Abstract
AbstractSince the entry into force of the European Convention on Human Rights there have been many serious conflicts in Europe. This article examines the role played by the Convention in two of those conflicts: that in Northern Ireland between supporters of the territory remaining part of the United Kingdom and supporters of Northern Ireland becoming part of a reunified Ireland, and that in Turkey between those who advocate for a unified Turkish State and those who want a Turkey which grants greater rights to Kurds and accepts greater autonomy for the Kurdish-dominated southeast region. The principal goal is to compare how the institutions in Strasbourg have responded to applications lodged by victims of human rights abuses allegedly committed during the two conflicts. The comparison seeks to identify to what extent the European Court of Human Rights has adopted principles and practices which can contribute to a reduction in human rights abuses during times of conflict.
Highlights
During the 63-year life of the European Convention to date, Europe has witnessed an array of conflicts
The main aim is to assess the principles and procedures which the Convention organs in Strasbourg have developed in response to applications lodged by victims of human rights abuses alleged to have been committed during these two conflicts
In Northern Ireland a substantial minority of the population wanted the area to be part of Ireland rather than part of the United Kingdom, while in Turkey a substantial minority claimed that their Kurdish identity was not being appropriately recognized under Turkish law
Summary
During the 63-year life of the European Convention to date, Europe has witnessed an array of conflicts. During the admissibility hearings the Turkish government displayed considerable suspicion towards the applicants who were complaining about counter-insurgency measures.[82] The government accused petitioners of manipulating the Convention system in order to undermine Turkey’s national security and legitimate the activities of the PKK.[83] It further maintained that the failure of applicants to exhaust local remedies was an abuse of the right of individual petition and part of a strategy aimed at denigrating Turkey.[84] In response to such claims, the ECtHR stated that the respondent State’s arguments could be accepted only if it were clear that the applications were based on untrue facts, which here had not been demonstrated.[85]. N 89 above, paras 393-394. 97 Strasbourg organs came to refrain from fact-finding hearings after the end of 1990s, when the conflict lost its in the emergency region, which in turn undermined the official claim that applicants had acted with the main motive of discrediting the State
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
