Taking Care of Strasbourg: The Status of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights in Kosovo’s Domestic Legal System

This paper addresses the position of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case-law in Kosovo’s domestic legal order. To begin with, it reviews the background of the issue of human rights in Kosovo highlighting its distinct position and perspective. This article then analyses the position held by the European Convention on Human Rights and its protocols in Kosovo’s legal order while also addressing the ECHR’s constitutionalization, its direct effect and the constitutional review on basis of it. The paper then examines whether the case-law of the ECtHR is binding in Kosovo, whether it is directly effective, and whether Kosovo’s Constitutional Court can use it as a ground in the conduct of constitutional reviews. This paper argues that the ECHR and the case-law of the ECtHR both hold a privileged status under Kosovo’s constitutional law, despite Kosovo not being a party to the ECHR and, therefore, having no international liability to implement the ECHR. In addition, the paper offers certain arguments regarding the relative positions of the ECHR and the case-law of the ECtHR within the current practice of Kosovo’s judicial system. This paper concludes with the argument that the ECHR and the case-law of the ECtHR hold a privileged status in the context of Kosovo’s domestic legal order—one which could serve as a precedent in respecting human rights and freedoms.     

Going Unnoticed? Diagnosing the Right to Asylum in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union enshrines the right to asylum. Nonetheless, despite its ‘constitutionalisation’ within primary law, asylum remains a far too amorphous right, whose axiological potential has gone virtually unnoticed in the ongoing migratory crisis. The paper will argue that this is partly due to the fact that the Court of Justice on a few occasions has declined to clarify the scope of Article 18. The provision at issue therefore remains a pathological element that requires an adequate diagnosis on which accurate prognoses can be based. In an attempt to diagnose the right to asylum enshrined in Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, this paper will compare different hermeneutical approaches and reflect on the contextualisation of the mentioned provision through the lens of domestic and EU case law and in the light of the recent EU–Turkey Statement. The article will ultimately propose to interpret the EU asylum legislation as instrumental to the effective exercise of the right to asylum.     

Legal Recognition of Plural Unions: Is A Nonmarital Relationship Status the Answer to the Dilemma?

Intimate relationships involving three or more adults are increasingly visible in American society. Multiparty relationships, which are also known as plural unions, mainly take two different forms: systemic polygyny and polyamory. Family law currently denies recognition to all plural unions. Granting legal recognition to multiparty relationships would advance the goal of family pluralism and expand access to valuable legal protections. However, the possibility of granting official recognition to plural unions must be approached with caution, because systemic polygyny poses a serious risk of harm to women and children arising from the imposition of oppressive gender roles. A possible solution to this dilemma lies in offering a formal nonmarital status (such as civil union, domestic partnership, reciprocal beneficiary, or designated beneficiary) to participants in plural unions. As a result of their differing attitudes toward marriage, polyamorists would be likely to embrace a nonmarital relationship status, while participants in systemic polygyny would most likely reject it. Thus, providing a nonmarital status for plural unions could allow polyamorists to obtain the benefits of relationship recognition, without placing the government's seal of approval on the oppressive aspects of systemic polygyny.     

Should Empathy Play any Role in the Interpretation of Constitutional Rights?

This paper explores the role that empathy can play in the interpretation of constitutional rights. It starts by analyzing the complex concept of empathy, comparing it with similar yet distinct concepts such as projection, sympathy and emotional contagion, then it discusses the widespread distrust of empathy among lawyers and legal thinkers. It will be argued that empathy can play a significant role in the interpretation of constitutional rights, mostly in identifying the interests and needs put forward in the claims and counterclaims of the parties. In the final section, the impact of empathetic judging on judicial minimalism will be briefly discussed.     

Law Enforcement and the Rights of the Accused: Are the Police Getting a Bad Rap?

Nationwide, law enforcement professionals have endured increasing scrutiny regarding their treatment of custodial suspects and their alleged abridgement of suspects’ Constitutional rights. At the same time, in the interests of community safety, many members of the public fully expect police officers to function efficiently in arresting and facilitating the prosecution of likely perpetrators. These perspectives reflect due-process and crime-control models respectively. Very little is known, however, about how law enforcement professionals actually view the rights of the accused when not acutely immersed in the cross-currents of public opinion. Using an anonymous survey, the current investigation addresses both Miranda rights as well as the European Union’s (EU) much more comprehensive approach to the rights of the accused. In general, this sample of 209 urban police officers favored protections of criminal suspects that went considerably beyond Miranda safeguards.     

