The Experiences of the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights with the International Standards on the Protection of Fundamental Rights in Times of Emergency

Abstract

This article aims to assess and subsequently compare and contrast the contribution of the European Court of Human Rights with that of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to the widespread and success of non-legally binding standards, guidelines and general principles on the protection of human rights in war and states of emergency. An empirical analysis of the compliance of the judicial decisions and advisory opinions by the two regional human rights courts in Europe and the Americas with these standards—that is a comparative study of the influence of such instruments of soft law on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter ECtHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter ACtHR) - should be undertaken throughout the article, following a short background to the Paris Minimum Standards of Human Rights Norms in a State of Emergency (hereinafter the “Paris Minimum Standards”), the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter the “Siracusa Principles”), the 1987 Oslo Statement on Norms and Procedures in Times of Public Emergency or Internal Violence, and the “Queensland Guidelines”.