About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

75 Nordic J. Int'l L. 63 (2006)
A Lifeline in Time - Non-Retroactivity and Continuing Violations under the ECHR

handle is hein.journals/nordic75 and id is 73 raw text is: Nordic Journal of International Law, 75: 63-88, 2006. 63 © 2006 Koninklijke Brill NV Printed in the Netherlands. A Lifeline in Time - Non-retroactivity and Continuing Violations under the ECHR ANTOINE BUYSE* Abstract. The protective shield of a human rights treaty in principle only works once it has entered into force. But what about the frequent problem of human rights vio- lations that occurred or started before that time; can one complain about those on the international level? In other words, what are the limitations of the ratione temporis jurisdiction of supervisory human rights mechanisms? This article explores this question in the context of general public international law through a case study of the European Convention on Human Rights. It argues that the European case law's variations on principles of international law can be explained by the special nature of human rights treaties. 1. Introduction The interplay in timing between conflicts and adherence to human rights treaties is a diverse and important one. Its importance resides in its relevance to admissibility questions before international supervisory institutions. Its diversity appears from the different situations that are conceivable. In the first one, a state involved in an armed conflict is a party to such a treaty and con- tinues to be so throughout and after the conflict without derogating at any time. The treaty then applies during the whole period and can be invoked when complaining about human rights violations that occurred during the conflict. This situation poses no particular problems ratione temporis.' In the second situation a state is party to a human rights treaty, but the state itself dis- solves into several new states during the conflict. The question then is whether * Antoine Buyse is a researcher and assistant lecturer at the department of Public Law of Leiden University, the Netherlands. He is currently writing a Ph.D. thesis on housing restitution after conflict from the perspective of the European Convention of Human Rights. He would like to thank professor Rick Lawson for his comments on earlier drafts of this article. E-mail: A.C.Buyse@law.leidenuniv.nl Apart, of course, from possible time limits as an admissibility criterion. See e.g., Article 35 ECHR: The Court may only deal with the matter ... within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken. This issue is in some ways closely related to the topic of continuing violations (see para. 8.5).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most