根据《欧洲人权公约》,COVID-19大流行期间限制人权的合法性

Regina Valutytė, Danutė Jočienė, Rima Ažubalytė
{"title":"根据《欧洲人权公约》,COVID-19大流行期间限制人权的合法性","authors":"Regina Valutytė, Danutė Jočienė, Rima Ažubalytė","doi":"10.5334/tilr.245","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The European Convention on Human Rights, the regional international treaty adopted in 1950, requires that any restriction, limitation, or interference with the rights and freedoms guaran teed in the Convention should be ‘prescribed by law’, ‘in accordance with the law’ or ‘provided by law’. In the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the assessment of ‘legality’ requires that the impugned measure have a legal basis in national law, and refers to the qual ity of law. At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous states worldwide rolled out a patchwork of different provisions limiting (restricting) the implementation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Understandably, the immediacy of the emergency required a quick and efficient reaction from states; therefore, some situationally appropriate, however aggres -sive, restrictions on the exercise of human rights were imposed without a proper legal basis in national law. The article deals with the concept of the legality of limitations (restrictions) on the implementation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in a public health emergency, and in particular, the question of whether Article 15 of the Convention includes the possibility to deviate from the “classical” legality standard. The ‘derogation clause’ enshrined in Article 15 and the ‘restrictive clause’ established in, e.g., the second paragraphs of Articles 8–11, have an essential value in assessing the ‘legality’ of interference in the exercise of the Convention rights and freedoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in cases where States Parties to the Convention had not used the possibility to derogate from the Convention obligations under Article 15. Relying on the case-law of the ECtHR in respect of the legality of interference in the exercise of human rights, the authors argue that legality in a state of emergency should follow the same logic as in the absence of such a state. This is reflected in the constitutional case-law, although the national dimension of the legality requirement varies depending on dif ferent constitutional arrangements in the countries.","PeriodicalId":38415,"journal":{"name":"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legality of Human Rights Restrictions During the COVID-19 Pandemic Under the European Convention on Human Rights\",\"authors\":\"Regina Valutytė, Danutė Jočienė, Rima Ažubalytė\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/tilr.245\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The European Convention on Human Rights, the regional international treaty adopted in 1950, requires that any restriction, limitation, or interference with the rights and freedoms guaran teed in the Convention should be ‘prescribed by law’, ‘in accordance with the law’ or ‘provided by law’. In the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the assessment of ‘legality’ requires that the impugned measure have a legal basis in national law, and refers to the qual ity of law. At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous states worldwide rolled out a patchwork of different provisions limiting (restricting) the implementation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Understandably, the immediacy of the emergency required a quick and efficient reaction from states; therefore, some situationally appropriate, however aggres -sive, restrictions on the exercise of human rights were imposed without a proper legal basis in national law. The article deals with the concept of the legality of limitations (restrictions) on the implementation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in a public health emergency, and in particular, the question of whether Article 15 of the Convention includes the possibility to deviate from the “classical” legality standard. The ‘derogation clause’ enshrined in Article 15 and the ‘restrictive clause’ established in, e.g., the second paragraphs of Articles 8–11, have an essential value in assessing the ‘legality’ of interference in the exercise of the Convention rights and freedoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in cases where States Parties to the Convention had not used the possibility to derogate from the Convention obligations under Article 15. Relying on the case-law of the ECtHR in respect of the legality of interference in the exercise of human rights, the authors argue that legality in a state of emergency should follow the same logic as in the absence of such a state. This is reflected in the constitutional case-law, although the national dimension of the legality requirement varies depending on dif ferent constitutional arrangements in the countries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38415,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/tilr.245\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/tilr.245","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1950年通过的区域性国际条约《欧洲人权公约》要求,对《公约》所保障的权利和自由的任何限制、限制或干涉都应“由法律规定”、“根据法律”或“由法律规定”。在欧洲人权法院(European Court of Human Rights)的判例法中,对“合法性”的评估要求被质疑的措施在国家法律中具有法律依据,并指法律的质量。在2019冠状病毒病大流行之初,世界上许多国家出台了一系列限制(限制)人权和基本自由实施的不同条款。可以理解的是,紧急情况的即时性要求各国做出快速有效的反应;因此,在国内法没有适当的法律依据的情况下,对行使人权施加了一些适当的限制,尽管这些限制是激进的。该条涉及在公共卫生紧急情况下限制(限制)人权和基本自由执行的合法性概念,特别是《公约》第15条是否包括偏离"经典"合法性标准的可能性的问题。第十五条规定的“克减条款”和第八条至第十一条第二款规定的“限制性条款”在评估2019冠状病毒病大流行期间干涉行使《公约》权利和自由的“合法性”方面具有重要价值,特别是在《公约》缔约国没有利用克减第十五条规定的《公约》义务的可能性的情况下。根据欧洲人权法院关于干涉行使人权的合法性的判例法,提交人认为,紧急状态下的合法性应遵循与不存在紧急状态时相同的逻辑。这反映在宪法判例法中,尽管合法性要求的国家层面因各国不同的宪法安排而异。
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
Legality of Human Rights Restrictions During the COVID-19 Pandemic Under the European Convention on Human Rights
The European Convention on Human Rights, the regional international treaty adopted in 1950, requires that any restriction, limitation, or interference with the rights and freedoms guaran teed in the Convention should be ‘prescribed by law’, ‘in accordance with the law’ or ‘provided by law’. In the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the assessment of ‘legality’ requires that the impugned measure have a legal basis in national law, and refers to the qual ity of law. At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous states worldwide rolled out a patchwork of different provisions limiting (restricting) the implementation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Understandably, the immediacy of the emergency required a quick and efficient reaction from states; therefore, some situationally appropriate, however aggres -sive, restrictions on the exercise of human rights were imposed without a proper legal basis in national law. The article deals with the concept of the legality of limitations (restrictions) on the implementation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in a public health emergency, and in particular, the question of whether Article 15 of the Convention includes the possibility to deviate from the “classical” legality standard. The ‘derogation clause’ enshrined in Article 15 and the ‘restrictive clause’ established in, e.g., the second paragraphs of Articles 8–11, have an essential value in assessing the ‘legality’ of interference in the exercise of the Convention rights and freedoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in cases where States Parties to the Convention had not used the possibility to derogate from the Convention obligations under Article 15. Relying on the case-law of the ECtHR in respect of the legality of interference in the exercise of human rights, the authors argue that legality in a state of emergency should follow the same logic as in the absence of such a state. This is reflected in the constitutional case-law, although the national dimension of the legality requirement varies depending on dif ferent constitutional arrangements in the countries.
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
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Perjanjian Kredit Macet Pemilikan Rumah (KPR) Terhadap Kebijakan Rumah Subsidi Pada Bank Papua Kebijakan Afirmatif Rekrutmen Anggota Polri Khusus Orang Asli Papua Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Perempuan Atas Tindak Pidana Kekerasan Dalam Rumah Tangga Penerapan Kebijakan Hukum Pidana Sanksi Kimia Dalam Penegakan Hukum Partisipasi Masyarakat Dalam Pembentukan Peraturan Daerah Kabupaten Mimika
×
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