Available in Russian
Author: Sofia Pimenova
DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2022-4-73-94
Keywords: provisional measures; interim measures; international justice; human rights courts; binding force; application criteria
This article is a comparative legal analysis of the regulatory framework and practice of applying provisional measures by regional human rights courts – the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights. It notes that despite the considerations expressed about an ongoing convergence of the approaches of these courts regarding provisional measures, these approaches are strikingly different in all three courts. This can be explained by the fact that they were created by different international treaties with different State parties and varying degrees of detail on the issues of provisional measures. In addition, the practice of applying provisional measures is influenced by factors such as the duration of activity and the authority of each court, as well as the general political and legal contexts in which these courts operate and the specific context in which a decision about provisional measures is made. Because of this, in practice there is an evident pluralism of these courts’ approaches to such issues as the goals and criteria for the application of provisional measures, the inseparability of the connection of provisional measures with the main case under consideration by the court, and the legal characterization of non-fulfillment of provisional measures. In addition, regional human rights courts – unlike, for instance, investment tribunals and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea – do not apply in their practice the plausibility criterion developed by the International Court of Justice, nor do they apply the fumus boni iuris criterion used by the Court of Justice of the European Union. All this increases the risk of fragmentation of international law, not only because of human rights courts’ competing interpretations of similar norms of international law and conflicting decisions, but also because of these courts’ inconsistency and lack of uniformity when ordering provisional measures.
About the author: Sofia Pimenova – Candidate of Sciences (Ph.D.) in Law, International Law Department, Faculty of Law, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia.
Citation: Pimenova S. (2022) Obespechitel’nye mery v regional’nykh sudakh po pravam cheloveka: sravnitel’no-pravovoy analiz [Provisional measures in regional courts of human rights: a comparative analysis]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 73–94. (In Russian).
References
Alisievich E. (2014) Srochnye mery v praktike organov mezhamerikanskoy sistemy zashchity prav cheloveka [Urgent measures in the case law of the organs of the Inter-American system of human rights]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 32–41. (In Russian).
Belogubets K. (2014) Otsenka Evropeyskim Sudom obosnovannosti zaprosov po pravilu 39 Reglamenta Suda: nekotorye protsessual’nye i soderzhatel’nye aspekty [Overview of procedural and substantive issues relating to the European Court’s assessment of requests under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 6–12. (In Russian).
Burbano-Herrera C., Haeck Y. (2010) Letting States Off the Hook? The Paradox of the Legal Consequences Following State Non-Compliance with Provisional Measures in the Inter-American and European Human Rights Systems. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 332–360.
Burbano-Herrera C., Haeck Y., Zwaak L. (2008) Non-Compliance with a Provisional Measure Automatically Leads to a Violation of the Right of Individual Application… or Doesn’t It?: Strasbourg Court Takes Away any Remaining Doubts and Broadens Its Pan-European Protection. European Constitutional Law Review, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 41–63.
Burbano-Herrera С. (2012) A Critical Analysis of the Work of the European Commission and European Court of Human Rights in Relation with Non-Compliance of Interim Measures – Period 1957–2011. Via Inveniendi Et Iudicandi, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1–56.
Cançado Trindade A. (2003) The Developing Case Law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–25.
Cançado Trindade A. (2003) The Evolution of Provisional Measures of Protection under the Case-Law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (1987–2002). Human Rights Law Journal, vol. 24, nos.5–8, pp. 162–168.
Cerna C. (2021) Provisional Measures: How International Human Rights Law Is Changing International Law (Inspired by Gambia v. Myanmar). Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 34–59.
Daly T.G., Wiebusch M. (2018) The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Mapping Resistance against a Young Court. International Journal of Law in Context, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 294–313.
Degtyaryov K. (2014) Vremennye mery v mezhgosudarstvennykh sporakh: ugroza ili novaya vozmozhnost’? [Interim measures in inter-state cases: a threat or a new opportunity]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 24–31. (In Russian).
Garry H.R. (2001) When Procedure Involves Matters of Life and Death: Interim Measures and the European Convention on Human Rights. European Public Law, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 399–432.
Gillich I. (2014) Limits and Potentials of Precautionary Measures as a Remedy for Violations of International Human Rights: The Case of the Inter-American Human Rights System. University of Western Australia Law Review, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 167–182.
González F. (2010) Urgent Measures in the Inter-American Human Rights System. International Journal on Human Rights, vol. 7, no. 13, pp. 51–73.
Ispolinov A. (2017) Ispolnenie resheniy mezhdunarodnykh sudov: teoriya i praktika [Compliance with the judgments of international courts: theory and practice]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 45–67. (In Russian).
Ispolinov A.S. (2017) Nekotorye doktrinal’nye itogi vzaimodeystviya Rossii s Evropeyskim Sudom po pravam cheloveka [Some doctrinal results of Russia’s interaction with the European Court of Human Rights]. Gosudarstvo i pravo, no. 6, pp. 26–34. (In Russian).
Juma D. (2009) Lost (or Found) in Transition? The Anatomy of the New African Court of Justice and Human Rights. In: Von Bogdandy A., Wolfrum R. (eds.) Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, vol. 13, Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, pp. 267–306.
Juma D. (2012) Provisional Measures under the African Human Rights System: The African Court’s Order against Libya. Wisconsin International Law Journal, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 344–373.
Madsen M.R. (2016) The Challenging Authority of the European Court of Human Rights: From Cold War Legal Diplomacy to the Brighton Declaration and Backlash. Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 141–178.
Malaryeva E. (2014) Narusheniya stat’i 34, svyazannye s vremennymi merami: osobennosti ispolneniya resheniy Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka [Violations of article 34 on account of non-compliance with interim measures: execution of ECtHR judgments]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 13–17. (In Russian).
Palombino F.M., Virzo R., Zarra G. (eds.) Provisional Measures Issued by International Courts and Tribunals, The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.
Pasqualucci J. (2005) Interim Measures in International Human Rights: Evolution and Harmonization. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 1–49.
Patrin D.A. (2005) Mezhdunarodnoe sudebnoe razbiratel’stvo: istoriya, ponyatie, funktsii: Dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [International legal proceedings: history, concept, functions: Cand. in law sci. diss.], Moscow. (In Russian).
Pimenova S.D. (2022) Obespechitel’nye mery v mezhdunarodnom pravosudii: Dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [Provisional measures in international justice: Cand. in law sci. diss.], Moscow. (In Russian).
Polymenopoulou E. (2012) African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights: African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Order for Provisional Measures, 25 March 2011. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 767–775.
Punzhin S. (2015) Protsessual’noe pravo Mezhdunarodnogo Suda OON: vremennye mery (chast’ 1) [Procedural law of the International Court of Justice: provisional measures (part 1)]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 51–70. (In Russian).