90. 90.

    Wackenheim v France, Communication 854/1999, UN Doc CCPR/C/75/D/854/1999 (2002), para 7.4 (discussed further in Conte and Burchill 2009, Chaps. 7 and 11 herein).

  91. 91.

    Malakhovsky and Pikul v Belarus, Communication 1207/2003, UN Doc CCPR/C/84/D/1207/2003 (2005), para 7.4.

  92. 92.

    Buckley v United Kingdom (1997) 23 EHRR 101.

  93. 93.

    Siracusa Principles (n 5) para 33.

  94. 94.

    Siracusa Principles (n 5) para 25.

  95. 95.

    Siracusa Principles (n 5) para 27. See also para 28.

  96. 96.

    Handyside v United Kingdom (1976) 1 EHRR 737.

  97. 97.

    Müller and Others v Switzerland (1991) 13 EHRR 212.

  98. 98.

    Wingrove v United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 1.

  99. 99.

    Klein v Slovakia [2006] ECHR 909.

  100. 100.

    See also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (n 70) article 29(1).

  101. 101.

    See also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (n 70) article 29(3).

  102. 102.

    See, for example, De Haes and Gijsels v Belgium [1997] ECHR 7.

  103. 103.

    See Conte and Burchill (2009, Chap. 2).

  104. 104.

    Otto-Preminger Institut v Germany [1994] ECHR 26.

  105. 105.

    See, for example, Buckley v New Zealand, Communication 858/1999, UN Doc CCPR/C/70/D/858/1999 (2000), and Johansen v Norway [1996] ECHR 31.

  106. 106.

    Jacubowski v Germany [1994] ECHR 21.

  107. 107.

    Siracusa Principles (n 5) para 37, and European Convention (n 2) article 17.

  108. 108.

    Siracusa Principles (n 5) para 22.

  109. 109.

    Barfod v Denmark (1991) 13 EHRR 493. See also Schöpfer v Switzerland [1998] ECHR 40, and contrast with Wille v Liechtenstein [1999] ECHR 107.

  110. 110.

    De Haes and Gijsels v Belgium (1997) ECHR 7.

  111. 111.

    Observer and Guardian v United Kingdom [1992] 14 EHRR 153; and Sunday Times v United Kingdom (No 2) [1992] 14 EHRR 299.

  112. 112.

    Miailhe v France [1993] 16 EHRR 332; and Funke v France [1993] 16 EHRR 297.

  113. 113.

    General Comment 29 (n 3) para 7. See, for example, the Concluding Observations of the Committee concerning: Armenia, UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add.100 (1998), para 7; Colombia, UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add.76 (1997), para 25; the Dominican Republic, UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add.18 (1993), para 4; Gabon, UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add.71 (1996), para 10; Israel, UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add.93 (1998), para 11; Iraq, UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add.84 (1997), para 9; Jordan, UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add.35 (1994), para 6; Kyrgyzstan, UN Doc CCPR/CO/69/KGZ (2000), para 12; Mongolia, UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add.120 (2000), para 14; Nepal UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add.42 (1994), para 9; Russian Federation, UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add.54 (1995), para 27; Uruguay, UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add.90 (1998), para 8; and Zambia, UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add.62 (1996), para 11.

  114. 114.

    General Comment 29 (n 3) paras 5, 16, and 17. See, for example, de Montejo v Colombia, Communication 64/179, UN Doc CCPR/C/64/179 (1982) para 10.3.

  115. 115.

    Siracusa Principles (n 5) para 45.

  116. 116.

    General Comment 29 (n 3) para 2. See also the Siracusa Principles (n 2) para 43.

  117. 117.

    Lawless v Ireland (No 3) [1961] ECHR 2.

References

  • Arai-Takahashi, Yutaka. 2002. The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR. Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benvenisti, Eyal. 1999. Margin of Appreciation, Consensus, and Universal Standards. 31 International Law and Politics 843.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conte, Alex, and Burchill, Richard. 2009. Defining Civil and Political Rights: The Jurisprudence of the United Nations Human Rights Committee. Aldershot: 2nd ed, Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghandhi, PR. 1998. The Human Rights Committee and the Right of Individual Communication: Law and Practice. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, David, O’Boyle, Michael, and Warbrick, Colin. 1995. Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. London: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission. 1966. Commentary on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, R. 1987. The Margin of Appreciation in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. In Giaffré, A (ed). International Law at the Time of its Codification: Essays in Honor or Roberto Ago. Milan: Vol. 3, Academy of European Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, Susan. 1995. Civil Liberties at the Margin: The UK Derogation and the European Court of Human Rights. 15(1) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, Manfred. 2005. UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Kehl, Germany: 2nd revised ed, NP Engel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ovey, Clare, and White, Robin. 2002. The European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: 3rd ed, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, Markus. 1995. The Complementarity of the Covenant and the European Convention on Human Rights – Recent Developments. In Harris, David, and Joseph, Sarah (eds). The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and United Kingdom Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, Henry, and Alston, Philip. 2000. International Human Rights in Context. Oxford: 2nd ed, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 127 Boulevard Raspail, 75006, Paris, France

    Dr. Alex Conte

Authors
  1. Dr. Alex Conte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alex Conte .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Conte, A. (2010). Limiting Rights Under International Law. In: Human Rights in the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11608-7_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation