The Union system of human rights protection and the reversal of the presumption of equivalent protection to that of the ECHR
Keywords:
Equivalent protection doctrine, manifest deficiency, Bosphorus, Ullens de Schooten y Rezabek, Michaud, international cooperation, EU accession to ECHR, European Mechanism StabilityAbstract
With the equivalent protection doctrine, the ECtHR has shown a particular deference in order to avoid placing Members of international organizations face to conflicting international obligations. Without any doubt, this international Court has demonstrated a great sensitivity to the peculiarities of the European integration process, approach which can be justified between supreme jurisdictions guaranteeing independently respect for the same rights. From an overall analysis of the ECHR Case Law, it can be deduced that except in case of manifest deficiency it seems highly unlikely that the ECtHR backtracks on this doctrine after the EU accession to the ECHR. And this because the arguments stated in Bosphorus on the needs of European cooperation and integration will remain valid after accession. As a result, they can justify just an equivalent human rights protection standard in certain areas of EU Law. Neither the argument addressed by the doctrine in order to avoid the double standard seem plausible, given the differences between international organizations and States, nor the reasons given by the ECtHR for the legitimacy of the principle of transfers of powers to an international organizations like the EU will disappear under the effect of EU accession to the ECHR. From these reasons, this of greater value is the importance the ECtHR provides to the international cooperation process, which could be hampered if it proceeded with a systematic review of all acts of international organizations. This deference has led to apply this doctrine not only to the EU but also to other international organizations. Without any doubt, this is certainly a laudable intention. However, from another perspective this deference is perhaps somewhat excessive. Surely, the alternative option would evolve the phenomenon of international institutional cooperation towards effective promotion and protection of human rights process-oriented.Downloads
Issue
Section
STUDIES
License
Copyright
Submission of a manuscript to the RDCE implies having read and accepted the journal's editorial guidelines and instructions for authors. When a work is accepted for publication, it is understood that the author grants the RDCE exclusive rights of reproduction, distribution and, where appropriate, sale of his manuscript for exploitation in all countries of the world in printed version, as well as any other magnetic, optical and digital media.
Authors shall transfer the publishing rights of their manuscript to RDCE so that it may be disseminated and capitalised on Intranets, the Internet and any web portals and wireless devices that the publisher may decide, by placing it at the disposal of users so that the latter may consult it online and extract content from it, print it and/or download and save it. These activities must comply with the terms and conditions outlined on the website hosting the work. However, the RDCE authorises authors of papers published in the journal to include a copy of these papers, once published, on their personal websites and/or other open access digital repositories. Copies must include a specific mention of RDCE, citing the year and issue of the journal in which the article was published, and adding a link to the RDCE website(s).
A year after its publication, the works of the RDCE will be under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivative 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which allows third parties to share the work as long as its author and its first publication is indicated, without the right to commercial exploitation and the elaboration of derivative works.
Plagiarism and scientific fraud
The publication of work that infringes on intellectual property rights is the sole responsibility of the authors, including any conflicts that may occur regarding infringement of copyright. This includes, most importantly, conflicts related to the commission of plagiarism and/or scientific fraud.
Practices constituting scientific plagiarism are as follows:
1. Presenting the work of others as your own.
2. Adopting words or ideas from other authors without due recognition.
3. Not using quotation marks or another distinctive format to distinguish literal quotations.
4. Giving incorrect information about the true source of a citation.
5. The paraphrasing of a source without mentioning the source.
6. Excessive paraphrasing, even if the source is mentioned.
Practices constituting scientific fraud are as follows:
1. Fabrication, falsification or omission of data and plagiarism.
2. Duplicate publication.
3. Conflicts of authorship.
Warning
Any breach of these Rules shall constitute a ground for rejection of the manuscript submitted.