There is a clear normative tension between the immunities of international organizations and the human rights to a court and to a remedy. Most national jurisdictions around the world have so far failed to recognize such a normative conflict and applied immunities irrespective of their consequences on individual claimants. However, following the Waite and Kennedy jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, a number of European national jurisdictions have accepted the idea that applying international organizations' immunities may lead to breach the right to a court in case the claimants do not have access to an alternative remedy. This contribution focuses on the latter approach, which will be called 'alternative-remedy approach'. Drawing upon Gunther Teubner conceptualization of fundamental rights, it stresses the violence of the today's prevalent approach toward immunities, and maintains that, by refocusing the decision-making process on the situation of individual claimants, the alternative-remedy approach 'humanizes' a decision-making process otherwise blind to the fate of human beings in flesh and blood. The ambiguity of the European Court of Human Rights' jurisprudence as to the relevance of the alternativeremedy standard is also discussed, together with the consequences it had on the caselaw of European national courts.
Based on a short novel by Philip K Dick, it describes a world in which mutants foresee crimes before they occur, allowing the Police 'Precrime Division' to arrests suspects before they violate the law. See Philip K Dick, Minority Report (first published 1956, republished 2002). The analogy between French emergency measures and Minority Reports has first been used by Paul Cassia, Contre l'état d'urgence (2016) 74-75.
II. The état d'urgence in FranceOn 14 November 2015, one day after the terrorist attacks of Paris, President Hollande declared the state of emergency (état d'urgence) on the basis of a 3
In 2018, a transnational coalition led by La Vía Campesina, a 200-million-strong peasants’ organization, managed to have the United Nations General Assembly adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP). The present article examines selected aspects of the law-making process that led to the Declaration, focusing on the stiff resistance encountered by the peasants’ struggle for equality. As the most controversial UN-sponsored human rights instrument ever, the UNDROP intrudes deeply into the field of relations of production and market structures and applies to billions worldwide, including the great majority of the population in least developed countries. Framed as a case study of a voice under domination in international law, the article retrieves what the oppressed were not allowed to say through the language of international human rights law and describes how they responded to this impediment. It argues that UNDROP fits into a law-making tradition rooted in the decolonization process, reinvigorates it and channels it in new directions. UNDROP combines NIEO-inspired measures and human rights law in a way that seems to achieve much more than the elusive Declaration on the Right to Development. Its non-consensual adoption and radical content also point to a possible alternative to the absorption of the political process concerning the right to development into the a-conflictual logic of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
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.