Advanced

In Times of Terror: Derogation and Non-Discrimination in International Human Rights Law

Hammarström, Elina LU (2017) LAGF03 20171
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Hotet från internationell terrorism har blivit en del av både den politiska och den offentliga debatten i många länder och vuxit till en av de svåraste frågorna att lösa för det internationella samfundet. Enligt folkrätten är stater skyldiga att agera för att på olika sätt för att bekämpa terrorism, men samtidigt förblir staterna bundna av sina internationella förpliktelser rörande mänskliga rättigheter. Då säkerhet och frihet kommer i konflikt, uppstår svåra avvägningar där rättigheter ställs emot samhällets säkerhet. Särskilt svår blir avvägningen då vissa gruppers rättigheter äventyras i större mån än majoritetsbefolkningens. Detta tenderar att ske inom anti-terrorismen, där stater uppfinner nya vägar att motarbeta terrorism genom att... (More)
Hotet från internationell terrorism har blivit en del av både den politiska och den offentliga debatten i många länder och vuxit till en av de svåraste frågorna att lösa för det internationella samfundet. Enligt folkrätten är stater skyldiga att agera för att på olika sätt för att bekämpa terrorism, men samtidigt förblir staterna bundna av sina internationella förpliktelser rörande mänskliga rättigheter. Då säkerhet och frihet kommer i konflikt, uppstår svåra avvägningar där rättigheter ställs emot samhällets säkerhet. Särskilt svår blir avvägningen då vissa gruppers rättigheter äventyras i större mån än majoritetsbefolkningens. Detta tenderar att ske inom anti-terrorismen, där stater uppfinner nya vägar att motarbeta terrorism genom att sikta in sig på redan utsatta grupper.

I många internationella instrument för mänskliga rättigheter finns möjligheter för stater att under exceptionella förhållanden derogera från sina skyldigheter. Denna uppsats granskar derogationsreglerna i Konventionen om medborgerliga och politiska rättigheter (ICCPR) och i Europakonventionen om skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna (ECHR) samt deras effekt i terrorismsituationer. De två regleringarna är väldigt lika till ordalydelsen, men analysen i uppsatsen framhåller att de delvis får olika genomslag i praktiken. Derogationsreglerna granskas sedan utifrån ett icke-diskrimineringsperspektiv för att behandla frågan hur befolkningen skyddas från diskriminerande anti-terrorismåtgärder i derogationssystemet. Skyddet består av ett antal steg där åtgärder kan underkännas av olika skäl, men det bredaste skyddet ges av kravet på att åtgärder ska vara nödvändiga och proportionella. Ett nytt perspektiv på förhållandet mellan frihet och säkerhet (”Human Security”) lyfts även upp som en möjlighet för stater att i framtiden övergå till en mer dynamisk syn på säkerhet. Inom Human Security betraktas mänskliga rättigheter som grunden för samhällets säkerhet, istället för ett hinder för effektiv terrorismbekämpning.

I slutet av uppsatsen appliceras ett kritiskt perspektiv för att diskutera frågan om icke-diskrimineringsskyddet i derogationssystemet är tillräckligt starkt för att skydda individer och grupper från förtryck, och uppsatsen argumenterar för att ett tydligare och säkrare skydd mot diskriminering eventuellt skulle gynna både staterna och deras befolkning. (Less)
Abstract
The threat of international terrorism has become an integral part of both political and public debate in many countries and it has grown to become one of the hardest questions for the international community to solve. According to international law states are obliged to act to combat terrorism in various ways, but even during a threat states remain bound by their international human rights obligations. When liberty and security come into conflict, difficult considerations between human rights and a secure society arise. These considerations become especially difficult when the rights of certain groups become more compromised than those of the majority. This tends to happen in counter-terrorism situations, where states devise new ways to... (More)
The threat of international terrorism has become an integral part of both political and public debate in many countries and it has grown to become one of the hardest questions for the international community to solve. According to international law states are obliged to act to combat terrorism in various ways, but even during a threat states remain bound by their international human rights obligations. When liberty and security come into conflict, difficult considerations between human rights and a secure society arise. These considerations become especially difficult when the rights of certain groups become more compromised than those of the majority. This tends to happen in counter-terrorism situations, where states devise new ways to combat terrorism by targeting already exposed groups.

In many international human rights instruments, there are possibilities for states to derogate from their obligations under exceptional circumstances. This thesis examines the derogation regimes of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and their impact in counter-terrorism situations. The two regimes have very similar wordings, but the analysis in the thesis suggests that their practical effects differ somewhat. The derogation provisions are examined from a non-discrimination perspective in order to address the question how groups and individuals are protected from discriminatory anti-terrorism measures within the derogation system. The discrimination protection is constructed by way of a number of steps where a state action can be found unjustified for different reasons, but the widest protection is afforded by the requirement that measures be necessary and proportional. A new premise for the question of liberty versus security (“Human Security”) is also considered as a future possibility for states to create a new and more dynamic way of looking at security. Within Human Security, human rights are considered the core of a secure society, instead of an obstacle for effective counter-terrorism. At the end of the thesis a critical perspective is applied to discuss whether the derogation regime adequately protects groups and individuals from repressive measures and the thesis argues that both states and their people perhaps could stand to gain from a clearer and more secure discrimination protection. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Hammarström, Elina LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20171
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
public international law, folkrätt, human rights, mänskliga rättigheter, derogation, counter-terrorism, non-discrimination, icke-diskriminering, ICCPR, ECHR
language
English
id
8908039
date added to LUP
2017-06-29 11:00:40
date last changed
2017-06-29 11:00:40
@misc{8908039,
  abstract     = {The threat of international terrorism has become an integral part of both political and public debate in many countries and it has grown to become one of the hardest questions for the international community to solve. According to international law states are obliged to act to combat terrorism in various ways, but even during a threat states remain bound by their international human rights obligations. When liberty and security come into conflict, difficult considerations between human rights and a secure society arise. These considerations become especially difficult when the rights of certain groups become more compromised than those of the majority. This tends to happen in counter-terrorism situations, where states devise new ways to combat terrorism by targeting already exposed groups.

In many international human rights instruments, there are possibilities for states to derogate from their obligations under exceptional circumstances. This thesis examines the derogation regimes of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and their impact in counter-terrorism situations. The two regimes have very similar wordings, but the analysis in the thesis suggests that their practical effects differ somewhat. The derogation provisions are examined from a non-discrimination perspective in order to address the question how groups and individuals are protected from discriminatory anti-terrorism measures within the derogation system. The discrimination protection is constructed by way of a number of steps where a state action can be found unjustified for different reasons, but the widest protection is afforded by the requirement that measures be necessary and proportional. A new premise for the question of liberty versus security (“Human Security”) is also considered as a future possibility for states to create a new and more dynamic way of looking at security. Within Human Security, human rights are considered the core of a secure society, instead of an obstacle for effective counter-terrorism. At the end of the thesis a critical perspective is applied to discuss whether the derogation regime adequately protects groups and individuals from repressive measures and the thesis argues that both states and their people perhaps could stand to gain from a clearer and more secure discrimination protection.},
  author       = {Hammarström, Elina},
  keyword      = {public international law,folkrätt,human rights,mänskliga rättigheter,derogation,counter-terrorism,non-discrimination,icke-diskriminering,ICCPR,ECHR},
  language     = {eng},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {In Times of Terror: Derogation and Non-Discrimination in International Human Rights Law},
  year         = {2017},
}