A Survey: Children’s Rights Post Termination of Parental Rights and Pre-Adoption

This survey of the statutory provisions and case law of all 50 states and the District of Columbia includes the rights of children to parental support, inheritance, and familial association remaining upon termination of parental rights. A majority of states terminate all the child’s rights at the time parental rights are severed. However, a number of states by explicit statutes or statutory construction have determined that a child’s rights to parental support survives termination of parental rights. This survey examines the prevailing law in each state and suggests statutory reforms to protect the legal status and rights of children.     

On the Justiciability of the China's Social Security Rights in Contemporary——Based on the text analysis of Anthology of People's Court Case(1992-2010)

国家义务是实现社会保障权的法定义务.探讨社会保障权的可诉性,对全面把握和评判社会保障权之国家义务履行状况,具有决定性意义.以《人民法院案例选》(1992-2010)为参照系,当前中国对社会保障权的维护主要体现在社会保险权之工伤保险领域,在内容上主要表现为国家的尊重和保护义务.在明显具有给付性质或特征的社会保险权之养老保险、社会救助权、社会福利权等领域,国家对其法定义务的履行还任重而道远.在工伤认定案件中,法院对劳动者权利诉求的支持;以及在社会优抚权案件中,法院对《行政诉讼法》的扩张性解释,这些人性化举措都将如星星之火,可以燎原.     

Positive obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: the duty of the Nigerian Government to enact a Freedom of Information Act

Beginning with the Independence Constitution of 1960, the right to freedom of information and other civil and political rights have been guaranteed by successive Nigerian Constitutions as fundamental human rights. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, which incorporated the provisions of the African Charter on Human and People’s Right into Nigerian law in 1983 consolidated these and a plethora of other social, economic and cultural rights and imposed a positive duty on the government to adopt legislative and other measures to give them effect. This article develops this potentially revolutionary principle of positive obligations, which amazingly remains unsung and unused more than a quarter of a century after it became an integral part of Nigerian law. The first part of the article proposes the principle as the most effective basis to compel the enactment of a Freedom of Information legislation, which successive governments have refused to enact despite overwhelming public support and sustained lobbying for a Freedom of Information Bill first introduced in the National Assembly in 1997. The second part critically analyses the latest (2007) version of the Bill. It concludes that its provisions are inadequate to give effect to the right to freedom of information in view of the legal and bureaucratic environment under which it will operate, and suggests remedial measures.     

"Braxton Hick's" or the birth of a new era? Tracing the development of Ireland's abortion laws in respect of European Court of Human Rights Jurisprudence

In Ireland, Article 40.3.3 degrees of Bunreacht na hEireann (the Irish Constitution) guarantees the right to life of the unborn child and the equal right to life of the mother. Abortion in Ireland is permissible only where there is a real and substantial risk to the mother's own life. Since Ireland became a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights in 1950,2 there have been concerns that it could result in Ireland being compelled to introduce a right to abortion. This article commences with a review of the extant law on abortion in Ireland, tracing the Constitutional protection afforded to the unborn child. The article will discuss the impact of the European Court of Human Rights' jurisprudence in regard to access to abortion and to information on abortion services in Ireland in an effort to ascertain if it really has resulted in a radical change to Irish abortion laws. As such, it will also be necessary to examine the more recent decisions of the ECtHR such as Tysiac v. Poland, and A, B, and C v. Ireland, to determine both the approach of the ECtHR to access to abortion in general and also to consider if it has resulted in a liberalisation of abortion law in Ireland.     

The Great Rabbit Massacre – A “Comedy of the Commons”? Custom, Community and Rights of Public Access to the Links of St Andrews

In the US courts and legal scholars have rediscovered the English doctrine of custom. In her essay ``The Comedy of the Commons: Custom, Commerce, and Inherently Public Property', Professor Carol Rose argues that customary uses of recreation lands should be upheld by courts because the highest value of such land is achieved by keeping them open to the public. Rose relies in her argument on the English doctrine of custom, but the doctrine of custom legitimates local not public use. British legal history, however, provides an example of such a ``public' common in the Links of St Andrews. In the case Dempster v. Cleghorn, the golfing public sought to vindicate their customary right to the maintenance of golfing ground as it had been ``in all times past'. This article examines the case of Dempster, and the consequent riot, and asks whether it was a ``comedy of the commons'. It concludes that despite ten years of litigation and the extirpation of the Dempsters' warrened rabbits, the case nevertheless is a ``comedy of the commons' that provides a model of the meditation of public use by local custom and community. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.