Assisting the Victims of Armed Conflict and Other Disasters. Edited by Frits Kalshoven. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1989. Pp. vii, 258. Dfl.150; $79.50; £47.50. - Rule of Law in a State of Emergency: The Paris Minimum Standards of Human Rights Norms in a State of Emergency. By Subrata Roy Chowdhury. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1989. Pp. xiv, 290. Index. $45.

1992 ◽  
Vol 86 (1) ◽  
pp. 202-203
Author(s):  
Douglas D. Reichert
1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (4) ◽  
pp. 716-720 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard B. Lillich

After six years of study by its Committee on the Enforcement of Human Rights Law, the sixty-fourth Conference of the International Law Association, held in Queensland, Australia, from August 19 to 25, 1990, approved by consensus a set of standards to assist human rights bodies in monitoring states of emergency. These standards, designated the Queensland Guidelines for Bodies Monitoring Respect for Human Rights during States of Emergency, complement on the enforcement side the substantive norms found in the Paris Minimum Standards of Human Rights Norms in a State of Emergency, adopted by the ILA in 1984.


2014 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-51
Author(s):  
Chris Hedges

In this no-holds-barred essay, former New York Times Middle East correspondent and Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Chris Hedges examines how the United States’ staunch support provides Israel with impunity to visit mayhem on a population which it subjugates and holds captive. Notwithstanding occasional and momentary criticism, the official U.S. cheerleading stance is not only an embarrassing spectacle, Hedges argues, it is also a violation of international law, and an illustration of the disfiguring and poisonous effect of the psychosis of permanent war characteristic of both countries. The author goes on to conclude that the reality of its actions against the Palestinians, both current and historical, exposes the fiction that Israel stands for the rule of law and human rights, and gives the lie to the myth of the Jewish state and that of its sponsor, the United States.


Author(s):  
Tamara Manea ◽  

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global health crisis unlike any experienced for more than a century. The need for keeping social distancing and applying lockdown measures have resulted, in many instances, in the disruption of courts’ and prosecution services’ work, delays in proceedings and have impacted on procedural time limits and the suspension or reduction of legal aid, as well as public and community services. The measures have significantly affected international cooperation. The prosecutors have faced the challenge of making sure that, in the course of their work; the measures taken under public health emergency are used so as to protect people and not as a pretext for human rights infringements and those new legal measures are applied with strict respect for human rights obligations. The objective of Opinion nr. 15 is therefore to determine how prosecution services can, without hampering their functional autonomy, fulfill their mission with the highest quality and efficiency, respecting the rule of law and human rights, in the context of emergency situations, particularly the COVID-19 pandemic and their aftermath. This Opinion mostly does address the concerns of prosecutors to work as efficiently as possible, even under the most challenging circumstances, avoiding any unlawful or undue interference in their work and maintaining the highest quality in all their activities and strict respect for the law and human rights.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document