Abstract
The aim of the article is to compare the way in which the issue of responsibility for violations related to the acts of unrecognized authorities claiming to be States is treated by the European Court of Human Rights and other international courts, particularly the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The article considers in detail the relations between jurisdiction and responsibility, responsibility of parent States (including the concept of “positive obligations”) and responsibility of States which provide assistance to unrecognized regimes (with emphasis put on the concept of “effective control”). The results of the study indicate that the jurisprudence of the European Court differs in several important aspects from decisions of other international courts. These differences, while undoubtedly enhancing the protection of human rights in Europe, contribute to the process of fragmentation of the law of international responsibility.
Publisher
Instytut Nauk Prawnych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
Reference74 articles.
1. Balcerzak M., Odpowiedzialność państwa-strony Europejskiej konwencji o ochronie praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności: studium prawnomiędzynarodowe, Toruń 2013.
2. Charpentier J., La reconnaissance internationale et l’evolution du droit des gens, Paris 1956.
3. Cullen A., Wheatley S., The Human Rights of Individuals in De Facto Regimes under the European Convention on Human Rights, „Human Rights Law Review” 2013, nr 13(4).
4. Decyzja z dnia 12 grudnia 2001 r., w sprawie Vlastimir and Borka Banković, Živana Stojanović, Mirjana Stoimenovski, Dragana Joksimović and Dragan Suković against Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom, skarga 52207/99.
5. Decyzja z dnia 13 grudnia 2011 r., w sprawie Georgia against Russia (II), skarga 38263/08.