ARTICLE: On the Curious Disappearance of Human Servitude from General International Law

The following study considers the fragmentation of law which occurred in 1956 with regard to the law on servitude. As States were unwilling to go as far as the Universal Declaration on Human in establishing that "no one shall be held in [...] servitude", the negotiators of the 1956 Supplementary Conventions moved to expunge the very term 'servitude' from the text and to replace it with the phrase 'institutions and practices similar to slavery' which could then be abolished 'progressively and as soon as possible'. The negotiation history of the 1956 Convention clear demonstrate that the Universal Declaration on Human was the elephant in the room and that it ultimately lead to a fragmentation of the law as between general international law manifest in the 1956 Supplementary Convention on the one hand and international human rights law on the other. It is for this reason that, for instance the 2001 UN and 2005 Council of Europe trafficking conventions mention both 'practices similar to slavery' and 'servitude' as types of human exploitation to be suppressed in their definition of 'trafficking in persons'.

Book Review: Critical Perspectives on Human Rights and Disability Law

Book Review

Applying an International Human Rights Framework to State Budget Allocations: Rights and Resources

Human rights based budget analysis projects have emerged at a time when the United Nations has asserted the indivisibility of all human rights and attention is increasingly focused on the role of non-judicial bodies in promoting and protecting human rights. This book seeks to develop the human rights framework for such budget analyses, by exploring the international law obligations of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in relation to budgetary processes. The book outlines international experiences and comparative practice in relation to economic and social rights budget analysis and budgeting.

The book sets out an ICESCR-based methodology for analysing budget and resource allocations and focuses on the legal obligation imposed on state parties by article 2(1) of ICESCR to progressively realise economic and social rights to 'the maximum of available resources'. Taking Northern Ireland as a key case study, the book demonstrates and promotes the use of a ‘rights-based’ approach in budgetary decision-making.

The book will be relevant to a global audience currently considering how to engage in the budget process from a human rights perspective. It will be of interest to students and researchers of international human rights law and public law, as well as economic and social rights advocacy and lobbying groups.

Germany v Italy:The Triumph of Sovereign Immunity over Human Rights Law

This article analyses the doctrine of State immunity within the context of the recent judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece intervening). The object of this article is to explore the implications of the State immunity from foreign judicial proceedings in cases of jus cogens crimes. Challenging the assumption that the law of immunity is merely procedural in nature, this article argues that there can be no immunity in cases of undisputed international crimes.

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights has begun to refer to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in order to support its reasoning for interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights in a particular way. But the EU Charter does not yet have any special status in that regard, being treated by the Court as on a par with numerous other documents of international law. The Court’s use of the Charter began in connection with arts 8 and 12 of the Convention (the right to a family life and the right to marry) but in subsequent years it has been extended to many other Articles of the Convention. It is in relation to art.6 (the right to a fair trial) that the Charter’s influence has been most noticeable so far, the Court having changed its position on two important aspects of Article 6 partly because of the wording of the EU Charter. But the influence on art.3 (in relation to the rights of asylum seekers), art.7 (in relation to retroactive penal laws), art.9 (in relation to the right to conscientious objection) and art.11 (in relation to rights of trades unions) has also been significant. The potential for the Charter to have greater influence on the Court’s jurisprudence in years to come remains considerable.