L’importance du contrôle international

Loading...

Из курса от партнера University of Geneva

Introduction aux Droits de l’Homme

767 оценки

University of Geneva

Introduction aux Droits de l’Homme

767 оценки

Ce cours propose une introduction à la protection internationale des droits de l’homme. Il en présente les sources, les catégories, le contenu et les limites qui leur sont opposables, ainsi que les obligations qu’ils génèrent à la charge des Etats. Il expose aussi les principaux mécanismes de mise en œuvre prévus au niveau universel et régional pour assurer leur respect. Depuis la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, les droits de l’homme sont un domaine en plein essor. De nombreuses causes sont aujourd’hui défendues et débattues sous la bannière des droits de l’homme : la protection des minorités, la lutte contre la discrimination des femmes, des personnes lesbiennes, gaies, bisexuelles et transgenres (LGBT), la lutte contre la torture et les disparitions forcées, la lutte contre la pauvreté ou encore la protection de l’environnement et la protection des données. Partout dans le monde, ces causes mobilisent tant les acteurs politiques que la société civile et elles sont discutées dans de multiples enceintes, nationales et internationales. Le présent cours vise à offrir les bases nécessaires pour appréhender et comprendre le domaine vaste et complexe que sont devenus les droits de l’homme. Quelles sont les caractéristiques et les différentes catégorie des droits de l’homme ? Quels sont leurs fondements philosophiques et historiques ? Pourquoi ces droits sont-ils importants ? Quels instruments visent à les protéger ? Comment rendre ces droits opérationnels ? Quels mécanismes existent pour les mettre en œuvre et quels sont leurs avantages et leurs inconvénients ? En abordant ces questions, le cours s’adresse tant à des membres de la communauté universitaire qu’à des praticiens (responsables politiques, membres du corps diplomatique, fonctionnaires, journalistes, membres d’ONG, défenseurs des droits de l’homme et spécialistes de la coopération au développement, de l’aide humanitaire et des questions relatives aux réfugiés), ainsi qu’à toutes les personnes qui sont engagées dans la protection des droits de l’homme ou simplement désireuses de mieux comprendre ce phénomène. Le cours est conçu et dispensé par les Professeurs Maya Hertig Randall et Michel Hottelier, de la Faculté de droit de l’Université de Genève. Durant le cours, des membres d’organes et institutions voués à la protection des droits de l’homme et des spécialistes de la communauté académique seront invités à intervenir. Le cours est donné en français. Il consiste en une série de 8 sessions, comprenant chacune un certain nombre de brèves présentations vidéo (8 à 15 minutes). Chaque session s'accompagne d'un questionnaire d'évaluation. Des lectures préparatoires sont requises pour chaque session.

Из урока

Semaine 3

Le cours de cette semaine exposera les sources des droits de l'homme dans une perspective juridique. Il précisera et approfondira, dans le sillage des cours précédents, le siège normatif des droits de l'homme, l'articulation entre ces derniers et les droits fondamentaux d'origine nationale, ainsi que certains des problèmes que pose la coexistence de ces garanties. Le cours poursuivra trois objectifs : (1) familiariser les étudiants avec les sources juridiques des droits de l'homme ; (2) identifier et apprendre à résoudre les problèmes générés par la coexistence des droits fondamentaux et des droits de l'homme ; (3) exposer, puis souligner l'importance qui revient au contrôle international du respect des droits de l'homme.

Introduction2:13

Les sources nationales3:35

Les sources internationales15:51

L’articulation des sources8:06

L’implantation dans l’ordre juridique des Etats11:59

L’importance du contrôle international12:53

Entretien avec Abdoulaye Soma8:25

Познакомьтесь с преподавателями

Maya Hertig Randall
Professeure ordinaire au département de droit public
Faculté de droit
Michel Hottelier
Professeur ordinaire au département de droit public
Faculté de droit
Zohra Kibboua
Collaboratrice scientifique / Assistante doctorante au département de droit public
Faculté de droit
Anton Vallelian
Collaborateur scientifique / Assistant au département de droit public
Faculté de droit

Introduction to Human Rights

Week 3: The sources of Human Rights

VII. The importance of international monitoring

We won't talk now in detail about the protection mechanisms of Human Rights.

This will be discussed later with experts and specialists.

Here, the idea is simply to link the concept of international protection

to the sources of Human Rights,

which are the subject of this week.

The aim is to show the important role of these procedures

in monitoring respect for Human Rights, as we mentioned many times,

and also particularly in Human Rights concretization, in their implementation

and sometimes even in their recognition.

In other words, the monitoring process for the respect of Human Rights plays a

crucial role in the very concept of these rights.

Concision is indeed a characteristic feature of Human Rights.

Most of the time, Human Rights are proclaimed, enshrined and recognized

by simple phrases that only reveal and underline the values and the behaviors

to be protected.

They give an input to a later stage:

their implementation which requires an extremely important process of

interpretation and of concretization.

Let us take an example of this.

The right to life

is protected

by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

by the American Convention on Human Rights,

by the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights,

and by the European Convention on Human Rights.

All these instruments give a fundamental value to the right to life.

