Djamel Ameziane v. U.S.A., Report No. 29/20, Case 12.865 Merits, (Inter-Am. Comm'n H.R.)

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 941-1012
Author(s):  
Christina M. Cerna
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
International Body ◽  
The Right

On April 22, 2020, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Commission) issued its first decision on one of the Guantanamo detainees, Djamel Ameziane, an Algerian Muslim who was held at Guantanamo for almost 12 years until he was deported to Algeria in 2013, in violation, inter alia, of the principle of non-refoulement. The case was brought on Mr. Ameziane's behalf by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), and the decision is very comprehensive and carefully written, as is to be expected of a decision totaling 70 pages. Although the United States became a party to the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1992, it never accepted the first Optional Protocol, which gives individuals the right to bring complaints against the United States before the U.N. Human Rights Committee; consequently, the only international body to which an individual can bring a complaint against the United States for a violation of international human rights law is the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, a principal organ of the Organization of American States (OAS).

Short v. Kingdom of the Netherlands

1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (4) ◽  
pp. 698-702 ◽  
Author(s):  
John E. Parkerson ◽  
Steven J. Lepper
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
United States Military ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Significant Addition

In the Notes and Comments section of the January 1991 issue of the Journal, Professor Richard Lillich presented a thorough and timely analysis of the Soering decision of the European Court of Human Rights, a significant addition to international human rights law. His evaluation of the Soering judgment and his reflections on several of its wider ramifications are especially relevant to the United States military, for the decision constitutes a serious threat to the administration of U.S. military justice overseas and to the treaty relationships between the United States and its NATO allies. A recent European case, Short v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, demonstrates that this threat is far from hypothetical.

scholarly journals THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR NON-RESIDENT CITIZENS IN EUROPE

2016 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 859-894 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Lappin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Right ◽  
European Court ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
Right To Vote ◽  
The Right ◽  
Political Right

AbstractThe right to vote is the most important political right in international human rights law. Framed within the broader right of political participation, it is the only right in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights not guaranteed as a universal human right but rather as a citizen's right. While limitations on the right to vote are permissible in respect of citizenship and age, residency-based restrictions are not explicitly provided. However, recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights endorse a view that voting rights may be conditioned on residency on the grounds of an individual's bond to their country-of-origin and the extent to which laws passed by that government would affect them. This article questions this proposition and explores whether disenfranchisement based solely on residency constitutes an unreasonable and discriminatory restriction to the essence of the right.

Part 1 Freedom of Religion or Belief, 1.3 The Right to Manifest One’s Religion or Belief

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bielefeldt Heiner, Prof ◽  
Ghanea Nazila, Dr ◽  
Wiener Michael, Dr
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The Right

This chapter emphasizes that the outer manifestations of freedom of religion or belief (forum externum) are not in any sense less important than the inner nucleus of a person’s religious or belief-related conviction (forum internum), even though only the latter is protected unconditionally under international human rights law. This chapter also discusses the largely overlapping elements of the right to manifest one’s religion or belief ‘in worship, observance, practice and teaching’. Furthermore, it analyses the implications of the religion-related reservations, declarations, and objections made by a number of States when signing, ratifying, or acceding to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

scholarly journals THE MEANING AND SCOPE OF ‘ASSEMBLY’ IN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 521-556
Author(s):  
Michael Hamilton
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Virtual Spaces ◽  
International Human ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

AbstractInformed by the ‘assembly’ jurisprudence of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, this article addresses fundamental questions about the meaning and scope of ‘assembly’ in Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In seeking to determine when the right of peaceful assembly might properly be engaged, the article explores the interrelationship of assembly with expression and association and proposes a definition of ‘assembly’—for the purposes of its protection—as ‘an intentional gathering by two or more people (including in private and online/virtual spaces)’. Such definitional reflection is particularly timely in light of the Human Rights Committee's drafting of General Comment No 37 on Article 21.

scholarly journals The Tradition of Civil Litigation in a New Age of International Law: International Perspectives on the Domestic Enforcement of Human Rights

2017 ◽  
pp. 55
Author(s):  
Phillip Wardle
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Civil Litigation ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
International Perspectives ◽  
Alternative Means

<p>The enforcement of norms of international human rights law (‘IHRL’) and the provision of an effective and appropriate remedy for those who have had human rights abuses visited upon them represents one of the greatest contemporary challenges within international and domestic legal systems. In recent years a regime of domestic civil liability has emerged, largely within the United States, as an alternative means to enforce IHRL against offending individuals, governments and organisations. A particular feature of this regime has been the attribution of liability to non-state actors for human rights abuses. This article will examine these developments and chart the various advantages and disadvantages that civil litigation mechanisms represent for the enforcement of IHRL and victims of human rights abuses. The utility of this regime to remedy breaches of IHRL during and as a result of crisis situations and armed conflict will also be discussed. While focussing chiefly on the United States as the main source of domestic IHRL litigation jurisprudence, other systems of civil dispute resolution will also be examined.</p><p><strong>Published online</strong>: 11 December 2017</p>

Rule of Law in the United States. Stability is one of the World’s Most Valued Commodities

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-165
Author(s):  
Joshua W. Dansby
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Coming Out ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Past ◽  
Definition Of

Summary “The rule of law is like the notion of ‘the good’. Everyone is for the good, although we hold different ideas about what the good is.” 1 Two primary ways of viewing the Rule of Law have developed over the years: the “thick” theory of the Rule of Law advocates that, in addition to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated, participation in government decisions (democracy) and consistency with international human rights law are essential for the Rule of Law in a society; the “thin” theory of the Rule of Law asserts that democracy and consistency with human rights law, while nice, are not essential for the Rule of Law. While the Rule of Law is often talked about in the context of developing countries that are coming out of conflict, there is little talk about the Rule of Law and its application to countries such as the United States. The past two years have seen the Rule of Law in the United States threatened as it has never been before, with Senators refusing to do their constitutional duty, a President that threatens to disregard the rulings of the judiciary, and judges both politicizing and abdicating their role as the interpreters of the law. Using a definition of the “thin” theory of the Rule of Law formulated by Brian Tamanahan, I ultimately argue that it not only is, but should be the case that a product of the Rule of Law, stability, a combination of security and predictability, is one of the world’s most valued commodities; and that Rule of Law, rather than the Rule of Man, is and should always be the bedrock of the United States of America.

The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
Ayse Cebecioglu Haldız
Keyword(s):  
General Assembly ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The Right

An Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 2008 and it came into force on 5 May 2013. The protocol gives individuals the right to raise complaints about violations of their rights which are enshrined by the covenant. Although, an optional protocol regulating the complaint procedure for its sister treaty, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, was entered into force in 1976, it was postponed for ICESCR until 2013 because of the historic debate discussing whether these rights are justiciable or not. This division between the treaties left the protection of the ESCR in the background. This essay will analyse the extent to which the protocol resolved the historical concerns about the protection of economic, social and cultural rights under international human rights law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document