Article 15 of The European Convention on Human Rights and the Notion of State of Emergency

• Author: Yrd.Doç.Dr. Joseph Zand
• Pages: 159-224

İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Cilt: 5 Sayı:1 Yıl 2014 159

ARTICLE 15 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN

RIGHTS AND THE NOTION OF STATE OF EMERGENCY

Yrd.Doç.Dr. Joseph Zand*

Abstract

This article will critically evaluate the jurisprudence of the European

Court of Human Rights specifically with regards to Article 15 of the

European Convention on Human Rights and its development since its

inception. There is no doubt that departure from normal human rights

standards in certain circumstances is unavoidable. Provisions such as

Article 15 of the Convention should be in place to protect the life and

territorial integrity of a nation in times of war and other emergency

situations. Article 15 incorporates, in effect, the principle of necessity

common to all legal systems. It allows a government to derogate from the

Convention standards in times of public emergency. This article will

review the reasons for Article 15, the requirements of the right to derogate

and the procedure of derogation. Further, it will consider the case of A

and Others v. the United Kingdom which will indicate the new challenges

that the European Court of Human Rights will have to address in the

future.

Keywords: Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the

Notion of State of Emergency, European Convention on human Rights,

and European Court of Human Rights.

* Faculty of Law, Inonu University, Malatya, Turkey; Joseph.zand@inonu.edu.tr.

Yrd. Doç. Dr. Joseph ZAND

160 İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Cilt: 5 Sayı:1 Yıl 2014

İNSAN HAKLARI AVRUPA SÖZLEŞMESİ'NİN 15. MADDESI VE

OLAGANÜSTÜ KAVRAMI

Özet

Bu makale Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin içtihatlarını

özellikle Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nin 15. Maddesi ve yürürlüğe

girdiği günden bu zamana gelişimi hususunda eleştirel olarak

değerlendirmektedir. Belirli şartlar altında normal insan hakları

standartlarından vazgeçmenin kaçınılmaz olduğu aşikârdır. Sözleşmenin

15. maddesindeki gibi hükümler savaş ve diğer olağanüstü durumlarda bir

ulusun yaşam ve toprak bütünlüğünü korumak amacı ile yürürlükte

olmaya devam etmektedir. 15. madde esas itibariyle tüm hukuk sistemleri

için ortak bir zorunluluk ilkesini bünyesinde barınmaktadır. Bu madde

olağanüstü durumlarda devletlere Sözleşmenin standartlarını askıya alma

imkânı sağlar. Bu makalede 15. maddenin gerekçeleri, askıya alma

koşulları ve usulü incelenecektir. Ayrıca, makale Avrupa İnsan Hakları

Mahkemesi’nin gelecekte ele alması gereken yeni sorunları gösteren A ve

Diğerleri v. Birleşik Krallık davası incelenmiştir.

Anahtar Sözcükler: Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi 15. Madde,

Olağanüstü Hal Kavramı, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi, Avrupa

İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi

1. Introduction

The European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) has been

described as much a political document as it is a legal one.

1

Over the years

the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) has developed its

understanding of three basic principles which form the convention values,

1

M.W. Janis, R.S. Kay and A.W. Bradley, European Human Rights Law: Text and

Materials, Oxford U.P., 2008, 24; see also Council of Europe, ‘Definition and

Development of Human Rights and Popular Sovereignty in Europe (Science and

Technique of Democracy), Council of Europe Publication, 2011, p. 132.

Article 15 of The European Convention on Human Rights and The Notion of State of Emergency

İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Cilt: 5 Sayı:1 Yıl 2014 161

democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

2

Since its establishment the

European Court of Human Rights has had to strike a balance between

upholding human rights and the sovereignty of the contracting parties.

3

Indeed, this is nowhere more apparent than when in occasions the Court

has had to decide whether a situation of “exceptional and imminent

danger” actually existed. More often than not, in such instances of threat

to the national security, the high contracting parties to the Council of

Europe are granted a wide margin of appreciation to neutralize the threat

and protect both itself and its citizens.

4

According to the Courts

jurisprudence, doctrines of judicial deference, such as the margin of

appreciation act as a protectorate for state sovereignty.

5

In certain

instances, states choose to respond to threats to their national security by

declaring a state of emergency, according to which they could derogate

from certain laws, or temporarily suspend, in times of ‘war or public

emergency threatening the life of the nation.’

6

Most major international

2

Council of Europe, Collected Edition of the “Travaux Preparatoires of the European

Conventions on Human Rights/Recueil des Tra vaux P repara toires de la Convention

Europeene des Droits de L’homme, Vol. I: Preparator y Commission of the Council of

Europe Committee of Ministers, Consultative Assembly, 11 May-8 September 1949 (The

Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1975), p. 266.

3

C. Gearty, ‘Democracy and Human Rights in the Court of Human Rights: a Critical

Appraisal’ (2000) 51 Northern Ireland Legal Quar terly 381, 396; Bonner, D, ‘Managing

terrorism While Respecting Human Rights? European Aspect of the Anti-Terrorism

Crime and Security Act 2001’ (2002) 8 European P ublic Law 497-525.

4

The margin of appreciation doctrine was born into the Convention jurisprudence in the

Commission’s Report in the Cyprus cases in 1958; see Greece v United Kingdom, Appl.

no. 176/57 (1958-1959) 2 Yearbook of the Eur opean Court of Human Rights, 525,

Generally see generally, H. Yourow, The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the

Dynamics of European Con vention on Human Rights Jurisp rudence, The Hague:

Kluwer, 1996; Y. Arai-Takahashi, The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the

Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of ECHR, Intersentia Publishers, 2002.

55

Handyside v. The United Kingdom, Appl. no. 5493/72, 7 December 1976, para 47.

6

Normally, if a state was to deny the existence of an armed conflict be it of internal or

international nature on its territory, then the situation comes under the law enforcement

paradigm ruled by international human rights law (IHRL) mechanism. Moreover, the

state concerned cannot simply claim that it is an internal matter and does not concern

international law. T. Pfanner, ‘Asymmetrical Warfare from the P erspective o f

Humanitarian Law and Humanitarian Action’, IRRC, vol. 87, No. 957, March 2006, pp.

149-174; p. 165.