Abstract: In Al-Jedda v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights addressed the petition of a person detained by U.K. occupation forces in Iraq pursuant to United Nations Security Council authorization. One issue before the court in Al-Jedda—whether the petitioner’s rights against the U.K. government under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms might disapply the Security Council authorization—illustrates the problem of norm conflict between intergovernmental regimes. The Al-Jedda court avoided directly pitting the differing norms at issue (Security Council resolutions versus European human rights treaty provisions), but in doing so left open such a conflict for where one such norm explicitly requires violation of the other. When this question arises, the court should not hold that the applicability of European treaty norms disapplies Security Council resolutions or other United Nations acts, because so holding would further fragment the international system and leave states in positions where they will be bound to violate at least some of their international obligations.
BCLR Moves to # 25 in Law Journal Rankings
The Boston College Law Review has moved from #26 to #25 in the annual Washington and Lee University School of Law Law […]
Alumni-Student Happy Hour, February 19
Dear BCLR Alumni, I am pleased to announce that the Boston College Law Review will be hosting its Alumni-Student Happy […]
2014 E. Supp. Now Available
We have begun posting case comments from recent federal appellate decisions to our 2014 E. Supp., which can be found […]