Legally resolve the issue related to the extraterritorial applicability of theĮCHR in the active phase of military hostilities. In this regard, the argumentation of the CourtĪnd the dissenting opinions reveal that it was not easy for the Court to (Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 Article 1 P1 and Article 2 P4) only in the immediateĪftermath of the conflict, but not during the phase of active hostilities. The Court found Russia responsible for human rights abuses No Responsibility of Russia during the Phase of Active Hostilities To avoid providing clear answers to some very important questions concerningĮffective control during international armed conflict-at least for now. Of hostilities (ceasefire agreement of 12 August 2008). Hostilities during the five-day war after the intervention by the Russian armedįorces (from 8 to 12 August 2008) and the occupation phase after the cessation Rather as a conflict with two distinctive phases: the active phase of Through some legal gymnastics, the Court ruled on this case not as a whole but Victims, from a legal point of view many questions are still unanswered. Although this judgment is characterized by the Georgian government as a historic decision for Georgia, and especially for the To the war in 2008, which had been dealt with by the Grand Chamber for several On the interstate case under Article 33 ECHR Georgia v. Thursday 21 January 2021, the ECtHR decided Regensburg University (Germany) with the main focus on International Human [ Qetevan Qistauri is research assistant at the
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |