Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Universal Duties: The Responsibility to Protect, the Duty to Prevent (Genocide) and Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations

Universal Duties: The Responsibility to Protect, the Duty to Prevent (Genocide) and... Global Responsibility to Protect 3 (2011) 123–151 © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI 10.1163/187598411X575649 brill.nl/gr2p 1 For example, in Bankovic et al. v. Belgium et al. , Appl. No. 52207/99 (19 December 2001), adm. Dec. (12 December 2001), the European Court of Human Rights dismissed as inadmis- sible a suit brought by a group of civilians from Serbia (which was not a State Party to the European Convention) who were harmed or killed during a NATO bombing mission. Article 1 of the European Convention provides: ‘Th e High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defi ned in … this Convention.’ Employing an ‘eff ective control’ standard, the ECHR ruled that these individuals were not within the ‘jurisdic- tion’ of the Contracting States. In that way, the state parties to the European Convention were Universal Duties: Th e Responsibility to Protect, the Duty to Prevent (Genocide) and Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations Mark Gibney Belk Distinguished Professor University of North Carolina-Asheville mgibney@unca.edu Abstract Human rights are (universally) declared to be universal, yet under the dominant interpretation the responsibility to protect these rights have been severely restricted by territorial consider- ations. In that http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Global Responsibility to Protect Brill

Universal Duties: The Responsibility to Protect, the Duty to Prevent (Genocide) and Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations

Gibney, Mark
Global Responsibility to Protect , Volume 3 (2): 123 – Jan 1, 2011
Download PDF
29 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/universal-duties-the-responsibility-to-protect-the-duty-to-prevent-iaw0svBT7v

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 2011 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
1875-9858
eISSN
1875-984X
DOI
10.1163/187598411X575649
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Global Responsibility to Protect 3 (2011) 123–151 © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI 10.1163/187598411X575649 brill.nl/gr2p 1 For example, in Bankovic et al. v. Belgium et al. , Appl. No. 52207/99 (19 December 2001), adm. Dec. (12 December 2001), the European Court of Human Rights dismissed as inadmis- sible a suit brought by a group of civilians from Serbia (which was not a State Party to the European Convention) who were harmed or killed during a NATO bombing mission. Article 1 of the European Convention provides: ‘Th e High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defi ned in … this Convention.’ Employing an ‘eff ective control’ standard, the ECHR ruled that these individuals were not within the ‘jurisdic- tion’ of the Contracting States. In that way, the state parties to the European Convention were Universal Duties: Th e Responsibility to Protect, the Duty to Prevent (Genocide) and Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations Mark Gibney Belk Distinguished Professor University of North Carolina-Asheville mgibney@unca.edu Abstract Human rights are (universally) declared to be universal, yet under the dominant interpretation the responsibility to protect these rights have been severely restricted by territorial consider- ations. In that

Journal

Global Responsibility to Protect – Brill

Published: Jan 1, 2011

Keywords: UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS; DUTY TO PREVENT; EXTRATERRITORIAL OBLIGATIONS; RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT

There are no references for this article.