Tuesday, 26 August 2014

New ECHR Readings

Here is another selection of recent academic writings on the European Convention of Human Rights. The newest issue of the Human Rights Law Review (vol. 14, no. 3, September 2014) has been published. Its contents include:

* Robert Spano, 'Universality or Diversity of Human Rights?: Strasbourg in the Age of Subsidiarity'
* Ed Bates, 'Analysing the Prisoner Voting Saga and the British Challenge to Strasbourg'
* James A. Roffee, 'No Consensus on Incest? Criminalisation and Compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights'

Earlier in the month, the EJIL Talk! blog reporter on the Yukos case's just satisfaction: 

* Dr. Conor McCarthy ‘The ECtHR’s Largest Ever Award for Just Satisfaction Rendered in the Yukos Case’ 

Finally, the newest issue of the Cambridge Journal of International and Comparativ​e Law (vol. 3.2, 2014, pp. 407-443) includes:

* Vladislava Stoyanova, 'Article 4 of the ECHR and the Obligation of Criminalizing Slavery, Servitude, Forced Labour and Human Trafficking'. This is the article's abstract: 

This article addresses the interaction between international human rights law and national criminal law as exemplified and revealed in relation to the abuses of slavery, servitude, forced labour and human trafficking (THB). First, I point out the mismatch between the interpretative techniques of international human rights law and national criminal law. The reportedly low numbers of prosecutions and convictions for abuses against migrants has gathered increasing attention. As a reaction it has been suggested that the definitions of THB and of slavery, servitude and forced labour (where the latter have been specifically criminalized) have to be expansively construed. These suggestions ignore basic criminal law precepts. Criminal law has to remain faithful to the principle of legal certainty and to the rights of the accused which ban expansive interpretations. It is human rights law which celebrates liberal interpretations of concepts for the purpose of holding states internationally responsible for their failures to protect. Despite the difference in their interpretative standpoints, there is a clear interaction between these two fields of law. A manifestation of the interaction is that the ECHR obliges states to criminalize the abuses falling within the material scope of Article 4 of the ECHR. I argue that many states have failed to fulfil this obligation since the focus has been predominantly placed on the criminalisation of THB. This leads to failures to address abuses where there are no elements of recruitment, transportation, transfer etc. by means of deception/coercion. I also demonstrate that Article 4 of the ECHR obliges states to incorporate in their domestic criminal laws clear definitions of crimes intended to address the abuses falling within the scope of Article 4. An obligation which many states have failed to fulfil since they have directly copied the international definition of THB and/or the human rights definitions of slavery, servitude and forced labour, without further establishing the elements of the crimes at domestic level. Finally, I suggest that there needs to be a better articulation of the distinctions between different crimes meant to addresses abuses falling within the ambit of Article 4 of the ECHR.

No comments: