ECtHR在国家安全案件中的适用性测试:平衡人权和国家安全的两个模型

IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Leiden Journal of International Law Pub Date : 2023-01-26 DOI:10.1017/S0922156522000735
Chao Jing
{"title":"ECtHR在国家安全案件中的适用性测试:平衡人权和国家安全的两个模型","authors":"Chao Jing","doi":"10.1017/S0922156522000735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The European Court of Human Rights has often been criticized for lacking clarity and consistency in its reasoning of balancing human rights against conflicting public interests. To reconcile national security with human rights protection, the Court requires the interference with rights to be suitable for reaching the objective purported by the government. In this article I deal with how the Court conducts the suitability test in national security cases, in line with two models under which a few representative test considerations can be categorized: human rights priority model and national security priority model. To explain how each model works in a comparable sense, I follow the same analytic structure and examine the manner of the Court’s test and the intensity of its scrutiny. I argue that in compliance with the two models, the Court applies the suitability test in a consistent and predictable way in national security case law.","PeriodicalId":46816,"journal":{"name":"Leiden Journal of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The ECtHR’s suitability test in national security cases: Two models for balancing human rights and national security\",\"authors\":\"Chao Jing\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0922156522000735\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The European Court of Human Rights has often been criticized for lacking clarity and consistency in its reasoning of balancing human rights against conflicting public interests. To reconcile national security with human rights protection, the Court requires the interference with rights to be suitable for reaching the objective purported by the government. In this article I deal with how the Court conducts the suitability test in national security cases, in line with two models under which a few representative test considerations can be categorized: human rights priority model and national security priority model. To explain how each model works in a comparable sense, I follow the same analytic structure and examine the manner of the Court’s test and the intensity of its scrutiny. I argue that in compliance with the two models, the Court applies the suitability test in a consistent and predictable way in national security case law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46816,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Leiden Journal of International Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Leiden Journal of International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156522000735\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Leiden Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156522000735","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要欧洲人权法院经常因其在平衡人权与冲突的公共利益方面缺乏明确性和一致性而受到批评。为了调和国家安全与人权保护,法院要求对权利的干预适合于实现政府声称的目标。在这篇文章中,我讨论了法院如何根据两种模式在国家安全案件中进行适当性测试,根据这两种模式,可以对一些具有代表性的测试考虑因素进行分类:人权优先模式和国家安全优先模式。为了在可比较的意义上解释每种模式是如何运作的,我采用了相同的分析结构,并考察了法院测试的方式和审查的强度。我认为,根据这两种模式,法院在国家安全判例法中以一致和可预测的方式应用适用性测试。
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
The ECtHR’s suitability test in national security cases: Two models for balancing human rights and national security
Abstract The European Court of Human Rights has often been criticized for lacking clarity and consistency in its reasoning of balancing human rights against conflicting public interests. To reconcile national security with human rights protection, the Court requires the interference with rights to be suitable for reaching the objective purported by the government. In this article I deal with how the Court conducts the suitability test in national security cases, in line with two models under which a few representative test considerations can be categorized: human rights priority model and national security priority model. To explain how each model works in a comparable sense, I follow the same analytic structure and examine the manner of the Court’s test and the intensity of its scrutiny. I argue that in compliance with the two models, the Court applies the suitability test in a consistent and predictable way in national security case law.
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
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
6.70%
发文量
67
期刊最新文献
International law in the minds: On the ideational basis of the making, the changing, and the unmaking of international law BinaryTech in motion: The sexgender in the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence Rewriting the law of international organizations: Whither the Asia Pacific? Beyond the machinery metaphors: Towards a theory of international organizations as machines The Committee on the Rights of the Child and Article 12: Applying the Lundy model to treaty body recommendations
×
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