This chapter examines the principles relating to the derogation and limitation of rights during public emergencies. It discusses the position under international law and the United Nation human rights system, and thereafter under regional systems, namely the Inter-American, European and African systems. In the course of this, this chapter focuses on the relevant provisions of each regional human rights instrument, as well as on the clarifications by the regional human rights bodies. It also sets out the differences in approach by the regional human rights systems. In particular, it notes that the African human rights system differs from the others in that there is no derogation clause in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. This chapter concludes that each of the regional human rights systems recognises the need to restrict rights during public emergencies, but stipulates that such restrictions must still accord with recognised human rights principles and standards.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
eBook EUR 106.99 Price includes VAT (France)
Softcover Book EUR 137.14 Price includes VAT (France)
Hardcover Book EUR 137.14 Price includes VAT (France)
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
MM Antoniazzi & Steininger ‘How to protect human rights in times of corona? Lessons from the Inter-American Human Rights System’ Talk! 1 May 2020, https://www.ejiltalk.org/how-to-protect-human-rights-in-times-of-corona-lessons-from-the-inter-american-human-rights-system/ (accessed 4 May 2021).
J Mann et al. ‘Health and human rights’ (1994) Health and Human Rights 1.A Greene ‘States should declare a State of Emergency using Article 15 ECHR to confront the coronavirus pandemic’ Strasbourg Observers 1 April 2020, https://bit.ly/3kN1Fdj (accessed 21 May 2021).
Antoniazzi & Steininger (n 4). Greene (n 7).M Scheinin ‘Covid-19 Symposium: To derogate or not to derogate?’ Opinio Juris 6 April 2020, http://opiniojuris.org/2020/04/06/covid-19-symposium-to-derogate-or-not-to-derogate/ (accessed on 21 May 2021).
Greene (n 7).WHO ‘Tuberculosis (TB): WHO guidance on human rights and involuntary detention for xdr-tb control’ (11 December 2012), https://www.who.int/news/item/11-12-2012-who-guidance-on-human-rights-and-involuntary-detention-for-xdr-tb-control (accessed 23 May 2021).
G Pinet ‘Good practice in legislation and regulations for TB control: An indicator of political will’ WHO (2001).
O Gross & F Aoláin Law in times of crisis: Emergency powers in theory and practice (2006). Gross and Aoláin (n 14) 116.EM Hafner-Burton et al. ‘Emergency and escape: Explaining derogations from human rights treaties’ (2011) 65 International Organization 673.
Gross and Aoláin (n 14). Hafner-Burton et al. (n 18) 680. International Health Regulations (2005) 2509 UNTS 79. International Health Regulations (n 22) para 73. As above, article 2.OHCHR ‘Emergency measures and Covid-19: Guidance’ (27 April 2021), www.ohchr.org/Documents/Events/EmergencyMeasures_COVID19.pdf (accessed 4 May 2021).
The Siracusa Principles on the Limitations and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. E/CN.4/1985/4 at the 41st session of the Commission on Human Rights, 28 September 1984.
Introductory note to the Siracusa Principles. Articles 6, 1, 7, 9, 17 and 18. Clause 7, Siracusa Principles. Clause 11, Siracusa Principles. Clause 18, Siracusa Principles. Clause 20, Siracusa Principles. Clause 39(b). Clauses 42–50. Clause 54. Mere apprehension or potential danger will not suffice.S Whyte ‘No exemption for Canberran to attend dad’s funeral, but private viewing allowed’ The Canberra Times 10 September 2020, www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6918901/qld-chief-health-officer-defends-decision-after-canberra-woman-misses-dads-funeral (accessed 28 May 2021).
Clauses 63 and 64.N Sun ‘Applying Siracusa: A call for a general comment on public health emergencies’ (2020) 22(1) Health and Human Rights Journal 387.
Sun (n 45) 389. Sun ( 45) 389.CCPR /C/GC/34 at the 102nd session of the HRC held in Geneva from 11 to 29 July 2011. It replaced General Comment No. 10 from the 19th session.
ICCPR (n 48) para 2. ICCPR (n 48) para 4. ICCPR (n 48) para 5. ICCPR (n 48) para 7. ICCPR (n 48) para 11. ICCPR (n 48) para 13. ICCPR (n 48) para 21. ICCPR (n 48) para 21. ICCPR (n 48) para 33. ICCPR (n 48) para 34. Kim and Republic of Korea Human Rights Committee Communication No. 574/1994. Marques de Morais v Angola Human Rights Committee Communication No. 1128/2002 (2005). CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, adopted at the 67th session of the Human Rights Committee on 2 November 1999. As above para 1. CCPR/C/21/Rev (n 61) para 2. CCPR/C/21/Rev (n 61) para 11. CCPR/C/21/Rev (n 61) para 13. CCPR/C/21/Rev (n 61) para 14. CCPR/C/21/Rev (n 61) para 20.F Mao ‘“Fortress Australia”: Why calls to open up borders are meeting resistance’ BBC News 26 May 2020, www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-57224635 (accessed 28 May 2021).
Office of the Prime Minister of Australia ‘Border restrictions: Media release’ 19 March 2020, www.pm.gov.au/media/border-restrictions (accessed 28 May 2021).
J Gibson & A Moran ‘As coronavirus spreads, “it’s time to go home” Scott Morrison tells visitors and international students’ ABC News 3 April 2020, www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-03/coronavirus-pm-tells-international-students-time-to-go-to-home/12119568 (accessed 27 May 2021).
‘Australia’s India ban criticised as “racist” rights breach’ BBC News 3 May 2020, www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56967520 (accessed on 28 May 2021).
Australian Human Rights Commission ‘Statement on travel ban and sanctions on Australians travelling from India’ (1 May 2021), www.humanrights.gov.au/about/news/media-releases/statement-travel-ban-and-sanctions-australians-travelling-india (accessed 28 May 2021).
Antoniazzi & Steininger (n 4). Article 27(2). Article 52(2). Article 63(1). Article 63(2).Para 13(2), Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (arts 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights).
As above para 21. As above para 24.IACHR ‘Press Release: IACHR implements Rapid and Integrated Response Coordination Unit for Covid-19 Pandemic Crisis Management’ (28 March 2020), www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2020/063.asp (accessed 21 May 2021).
Article 34, Chapter vii, ACHR; Ibid. Article 41(a)–(g). Article 57. IACHR (n 82).Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (arts 27(2), 25 and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, October 6, 1987, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A) No. 9 (1987).
A Lebret ‘Covid-19 pandemic and derogation to human rights’ (2020) 7(1) Journal of Law and the Biosciences 1–15.
Council of the European Union ‘Declaration by the High Representative Josep Borrell, on behalf of the European Union, on human rights in the times of the coronavirus pandemic’ (5 May 2020), https://bit.ly/36VtpnV (accessed 27 May 2021).
These include Latvia, Romania, Armenia, the Republic of Moldova, Estonia, Georgia, Albania, North Macedonia, Serbia and San Marino. Albania, Latvia and North Macedonia.
See, for example, Terhes v Romania (application no. 49933/20) (ECtHR, The case deals with the challenge of the lockdown imposed by the Romanian government to curb the spread of Covid-19. The applicant had argued that the lockdown amounted to a violation of his rights to liberty and freedom of movement. And should be declared unconstitutional. The Court, however, rejected this request by holding that the applicant’s right to freedom of movement as guaranteed in article 5 of the Convention has not been violated by reason of the lockdown imposed.
S Jovicici ‘Covid-19 restrictions on human rights in the light of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2021) 21 ERA Forum 545–560.
Lawless v Ireland (No. 3), No. 332/57, 14 November 1960, para 28, A1.Greek case 3321/67 (Denmark v Greece), 3322/67 (Norway v Greece), 3323/67 (Sweden v Greece), 3344/67 (Netherlands v Greece).
Ibid. For detailed discussion, see P Van Tijk Theory and practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (1990) 552.
Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 34 on Article 19, CCPR/C/GC/34, para 28. The Human Rights Committee in Mukong v Cameroon 458/1991 underscored that a detention is considered arbitrary if it is devoid of a legal basis, discriminatory or disproportionate to the legitimate aim to be achieved.
Solomakhin v Ukraine Application No. 24429/03) [2012] European Court of Human Rights.Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow v Russia Application No. 302/02 (2010) European Court on Human Rights para 136.
Dudgeon v United Kingdom Application No. 7525/76; (1981) 4 EHRR 149; [1981] ECHR 5.S Tsakyrakis ‘Proportionality: An assault on human right?’ (2009) 7(3) International Journal on Constitutional Law 468.
Hatton v UK No. 36022/97 (2003) (ECtHR) (GC) [98]. See also Cossey v UK No. 10843/84 (1990) (ECtHR) [41] which highlights that ‘the notion of proportionality between a measure or a restriction and the aim which it seeks to achieve. Yet that notion is already encompassed within that of the fair balance that has to be struck between the general interest of the community and the interests of the individual’.
M Tümay ‘The “margin of appreciation doctrine” developed by case law of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2008) 5(2) Ankara Law Journal 202.
See Handyside v UK, ECHR (7 December 1976) Ser A 24 48–49. Sunday Times v UK (1991) EHRR 242 242. See Chassagnou v France (1999) EHRR 112. Verfassungsgerichtshof des Saarlandes, Beschluss vom 28. April 2020, Lv 7/20.Corona-Pandemie – Keine Aussetzung des Vollzugs der Bayerischen Infektionsschutzmaßnahmeverordnung’, Beschluss vom 27.04.2020 – 20 NE 20.793 (Verwaltungsgerichtshof München, 2020), https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Pdf/Y-300-ZBECKRS%2D%2D2020-N-6630?all=False.
C Fombad & LA Abdulraul ‘Comparative overview of constitutional framework for controlling the exercise of emergency powers in Africa’ (2020) 20 African Human Rights Law Journal 376.
GJ Naidi ‘The limitation of rights under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: The contribution of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ (2001) 17(1) South African Journal on Human Rights 109.
S Singh ‘The impact of clawback clauses on human and peoples’ rights in Africa’ (2009) 18(4) Africa Security Review 95–104.
Article 6 of the ACHPR. Article 9 of the ACHPR. Article 8 of the ACHPR. Articles 10(1) and 12(1) of the ACHPR.See, for instance, WE Adjei ‘Re-assessment of “claw-back” clauses in the enforcement of human and peoples’ rights in Africa’ (2019) 24 African Legal Studies 1–22.
Amnesty International & Others v Sudan (2000) AHRLR 297 (ACHPR 1999).Communication No. 297/2005, Scanlen & Holderness v Zimbabwe, adopted during the Sixth Extra-Ordinary Session of the ACHPR, Banjul, The Gambia, April 2009.
Communication Nos. 105/93, 128/94, 130/94 and 152/96, Decision of the AfCmHPR, 24th Ordinary Session, October 1998.
Media Rights Agenda and Others v Nigeria, para 9.Communication 101/93 decided during the 17th Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights 13–22 March 1995.
Civil Liberty Organisation (In respect of the Nigerian Bar Association) v Nigeria, para 16.African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights ‘Press statement on human rights based effective response to the novel Covid-19 virus in Africa’, https://www.achpr.org/pressrelease/detail?id=483 (accessed 29 May 2021).
(2000) AHRLR 66 (ACHPR 1995). See Constitutional Rights Project & Others v Nigeria (2000) AHRLR 227 (ACHPR 1999) paras 41 and 42.Amnesty International & Others v Sudan (2000) AHRLR 297 (ACHPR 1999) para 80 (reference made to Civil Liberties Organisation (in respect of Bar Association)) v Nigeria (2000) AHRLR 186 (ACHPR 1995).
For more on this, see L Serment ‘The absence of derogation clause from the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: A critical discussion’ (2007) 7 African Human Rights Law Journal 142.
