CREEPING JURISDICTION OF  THE EUROPEAN COURT OF  HUMAN RIGHTS: THE BANKOVIC CASE VS THE LOIZIDOU CASE

Aslan GÜNDÜZ

Makale detayları

CREEPING JURISDICTION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: THE BANKOVIC CASE VS THE LOIZIDOU CASE

Yazarlar:

Aslan GÜNDÜZ

Yayıncı:

T.C Dışişleri Bakanlığı

Dergi:

PERCEPTIONS: Journal of International Affairs 2002 Vol.7 Issue 3, pp.1-31

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

8/2002

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2000586638

Sıklık:

İki Yıllık

eISSN:

2651-3315

pISSN:

1300-8641

Özet:

 

May the European Court of Human Rights  ‘the Court’  review the legality of acts or  omissions of military forces of a state party to the European Convention on Human Rights   ‘the Convention’ , which have been committed outside its territory, in light of the  Convention’s terms? The answer to this question is in the first instance dependent upon  whether the Convention has given such competence to the Court. Prior to its decision in the  recent Bankovic Case,1 the European Commission of Human Rights  ‘the Commission’  and  the Court had exercised competence in a series of cases that originated from acts the state  parties concerned had committed either outside their territories or committed on their  territories but that had produced effects outside their territories.2 For example, in the Cyprus  Cases3 and the Loizidou Case4 the Commission and the Court found themselves competent  to examine individual and inter-state applications against Turkey, in which it was alleged  that the members of the Turkish armed forces in Cyprus had violated certain provisions of  the Convention. After deciding that the Turkish forces were actually in control of Northern  Cyprus, both Commission and the Court jumped, in their opinion and judgement  respectively, to the conclusion that, through such control of the area in question, Turkey had  in fact brought within its jurisdiction persons and property found or situated in the area in  question.5 The Court also found itself competent to hear a case brought by several Iraqi  citizens against Turkey alleging that during a 1995 military operation in Northern Iraq  Turkish forces violated various provisions of the Convention.

Makale detayları

CREEPING JURISDICTION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: THE BANKOVIC CASE VS THE LOIZIDOU CASE

Yazarlar: Aslan GÜNDÜZ

Yayıncı: T.C Dışişleri Bakanlığı

Dergi: PERCEPTIONS: Journal of International Affairs 2002 Vol.7 Issue 3, pp.1-31

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 8/2002

Belge Dili: İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.): 2000586638

Sıklık: İki Yıllık

eISSN: 2651-3315

pISSN: 1300-8641

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Aslan GÜNDÜZ

Yayıncı:

T.C Dışişleri Bakanlığı

Dergi:

PERCEPTIONS: Journal of International Affairs 2002 Vol.7 Issue 3, pp.1-31

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

8/2002

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2000586638

Sıklık:

İki Yıllık

eISSN:

2651-3315

pISSN:

1300-8641