The international human rights protection is going through a time of change. Although in many parts of the world while continuing gross and systematic human rights violations must be deplored, are positive developments in the current international human rights protection to identify. In addition to the permanent establishment of the Human Rights Council as the successor body perceived as ineffective Commission on Human Rights is an urgent judicial updating of personal and direct responsibility of dictators and rebel leaders that have crimes against humanity, genocide and other war crimes guilty to name.
As a result of this development is now Thomas Lubanga Dyilo , leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots militia in eastern Congo and its being the first defendant before the International Criminal Court. At the same time preparations are underway at a tribunal, the leading figures of the pole - Pot to pull regime in Cambodia to account. The Liberian former president Charles Taylor was arrested in Nigeria because of an arrest warrant of the Special Court of Sierra Leone and awaits a trial. Finally, while death of Slobodan Milosevic is seen as a defeat of the established media in The Hague International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the first international criminal court since Nuremberg and Tokyo, largely ignored his work continued consistently.
is against this background of the inadmissibility decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on the appeal Saddam Hussein against 21 European countries from Albania to Italy to the United Kingdom a certain importance. In its submissions Saddam Hussein claimed that his arrest, his detention, his handover to the Iraqi government and the process were in contradiction with the ECHR. Specifically, it claimed that his rights under Article 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 (right to a fair trial) of the ECHR, Article 1 6 ZP (abolition of the death penalty in peace time) and type 1 13 be violated ZP (abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances) to. The ECHR is therefore relevant to the ECHR and a probate law enforcement authority, because he still falls under the jurisdiction of the states sued the most regardless of the handover to the Iraqi government 30th June 2004 de facto sovereignty over the Iraq exercised.
This argument of the ECHR was on the ground does not mean that Saddam Hussein insufficient evidence for the actual decision-making and command authority named in the complaint states based on the coalition of the willing had submitted. This was a prerequisite for detection have been to in the Jurisdiction of one of the fall to 21 stated in the complaint states. The claim that the states continue to exert de facto control of Iraq was, in view of the transfer of government power to an Iraqi government and the subsequent elections in January 2005 was not based inlets. The states would rather have no factual or legal control over that territory, in which the raised violations of the ECHR would incriminate. This is however a necessary condition for a successful appeal. Claiming that a state is part of the coalition of the willing is not enough to get out of Saddam Hussein one of the jurisdiction of a Member State of the ECHR within the meaning of Article 1 ECHR person subject to make. The complaint was accordingly declared under Article 28 ECHR, no more testing is inadmissible, the decision is final.
The new centrality of the individual
The legal recognition value of the discussed decision, the discharge is essentially the continuation of the trial against Saddam Hussein before an Iraqi court is, for the present one seems limited. Terms, however, as an expression and continuation of a paradigm shift in international law from a Westphalian, state-centered order towards a post-Westphalian centrality of the individual, their growing importance. especially since it can be seen from the term horizon of the International Law Development and seen the involvement of the developments outlined above. The new centrality is based on a Janus-headed understanding of the role of the individual: the greater benefit rights is inherent in the proliferation of obligations. On the one hand, as was the traditional state-centered understanding of security replaced by a concept of human Security, the individuals moved into the center of international decision-making and the right as independent actors. On the other hand perpetrators of international crimes before international courts increasingly held to account. It is this conceptual change in international law has permitted the establishment of international tribunals. As a corrective against a state-centered order, the centrality of the individual is a curative against the immunity of heads of state dar. even with these developments - and this is followed by the reflection loop - end of warlords, rebel leaders, dictators and war criminals, the Time of impunity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment