Jump to content

Talk:European Convention on Human Rights: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
WildBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
142,891 edits
m No broken #section links left
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(48 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes|arpol=no|wp=no|disclaimer=no|bottom=no|force=true}}
{{WikiProject Europe|class=B|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|class=B|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Europe|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=top}}
== Original texts resume ==
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(360d)
| archive = Talk:European Convention on Human Rights/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>[[Climate justice#Netherlands|limit climate change]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Netherlands) is no longer available because it was [[Special:Diff/979400160|deleted by a user]] before. <!-- {"title":"Netherlands","appear":{"revid":748001441,"parentid":747993138,"timestamp":"2016-11-05T19:12:53Z","removed_section_titles":[],"added_section_titles":["Legal actions on climate change issues","Netherlands","Others"]},"disappear":{"revid":979400160,"parentid":979399523,"timestamp":"2020-09-20T14:39:06Z","removed_section_titles":["Climate change litigation","United States","Netherlands","Others","Legislation against companies","Legislation against activists","CITEREF2018","CITEREFSutter2016","CITEREFSchiermeier2018","CITEREF2019","CITEREFAkkermansProper2019","CITEREFCarlarne2010","CITEREFFrance-Presse2017"],"added_section_titles":["Litigation"]}} -->
}}


== Disputed/invaded terorteses ==
Hey guys, I just wanted to point out that article 15 concerning derogation, the quote credited to Nicholas, is in fact from Hoffman, and the we love a bit of hoffie and cake club would like to point it out.


On the map it shows the Crimea and eastern Ukraine as signatories is this still correct?
:You're right, I checked the link and the quotation is actually from Lord Hoffmann. Next time, why don't you just go ahead and edit the page yourself? On the other hand, I don't think I understand what you are saying about ''hoffie'' and ''cake club'', but that might just be because I'm not a native English speaker. Oh, and please remember to sign your posts. Anyway, thanks for pointing out that mistake. [[User:SFinamore|SFinamore]] 11:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


== Anything on protection of liberty of movement and transport vs speed limitations ==
(Personal missive removed [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 02:39, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC))


All nice to put speed limitations up to 30km/h if this is in the interest of public safetly. But limiting the speed on roads leading to villages and communes (not in the village and in the commune) to 30 km/h even at night? We are we supposed to deliver medicines during the night - but we cannot do that anymore for the actual prices if we have to reduce our speed in the night to 30km/h? Thy, [[User:SvenAERTS|SvenAERTS]] ([[User talk:SvenAERTS|talk]]) 15:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I hope there is a place for the following information somewhere on Wikipedia. Any Ideas?


== Ukraine's Suspended Adherance ==
European Court of Human Rights Denying Human Rights to Access Information.


Ukraine suspended it's adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights in order to effectively enforce martial law in its territory on the 29th. The article, and map, should reflect this. [[User:Kingofmapps|Kingofmapps]] ([[User talk:Kingofmapps|talk]]) 14:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
There seems to be nothing in the European Convention on Human Rights protecting human rights to access to information - at least any rights to information regarding the basis for decision of the Three Judge Committee to reject a complaint brought before the European Court of Human Rights. Note that a typical rejection letter from The European Court of Human Rights states that following the Three Judge Committee decision to reject a complaint, the person bringing the complaint before the European Court of Human Rights has no right to any specific information regarding the decision of the courts, no right to a reply to further correspondence regarding the case and no right to effective remedy against the decision of the Committee. A logical step towards guaranteeing human rights would be to bring this to public attention in hope to amend the Convention and include decision to protect human rights to access information regarding the Court's decisions. Making sure that following all articles of the Convention are to be not only expected by all nations but also by the European Court of Human Rights itself. For instance, the lack of application of Article 13 of the convention by the European Court of Human Rights to its own behaviour is highly questionable - the fact that the Court of Human Rights denies people any effective remedy against its decisions rejecting cases or finding them unfounded. This in combination with denying access to any specific information regarding the basis for Committee's decision to do so is reminiscent of courts under Stalin.

Sources
http://mailgate.supereva.com/pl/pl.listserv.dziennikarz/msg21874.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_court_of_human_rights Submitted copies of additional rejection letters would be welcome. At least one translation coming soon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Know_Day

(Writ by MC.)

== Citation ==

I've found that there's a general lack of information on the formal citation of treaties such as the ECHR for the purposes of academic papers. Most people seem to just refer to them by name and assume people know what they mean. I dredged up a citation format and edited into the article, but I'm sure it's not the only citation format for international treaties. If anyone sees a more appropriate/common one, please fix it. LBW 22 October 2007 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.104.196.182|91.104.196.182]] ([[User talk:91.104.196.182|talk]]) 20:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== POV ==
I "honestly" don't mean to be difficult, but this article, as it stands, is nothing more than a whitewash of European history. What of the rights of the millions of Native Americans who were exterminated by Europeans? What of the rights of all those indiginous people subjected to empire building? What of the millions of Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals killed in WWII? What of the rights to freedom of association, free speech etc, of Eastern Euopeans?

This above unsigned comment is completely unspecific. What in the article is objectionable? Why, and in what way, should the above matters be dealt with in the article? The article is NPOV as it sets out a disapssionate account of the content and application of the Convention. It is not about Human RIghts in Europe generally.
--[[User:Lucifer(sc)|Lucifer(sc)]] 12:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the comment has clearly been made without an actual understanding of the topic and an ignorance of what the ECHR actually is, or indeed its origins. Should be completely ignored. SCL 15:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As a student of British constitutional law, I find that comment completely absurd. The ECHR didn't come into existence until 1950, so questions about colonialism and WWII aren't remotely relevant, except perhaps as a backdrop to the motivations behind the Convention. I'm not sure what the point about Eastern Europeans is aimed at. If there's particular rampant violations of the ECHR that the original poster would like to bring up, that would be relevant. Otherwise, I agree that the comment should be ignored
--LBW 22 October 2007 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.104.196.182|91.104.196.182]] ([[User talk:91.104.196.182|talk]]) 20:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Assertions in 'article 15' section ==

Hey there,

I'm slightly confused - the section on Article 15 (derogations) includes the conditions:
''"the state of affairs relied on is temporary and exceptional"'' and ''"the emergency is actual or imminent in that the emergency is about to occur"''

Neither of these appear in the article itself, which is quite short:

<blockquote>
1. In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.
2. No derogation from Article 2, except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from Articles 3, 4 (paragraph 1) and 7 shall be made under this provision.
3. Any High Contracting Party availing itself of this right of derogation shall keep the Secretary General of the Council of Europe fully informed of the measures which it has taken and the reasons therefor. It shall also inform the Secretary General of the Council of Europe when such measures have ceased to operate and the provisions of the Convention are again being fully executed.
</blockquote>

So, either the article is incorrect, or it's relying on text from outside article 15, in which case that should be explicitly stated. I've whacked some [citation needed] tags on those two statements, but I'm really not enough of an expert in European law to be sure which is the case...

[[Special:Contributions/131.111.139.100|131.111.139.100]] ([[User talk:131.111.139.100|talk]]) 16:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

== date of entry into force? ==

[http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=005&CM=8&CL=ENG This website] indicates that the treaty entered into force on March 9, 1953.
[[Special:Contributions/69.140.152.55|69.140.152.55]] ([[User talk:69.140.152.55|talk]]) 09:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

:They're European dates. 3/9/1953 means 3 September 1953. Sorry about the late response. — [[User:Blue-Haired Lawyer|Blue-Haired Lawyer]] 12:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

== Protocol 11 ? ==

When did Protocol 11 allowing individual applications for redress come into effect? Or does it depend on what date the ratifing countries actually signed the protocol or ratified the protocol? --[[User:TGC55|TGC55]] ([[User talk:TGC55|talk]]) 00:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
:Effective date of "1 November 1998" added by an editor.--[[User:TGC55|TGC55]] ([[User talk:TGC55|talk]]) 17:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

:I added the date without mentioning it here. I would like to point out that protocol 11 didn't "allow<nowiki>[]</nowiki> individual applications for redress", individual were a feature of the European system for a great many years prior protocol 11. The protocol removed the commission which had essentially played the role of a court of first instance. If they ruled that no human rights had been violated there was the possibility of appeal to the court. — [[User:Blue-Haired Lawyer|Blue-Haired Lawyer]] 23:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

== Main article links ==

The reason it's a good idea to put main article links at the top of each section is that it encourages editors to expand the pages there. This is good format, per [[WP:STYLE]]. For each article there is one. Not all of them are stubs, but some of them are, and they need to be improved. If you delete the links here, those pages become orphaned. Each article is worthy of a Wikipedia page in its own right, just like the US Bill of Rights page. '''<font color="red">[[User:Wikidea|Wik]]</font><font color="gold">[[User:Wikidea|idea]]</font>''' 15:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

:I think you're putting the cart before the horse. The whole point of the {{tl|main}} template and the [[Wikipedia:Summary style]] policy is that sections of large articles should be summarised with more detailed content being put in the sub-article.

:This article isn't very long and doesn't need the summary style approach yet. If and when it happens that an editor come along and doubles the size of the article (on my to do list I swear) then would be a good time to split the article in parts. But as it stands, the reader only finds the same information that they got here and just clicks the back button - hence the blind alley. And there's no reason in discouraging editors from expanding this article, since we're not starved for space.

:I realise you're also included the text of the relevant article in each sub-article but frankly this is what Wikisource is for. — [[User:Blue-Haired Lawyer|Blue-Haired Lawyer]] 11:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

== Please keep this up to date ==

Sorry about gatecrashing the top of the posting, but there's a number of points URGENTLY needing attention and dropping it to the bottom of the pile doesn't meet the need.

1. Per the Council of Europe's text [http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/EnglishAnglais.pdf here], it's now the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This has been altered to enshrine some of the conventions of [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/default_en.htm the Charter of Fundamental Rights].

2. You need mention of the latter, which is on hold while the Treaty of Lisbon situation is sorted out.

I apologise for not doing it myself, but I'd breach some of your fundamental guidelines if I did.<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:81.241.227.84|81.241.227.84]] ([[User talk:81.241.227.84|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/81.241.227.84|contribs]]) 09:49, 12 March 2009</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:Wrong on all accounts I'm afraid:

:1 It's always been the "Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" - never anything else. The full title is given in the lead. The "European Convention on Human Rights" is the common name of the convention and used much more widely, and includs academic and media usage. The article name is consistent with English Wikipedia policy - [[WP:COMMON]]. The ECHR hasn't been renamed, much less altered, to reflect the EU's charter.

:2 You're confusing the Council of Europe with the European Union. The relationship between these different human rights instruments is a matter for another day. — [[User:Blue-Haired Lawyer|Blue-Haired Lawyer]] 11:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

==European Union==
<blockquote>
The Council of Europe should not be confused with the Council of the European Union or the European Council. The European Union is not a party to the Convention and has no role in the administration of the European Court of Human Rights.
</blockquote>
I feel that the above note should form part of the main text (perhaps the introduction) rather than a footnote, as it is important to understanding what the ECHR is, and is something that many readers are likely to not be aware of. [[User:Alboran|Alboran]] ([[User talk:Alboran|talk]]) 02:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

== Derogations under Article 15 ==

Our current section on Article 15:

{{box|gray||Article 15 allows contracting states to [[Derogation|derogate]] from the rights guaranteed by the Convention in time of "war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation". Derogation from the rights in the Convention, however, is subject to a number of qualifying criteria, these are that: the state of affairs relied on is temporary and exceptional;<ref>"exceptional" taken from the ''Lawless'' case 1961 at para 28</ref> the circumstances are grave enough to threaten the organised life of the entire community; the emergency is actual or imminent in that the emergency is about to occur{{Fact|date=February 2008}}; the threat is to the life of the nation which seeks to derogate; and the measures for which the derogation is required are "strictly required by the exigencies of the situation".

In November 2001 the [[United Kingdom]] government held that there was such a dire state of emergency in the country that it was necessary to implement [[Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001#Implementation|Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001]] and detain a number of terrorist suspects indefinitely without charge in [[Belmarsh Prison]] pending deportation. This lasted until April 2005, after the [[Law Lords]] ruled on 16 December 2004 that the claim was not consistent with the Convention. [[Lord Hoffmann]] went further to say:

{{cquote|The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.<ref>Cited from:[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd041216/a&oth-6.htm the law lord's judgement]</ref>}}}}


is rather slanted and wrong on several (if not all) points.

1. We quote from Lord Hoffmann even though he was in a minority of one and all the other law lords disagreed with him, as did the ECHR.

2. We say that derogations should be temporary even the ECHR rejected this contention in [http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/301.html A v UK] para 178.

3. We give the impression that the UK's state of emergency was ruled illegal by the House of Lords when in fact only Lord Hoffmann thought this. What actually happened was that both the HoL and the ECHR held that the measures taken by the Britain were not strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.

4. Given points 1 and 3, I don't think the decision really deserves the paragraph it has at present.

I'm going to make a few changes. — [[User:Blue-Haired Lawyer|Blue-Haired Lawyer]] 16:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

== Lisbon ==

The EU is not yet a signatory of the ECHR. Before this can happen, Protocol 14 of the ECHR needs to come into force (which won't happen until June) and the EU need to ''actually'' sign the Convention. — [[User:Blue-Haired Lawyer|Blue-Haired Lawyer]] 14:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:50, 10 July 2024

Disputed/invaded terorteses

[edit]

On the map it shows the Crimea and eastern Ukraine as signatories is this still correct?

Anything on protection of liberty of movement and transport vs speed limitations

[edit]

All nice to put speed limitations up to 30km/h if this is in the interest of public safetly. But limiting the speed on roads leading to villages and communes (not in the village and in the commune) to 30 km/h even at night? We are we supposed to deliver medicines during the night - but we cannot do that anymore for the actual prices if we have to reduce our speed in the night to 30km/h? Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine's Suspended Adherance

[edit]

Ukraine suspended it's adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights in order to effectively enforce martial law in its territory on the 29th. The article, and map, should reflect this. Kingofmapps (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_Convention_on_Human_Rights&oldid=1233775732"