琼斯诉英国:欧洲人权法院限制个人对酷刑的问责

IF 0.3 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Utrecht Journal of International and European Law Pub Date : 2014-08-19 DOI:10.5334/UJIEL.CN
Cedric Ryngaert
{"title":"琼斯诉英国:欧洲人权法院限制个人对酷刑的问责","authors":"Cedric Ryngaert","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.CN","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Jones and others v. United Kingdom (2014), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that granting immunity from jurisdiction to State officials in civil proceedings with respect to torture was not a violation of Article 6 ECHR. This is an unfortunate decision, as its application will often result in an accountability vacuum, as victims of torture may not have reasonable access to remedies in the State where they were tortured. Only bystander States, or their State of nationality could then offer relief by offering a forum. A proper avenue for such States is to make the exercise of jurisdiction and the conferral of immunity dependent on whether or not the territorial State offers an adequate forum for dispute-settlement. By further developing these principles, the notion that, under international law, persons are individually accountable for international crimes and should not be allowed to hide behind the State on whose behalf they act, could be finally realised.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2014-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Jones v. United Kingdom: The European Court of Human Rights Restricts Individual Accountability for Torture\",\"authors\":\"Cedric Ryngaert\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/UJIEL.CN\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Jones and others v. United Kingdom (2014), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that granting immunity from jurisdiction to State officials in civil proceedings with respect to torture was not a violation of Article 6 ECHR. This is an unfortunate decision, as its application will often result in an accountability vacuum, as victims of torture may not have reasonable access to remedies in the State where they were tortured. Only bystander States, or their State of nationality could then offer relief by offering a forum. A proper avenue for such States is to make the exercise of jurisdiction and the conferral of immunity dependent on whether or not the territorial State offers an adequate forum for dispute-settlement. By further developing these principles, the notion that, under international law, persons are individually accountable for international crimes and should not be allowed to hide behind the State on whose behalf they act, could be finally realised.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30606,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.CN\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.CN","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在Jones等人诉联合王国案(2014年)中,欧洲人权法院裁定,在涉及酷刑的民事诉讼中给予国家官员管辖豁免并不违反《欧洲人权公约》第6条。这是一个不幸的决定,因为它的适用往往会导致问责真空,因为酷刑受害者可能无法在遭受酷刑的国家获得合理的补救办法。只有旁观国家或其国籍国才能通过提供论坛来提供救济。这类国家的一个适当途径是,将管辖权的行使和豁免的授予取决于领土国是否为解决争端提供了适当的论坛。通过进一步发展这些原则,就可以最终实现这样一种观念,即根据国际法,个人对国际罪行负有个人责任,不应被允许躲在他们所代表的国家背后。
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
Jones v. United Kingdom: The European Court of Human Rights Restricts Individual Accountability for Torture
In Jones and others v. United Kingdom (2014), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that granting immunity from jurisdiction to State officials in civil proceedings with respect to torture was not a violation of Article 6 ECHR. This is an unfortunate decision, as its application will often result in an accountability vacuum, as victims of torture may not have reasonable access to remedies in the State where they were tortured. Only bystander States, or their State of nationality could then offer relief by offering a forum. A proper avenue for such States is to make the exercise of jurisdiction and the conferral of immunity dependent on whether or not the territorial State offers an adequate forum for dispute-settlement. By further developing these principles, the notion that, under international law, persons are individually accountable for international crimes and should not be allowed to hide behind the State on whose behalf they act, could be finally realised.
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
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Legal Nature of the Climate Change Regime: Fluctuation between Lex Lata and Lex Ferenda The Concept of a Virtual Registered Office in EU Law: Challenges and Opportunities Discharge of Debts of Insolvent Entrepreneurs Under the Restructuring and Insolvency Directive Editorial of Volume 38, Issue I of the Utrecht Journal of International and European Law Will Victims’ Rights Be Lost in Translation? Bridging the Information Gap in Universal Jurisdiction Cases
×
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