Public Law Studies Quarterly

Attribution of Responsibility to International Organizations in Light of the Bosphorus Case

Document Type : Article

Authors

Ahmad Momenirad 1
Bagher Roozbahani 2

1 Associated Prof. Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph.D. Student in International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran (Pardise Alborz), Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2021.296659.2308
Abstract
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is seen as the most important human rights judicial body not only in Europe but also around the world. However, with its decisions in such cases as Bahrami and Saramati, the ECHR has reduced its popularity and authority as a defender of human rights. Nonetheless, by applying the criterion of "effective control" instead of "ultimate control" for assigning responsibility to international organizations in the Bosporus case, the court seems to have recovered its credibility. This is so despite some well-founded criticism of the Court's decision in this case. This is the topic that the present article seeks to explain by analyzing the ECHR' judgement in the Bosporus Airways v. Ireland case.

Keywords

Ireland
Bosphorus
European Court of Human Rights
Bosphorus' presumption
international responsibility
violation of basic right

  1.  English

    A( Books

    1. Fiona Campbell-white, Property Rights: A Forgotten Issue Under The Union, in The European Union and Human Rights 249, 251 (Nanette A. Nev wahl & Allan Rosas eds.,1995),
    2. Piet Eeckhout (2005), External Relations of the European Union, legal and Constitutional Foundations, Oxford, New York, O.U.P.
    3. William A. Schabas (2016), the European Convention on Human Rights A commentary, Oxford press.

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Alicia Hinare Jos parga (2006), "Bosphorus v. Ireland and the protection of Fundamental Rights in Europe and E.L.Rev @Sweet Maxwell and Contributors", P.252.
    3. Avstian Q by Johansen (2016), "The Bosphorus presumption Is still Alive and Kicking: The Case of Avotins v. Latvia", Scandinavia Institute of Mavritime Law, University of Oslo , pp.16-17.
    4. Cathryn Costello (2006),"The Bosphorus Ruling of the European Court of Human Rights: Fundamental Rights and Blured Boundaries in Europe 6 ", Human Rights law Review, 87, 88.
    5. Erik, Drewniak (1997), "The Bosphorus Case: The Balancing Of Property Rights In The European Community And The Public Interest In Ending The War In Bosnia", 20 Fordham International Law Journal, pp.1007-1088.
    6. Frank Schorkopf (2005),"The European Court of Human Rights’ Judgment in the Case of Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm v.Ireland", General Law Journal, Vol.06, No.09, pp.1256-1257.
    7. Iris, Conor (1998), “Can Two Walk Together, Except They Be Agreed?” The Relationship Between International Law and European Law: The Incorporation of United Nations Sanctions against Yugoslavia into European Community through the Perspective of the European Court of Justice, Common Market Law Review, Vol. 35, Issue 1, pp. 137-187.
    8. Tobiasو lock (2010), "Beyond Bosphorus: the European court of Human Rights’ case law on the Responsibility of Member States of International organizations under the European convention on Human Rights", P. 1.
    9. Wild Haber (2005), "The Coordination of the Protection of Fundamental Rights in Europe", Geneva & September.

     

    1. C) Internet Resources
    2. Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm v. Ireland, APP. No 45036198 (Eur.Ct.H.R.30 June 2005), available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int(tkp197) portal.asp? sessioned=3666597 and skin=hudoc-en and action=request.
    3. Gor.ZeynePELibol-Bronneke, The Bosphorus case: A Critical Analysis of The European Court of Justice and The European Court of Human Rights Decisions January 2013.P.7. available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331115242.
    4. Katherine Kuhnert, Double Standards in European human rights protection? http://www.utrechtlawreview.org, volum 2, Issue 2 (December) 2006, pp 177-178.

     

    1. D) International Documents
    2. Council Regulation 990/93, Concerning Trade between the European Economic Community and The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), 1993 O.J(L102) 14 (EEC).
    3. DRS senator Lines Gm BH, [2004] ECHR (Ser.A), p.1.
    4. S.C.820,24,U.N.Doc S/RES/820(April 17,1993).

     

    E(International Cases

    1. Biret, International SA v. Council of the European Union. Case C-93/02 P. 2003 ECR l-10497 ; Etablissments Biret & Cie SA v. Council of the European Union . Case C-94/02 P. 2003 ECR l-10565.para, 2.
    2. C.F.D.T v. The European Communities,[1978] ECHR (Ser.A), p.231.
    3. Cooperative des agriculture de La mayenne et La Cooperative Laitiere Maine-AnJou v. France (APP. No. 16931/04) (section II), 10.October.2006.
    4. Dufay v. The European Communities,[1989] ECHR (Ser.A), p.125 and Del lau fuente [1991].
    5. ECJ, Case c-84/95 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret As v. Minister For transport, Energy and Communications and others [1996] ECRI 3953, paras.Cooperative des agricultures de lteursa mayenne et La Cooperative laitirve Maine-AnJour France (APP. No. 16931/04) (Section II), 10.October.2006.
    6. Gasparini v. Italy and Belgium (APP. No.10750/03) (section II), 12.May.2009.
    7. KokkelvisseriJ v. Netherlands (APP.no.13645/05) (section II), 20.January.2009.
    8. MaC v. Federal Republic of Germany (1990) 64 D.R.138.
    9. Matthews v. U.K,[1999] ECHR (Ser.A), p.45.
    10. United Communist party et a lv. Turkey,[1998] (Ser.A) para, 29.
    11. Vermeulen v. Belgium (APP. No.19075/91).
    12. Wait and Kennedy v. Germany and Beer & Regan v. Germany, [1999] ECHR (Ser.A), p.13.
    13. Wait and Kennedy v. Germany and Beer and Regan v. Germany,[1999] ECTHR (Ser.A), p.3.Gasparini v. Italy and Belgium (APP no. 10750/03 (section II), 12 May,2009).

     

    Refrences In Persian

    1. A) Books
    2. Abdullah, Abedini & Rozgari, Khalil (2013), The responsibility rights of international organizations (translation of the text and description of the draft materials of the United Nations International Law Commission), Khorsandi Publications (In Persian).
    3. Javaid, Mohammad Javad (2011), Criticism of the Basics of Human Rights Philosophy, Vol. 1, El Mandah Publication (In Persian).
    4. Saroshi, Dan (2010, International Organizations, translated by Pouria Asgari, Shahr Danesh Institute of Legal Studies and Research, first edition (In Persian).
    5. Zamani, Seyyed Qasim (2008), Laws of International Organizations, Tehran: Shahr Danesh Institute of Legal Studies and Research Publications (In Persian).

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Mousavi, Kaveh, (2015), "The rights of the petitioner and the respondent from the perspective of human rights with special emphasis on the procedure of the European Court of Human Rights" International Legal Journal, Vol.55, pp. 185-210 (In Persian).
    3. Parsa Nia, Nafisa, (2012), "Rules of interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights in the light of the judicial procedure of the European Court of Human Rights", International Legal Journal, Vol.49, pp. 127-1444 (In Persian).
    4. Safarinia, Mehzad, (2018), "Human rights system of the European Union; In terms of implementation", Public Law Studies Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp.859-879 (In Persian).
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 52, Issue 4
Winter 2023
Winter 2022
Pages 1843-1863

  • Receive Date 26 January 2020
  • Revise Date 31 January 2021
  • Accept Date 25 January 2021

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us