The European Convention of Human Rights is unlikely to be an effective remedy for local individuals alleging human rights violations by European states participating in peace support operations abroad in the future. This conclusion is substantiated by analysing the restrictive and legally flawed stance taken by the European Court of Human Rights in the joint cases of Behrami and Saramati which had not only a precedential effect on this court's own jurisprudence but also on the case of Al Jedda v. UK Secretary of Defence before the UK House of Lords. Ultimately, the decisions in these cases may be understood by the choice to let the rationale of effective functioning of peace support operations prevail over the effectiveness of human rights protection of local individuals.
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
New Article on Behrami and Saramati cases
The decision of the Court on the actions of peacekeepers in Behrami and Saramati keeps yielding food for thought for academics, as a new article in the latest issue of the International Community Law Review shows. Alexander Breitegger of the University of Vienna has written 'Sacrificing the Effectiveness of the European Convention on Human Rights on the Altar of the Effective Functioning of Peace Support Operations: A Critique of Behrami & Saramati and Al Jedda'. This is the abstract: