"震撼法院的一场小战争":评议欧洲人权法院对2021年1月21日格鲁吉亚诉俄罗斯案(二)的判决

Marcin Marcinko
{"title":"\"震撼法院的一场小战争\":评议欧洲人权法院对2021年1月21日格鲁吉亚诉俄罗斯案(二)的判决","authors":"Marcin Marcinko","doi":"10.21697/2022.11.1.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The long-awaited judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Georgia v. Russia (II) of 21 January 2021 evokes rather ambivalent assessment. On the one hand, the Court found that the Russian authorities were responsible for systematic violations of human rights related to Russia’s participation in the “five-day war”, and on the other hand, the Court limited this responsibility only to the “occupation phase”, i.e. the period after the ceasefire on 12 August 2008. As for the “active phase of hostilities”, i.e. the period of armed clashes from 8 to 12 August 2008, the Court found that due to the lack of “effective control” by Russia, the Court could not apply any model of jurisdiction to any of the alleged violations of the Right to Life under the ECHR. This comment is an analysis of the reasoning of the Court in relation to the most important issues in this case: extraterritorial jurisdiction in the context of international armed conflict (including the issues of effective control over an area and State agent authority and control over individuals), the relationship between the ECHR and international humanitarian law and the investigative obligation under Article 2 of the ECHR.","PeriodicalId":269602,"journal":{"name":"Polish Review of International and European Law","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“A little war that shook the court”: comment on the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Georgia v. Russia (ii) of 21 January 2021\",\"authors\":\"Marcin Marcinko\",\"doi\":\"10.21697/2022.11.1.05\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The long-awaited judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Georgia v. Russia (II) of 21 January 2021 evokes rather ambivalent assessment. On the one hand, the Court found that the Russian authorities were responsible for systematic violations of human rights related to Russia’s participation in the “five-day war”, and on the other hand, the Court limited this responsibility only to the “occupation phase”, i.e. the period after the ceasefire on 12 August 2008. As for the “active phase of hostilities”, i.e. the period of armed clashes from 8 to 12 August 2008, the Court found that due to the lack of “effective control” by Russia, the Court could not apply any model of jurisdiction to any of the alleged violations of the Right to Life under the ECHR. This comment is an analysis of the reasoning of the Court in relation to the most important issues in this case: extraterritorial jurisdiction in the context of international armed conflict (including the issues of effective control over an area and State agent authority and control over individuals), the relationship between the ECHR and international humanitarian law and the investigative obligation under Article 2 of the ECHR.\",\"PeriodicalId\":269602,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Polish Review of International and European Law\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Polish Review of International and European Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21697/2022.11.1.05\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polish Review of International and European Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21697/2022.11.1.05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧洲人权法院于2021年1月21日就格鲁吉亚诉俄罗斯(二)案作出的期待已久的判决令人产生相当矛盾的评价。一方面,法院认定俄罗斯当局应对与俄罗斯参与“五天战争”有关的系统性侵犯人权行为负责,另一方面,法院将这一责任仅限于“占领阶段”,即2008年8月12日停火后的时期。至于“敌对行动的活跃阶段”,即2008年8月8日至12日的武装冲突时期,法院认为,由于俄罗斯缺乏“有效控制”,法院不能对任何据称违反《欧洲人权公约》规定的生命权的行为适用任何管辖模式。本评论分析了法院对本案中最重要问题的推理:国际武装冲突背景下的治外法权(包括对某一地区的有效控制和国家代理权力以及对个人的控制等问题)、《欧洲人权公约》与国际人道主义法之间的关系以及《欧洲人权公约》第2条规定的调查义务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“A little war that shook the court”: comment on the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Georgia v. Russia (ii) of 21 January 2021
The long-awaited judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Georgia v. Russia (II) of 21 January 2021 evokes rather ambivalent assessment. On the one hand, the Court found that the Russian authorities were responsible for systematic violations of human rights related to Russia’s participation in the “five-day war”, and on the other hand, the Court limited this responsibility only to the “occupation phase”, i.e. the period after the ceasefire on 12 August 2008. As for the “active phase of hostilities”, i.e. the period of armed clashes from 8 to 12 August 2008, the Court found that due to the lack of “effective control” by Russia, the Court could not apply any model of jurisdiction to any of the alleged violations of the Right to Life under the ECHR. This comment is an analysis of the reasoning of the Court in relation to the most important issues in this case: extraterritorial jurisdiction in the context of international armed conflict (including the issues of effective control over an area and State agent authority and control over individuals), the relationship between the ECHR and international humanitarian law and the investigative obligation under Article 2 of the ECHR.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
“Commited by Men”: Individual Criminal Responsibility for Aggression Against Ukraine Why Ukraine Needs an International - Not Internationalised - Tribunal to Prosecute the Crimes of Aggression Committed Against It Legal Dilemmas of the European Court of Human Rights After Russia's Expulsion from the Council of Europe. Selected Issues The Role of the UN Security Council & General Assembly In Responding to the Invasion of Ukraine Conflict in Ukraine – Legal Battlefield. Editorial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1