As Bad as it Gets: The European Court of Human Rights' Behrami and Saramati Decision and General International Law
University of Nottingham School of Law
School of Law Union University Belgrade
August 11, 2008
International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 58, 2009
This article examines the European Court of Human Rights' encounter with general international law in its Behrami and Saramati admissibility decision, where it held that the actions of the armed forces of states acting pursuant to UN Security Council authorizations are attributable not to the states themselves, but to the United Nations. The article will try to demonstrate that the Court's analysis is entirely at odds with the established rules of responsibility in international law, and is equally dubious as a matter of policy. Indeed, the article will show that the Court's decision can be only be explained by the Court's reluctance to decide on the questions of state jurisdiction and norm conflict, the latter issue becoming the clearest when Behrami is compared to the Al-Jedda judgment of the House of Lords.
Note: a pre-print version of an article forthcoming in the ICLQ, published and copyrighted by Oxford University Press. Please cite to the final version as published on the Oxford Journals website whenever possible.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 33
Keywords: Behrami, Al-Jedda, state responsibility, attribution, human rightsAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: August 11, 2008 ; Last revised: January 27, 2009
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.406 seconds