European Union (EU) was founded to strengthen European integration through purely economic cooperation while disregarding human rights. However, throughout its existence the EU has been challenged to take a stand on human rights. In fact, the application and promotion of human rights has increased significantly in recent years, especially during the last 15 years, mainly thanks to the establishment of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in 2000. Through the selected cases concerning emergency medical services, this paper examines how the arguments of the European Court of Justice have eventually been shifting from purely economic ideology towards more human rights based approach. However, the article essentially argues that the full potential of human rights to support the claims that are inherently economic in their nature has not yet been utilized and therefore the essential aim of the Charter to strengthen human rights protection in the EU remains unachieved.
Emergency medical service (EMS) is designed, above all, to provide urgent treatment for patients with sudden life-threatening diseases or injuries. In wider context, however, EMS is a part of state’s constitutional obligation to guarantee adequate medical care. Therefore, this analysis of how EMS legislation has been drafted and implemented in practice can also be seen to reflect the state’s attitude towards the protection of human rights. A comparison between legal provisions on EMS in Finland and Estonia has been performed in order to illustrate these differentiations. Essentially, the article argues that Estonian EMS legislation seems to contribute more significantly to human rights protection, whereas Finland is more economically oriented in its attitude. However, both jurisdictions also contain some advantageous provisions, which could enhance the quality and improve the recognition of human rights in other states as well.
Summary
Responsibility to protect (R2P) and human security are controversial doctrines which reflect the international politics rather than purely defend their original legal aims. Simultaneously both doctrines demonstrate the change in the international law and politics as well as challenge the classical perception of the sovereignty. Through the practical examples the present article illustrates how these doctrines are affecting to sovereignty and discusses some selected problems attached to the interventions applied under these principles. Essentially the article argues that, despite their noble ideology, doctrines of R2P and human security are too extensive to be applied coherently by the international community, but that they can nevertheless have potential to strengthen sovereignty.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is generally described as the most effective human rights protection mechanism. While the jurisdiction of the Court is limited to civil and political rights, the protection of socio-economic rights at the Council of Europe is sought primarily through the Collective Complaint Procedure (CCP). Such a distinction reflects the traditional perception of human rights, according to which the protection of socio-economic rights has been regarded as inferior to first-category human rights. However, analysis of the ECtHR and CCP from the viewpoint of emergency medical service illustrates that, contrary to the prevailing understanding, both mechanisms do provide equally effective protection for claims concerning the right to emergency health care.
The
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) are emergency services generally been designed
to provide urgent treatment of patients with life-threatening conditions
outside medical facilities. Even though the EMS belongs to the category of
socio-economic rights, it nevertheless has great significance in safeguarding
one of the most fundamental human rights, the right to life. In fact,
international humanitarian law has recognised this important connection by establishing
explicit legal rules that oblige states to ensure urgent medical care for the wounded
and sick. International human rights law, on the other hand, has no such expressed
provisions. However, the problem is not the lack of legal rules applicable to
the EMS as such but rather the challenges in human rights perception, which
hinder the EMS being perceived as a valuable human right. Therefore, this
article essentially argues that international human rights law does not
recognise the EMS as a human right sufficiently and that more thorough actions
are required from the UN Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(CESCR) in this regard.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.