This is why I think that nobody will contest that the right to life is the

input to the respect of all other Human Rights.

This is easy to understand.

The question is:

when does life legally start?

When does a being under a gestation period legally acquire the status of human being?

And when does life end?

In other words, does the right to life bring the duty to live at any cost and

in all conditions?

Or does this guarantee also include the right not to live?

That is to say, the right to put an end to one's life

and, if needed, to profit from an active assistance to put an end to one's life.

Nobody will deny that these questions are fundamental and crucial.

Indeed, the legal status to the right of life allows to determine and to

evaluate the conformity of national legislation

such as voluntary abortion,

the resort to certain forms of therapeutic treatments at the end of life,

or even assisted suicide

regarding the right to life guaranteed by international human rights law.

Human Rights instruments do not aim at giving a categorical and

definitive answer to these complex and delicate issues.

Thanks to the guarantees that these instruments enshrine, they mark

the input of a thought regarding the respect of the most

precious values of human dignity.

These questions can be discussed upon practical situations and concrete cases.

They raise concerns and can lead to answers that can change

in time and space.

Answers to these type of questions regarding the right to life, its input,

its potential limits and the moment when this right stops to express its

legal effects come first to national bodies and then to international

bodies which are responsible for the respect of Human Rights.

This is the point we are making.

According to us, the process of interpretation and of concretization

of Human Rights represents

a task at least as considerable and important as the normative establishment

of these rights.

In other words,

the process of interpretation and of implementation of these guarantees,

through the mechanisms that we are going to study later, is inseparable

from the sources of Human Rights.

This means that the practice of Human Rights, beyond their establishment

by the process of recognition through international treaties,

is at least as important as their establishment.

Let me take another example:

the prohibition against torture appears in all the international

Human Rights instruments.

Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights mentions,

for example, that:

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading

treatment or punishment. [...]"

Article 3 of the European Court of Human Rights,

Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights,

and article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights

have similar content.

Such provision are fundamental and linked to the human existence and to human

respect and dignity.

The interpretation of these provision can undergo an evolution over time.

The case law of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is quite

interesting in this respect.

For example,

what distinguishes torture from a "simply inhuman treatment" or from

a "simply degrading treatment"?

Human Rights instruments do not give an answer to this question.

It is the European judge, the international judge, who had to specify during a

developing case law, that a scale exists in the intensity of suffering and in the

infringement of human dignity.

First comes degrading treatments.

Inhuman treatments are more serious.

Finally comes torture.

Only casuistry can give an answer to this kind of question.

This is when article 3 of the European Court of Human Rights can apply.

The Strasbourg Court also highlighted that prohibition against torture is absolute.

This law has no restriction or exemptions.

There is no deliberation possible in this field.

Conflicts of World War II find their establishment here.

It taught us that prohibition against torture must be unconditional.

The Soering case was the subject of what you had to read for today.

In July 1989, the European Court of Human Rights made clear that

prohibition against torture

has national and international effects because of the principle of non-refoulement

which is a principle that acquired the value of binding imperative rule

of international law.

In other words, according to this perspective, the responsibility of

the European State is committed when it gives a person over to non-European

authorities, which are not part of the European Convention on Human Rights,

knowing that this person incurs a likelihood of violation of the prohibition

against torture in the place of destination that was destined to the person.

This is what happened in the Soering case.

Such a situation can commit the responsibility of the State that

extradites, sends back or turns away someone while the State which commits

the violation of the right in question is not part of the European Convention

on Human Rights.

Let us now talk about another very important decision pronounced in 1988 by the

Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

This is also a text that we asked you to read for today.

The Court of San José in Costa Rica made clear that the prohibition against

torture has not only to do with the prohibition for an agent of the State

to engage in acts of torture.

Of course, this is a material part of the prohibition against torture

but there is also

a procedural part which is integrated into prohibition against torture.

In other words,

States are not only responsible in case of violation of the right not to be tortured.

They also share a procedural responsibility.

According to international human rights law, States have to instigate a detailed

and effective independent investigation.

Considerable resources can be involved in order to identify the people who are

responsible for acts of torture if the allegation of such a treatment is

presented in a defensible manner.

The aim is to identify and to punish those who committed this violation.

These points could be made thanks to international monitoring procedures

which aim at

giving effect to the guarantees represented in the international

Human Rights instruments.

In other words, the case law derived from these International Courts of Justice

or the practice of the bodies responsible for the respect of Human Rights even when

they only have a judicial function,

represent a source of protection of Human Rights which allows not only

to reveal the content of these conventional guarantees but also

to interpret them and even to complete their protection by fitting them with

the needs of contemporary life.

Case law, casuistry or international practice in terms of Human Rights

thus represent a derived but indisputable source aiming at completing and at

reinforcing Human Rights' legal effects.

Ознакомьтесь с нашим каталогом

Присоединяйтесь бесплатно и получайте персонализированные рекомендации, обновления и предложения.

Coursera делает лучшее в мире образование доступным каждому, предлагая онлайн-курсы от ведущих университетов и организаций.

© Coursera Inc., 2019 Все права защищены.

Загрузить из App Store

Загрузить в Google Play