Armed conflicts, terrorist attacks or natural disasters often prompt governments to declare a state of emergency. While sometimes the proclamation of a public emergency is necessary (or at least justifiable), such moves can also mask repressive government policies, threatening individual and collective rights. Recent developments in Turkey would seem to be a case in point. To curb this threat, international law regulates States’ derogation from their human rights obligations through a two-stepped test: 1) Is the situation sufficiently serious to warrant a state of emergency? 2) If the answer is affirmative, are the exceptional measures adopted really necessary to address (or to contain) the emergency? This book offers a comprehensive overview on how derogation clauses have been interpreted by treaty monitoring bodies that were asked to apply the above test. Differences and similarities in the interpretative work of European, Inter-American and UN bodies are highlighted, and explanations for divergences in their approach are explored. A second part of the book considers the legal nature of derogation clauses under general international law, contrasting them with the norms precluding the wrongfulness of State conduct, and the rules concerning the termination or suspension of treaties. The existence of customary law principles regarding the suspension of human rights is also examined. Last, the book provides some recommendations aimed at making the work of treaty monitoring bodies more effective when dealing with genuine or alleged emergencies.
Sommario: Stati d’emergenza e trattati a tutela dei diritti umani
Reviewed by Ladi Michael
on
May 18, 2018
Rating:
Reviewed by Ladi Michael
on
May 18, 2018
Rating:
