Expulsions collectives: Définition et portée de leur interdiction dans la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme

Otros responsables
Fecha
03/2019
Editorial
Cambridge University Press
Revista
Canadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international
Título del libro
Nombre del evento
Fecha del evento
Institución organizadora
ISSN
0069-0058
eISSN
1925-0169
ISBN
Idioma
Francés
Tipo del evento
Clasificación temática
Resumen
L’article considère l’interdiction des expulsions collectives dans la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. La Cour adopte un point de vue réaliste qui permet d’inclure dans cette interdiction les expulsions au sens strict et les actes de non-admission, exigeant aux États d’agir toujours de bonne foi. Or, elle n’y inclut pas les expulsions implicites, et rabaisse significativement la protection conventionnelle par l’exclusion de l’exigence d’un entretien individuel. La possibilité de son application extraterritoriale et l’impossibilité d’écarter la responsabilité étatique sur la base d’accords avec des États tiers montrent cependant la portée large accordée à l’interdiction.
This article considers the prohibition of collective expulsion in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The court takes a realistic point of view that includes in the prohibition both collective expulsion in the narrow sense and acts of collective non-admission. It also requires states to act always in good faith. However, European case law does not prohibit implicit expulsion and significantly reduces treaty protection by excluding the requirement of an individual interview. The possibility of its extraterritorial application and the impossibility of excluding state responsibility on the basis of agreements with third states show, however, the broad scope given to the prohibition.
This article considers the prohibition of collective expulsion in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The court takes a realistic point of view that includes in the prohibition both collective expulsion in the narrow sense and acts of collective non-admission. It also requires states to act always in good faith. However, European case law does not prohibit implicit expulsion and significantly reduces treaty protection by excluding the requirement of an individual interview. The possibility of its extraterritorial application and the impossibility of excluding state responsibility on the basis of agreements with third states show, however, the broad scope given to the prohibition.
Colecciones
Aprobación
Revisión
Complementado por
Referenciado por
Licencia Creative Commons
Excepto donde se indique lo contrario, la licencia de este ítem se describe como by-nc-sa
