This book offers a rigorous, theory-based, and uniquely comprehensive, analysis of European and international legal standards shaping minorities’ right to freedom of expression. The analysis pays particular attention to the instrumental role played by traditional and new forms of media in ensuring that the right to freedom of expression of persons belonging to minorities is effective in practice.The second is a publication on SSRN relating to the convictions of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev in Russia, dealing with the ECHR aspects of those cases. It was authored by Jeffrey Kahn of Southern Methodist University. This is the abstract:
The relevant international legal framework is set out in detail, including a careful examination of the relationship between generalist and minority-specific international human rights instruments. Due attention is paid to the historical circumstances in which key instruments were developed and the contemporary context in which they are now being interpreted. The analysis is also informed by an awareness of institutional and political dynamics. All of this forms the basis for the book’s central objective: to mount a critical evaluation of the existing international legal framework governing freedom of expression for minorities, while drawing on theoretical insights gained from human rights scholarship and communications science.
The first major focus of the evaluation is the regulation and restriction of expression to protect minority rights, in which issues such as pluralism, tolerance and “hate speech” feature centrally. Its second major focus, the regulation and facilitation of expression to promote minority rights, explores cultural and linguistic rights and media access questions.
The book provides detailed analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ case-law on each of these themes.
This report resulted from an invitation received on April 1, 2011 from the Presidential Council of the Russian Federation for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights "to participate in an independent public expert analysis of official documents and proceedings in the recent criminal case concerning M.B. Khodorkovsky and P.L. Lebedev, who were convicted by a judgment announced on December 27, 2010." The report was submitted to the Council on October 1, 2011. It was the only report submitted from the United States, the other reports having been sought and received from scholars in Russia, Germany, and the Netherlands.Finally, the 2010(!) edition of the Italian Yearbook of International Law has now been published. It is focused on the future of the ECHR system. These are the contributions:
On December 21, 2011, the Council released this report in Russian along with the reports of the other scholars. On the basis of these reports, the Council recommended that legal proceedings begin to annul the convictions.
This report evaluates the verdict in the case for compliance with Russia's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. The report concludes that the verdict in this case reveals violations of the defendants' human rights protected under Articles 3, 6 and 7 of the Convention and that other Convention rights also may have been violated.
◦Giuseppe Cataldi, Presentation of the Symposium
◦The ECHR System and International Law
◦Raffaella Nigro, The Notion of “Jurisdiction” in Article 1: Future Scenarios for the Extra-Territorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights
◦Ottavio Quirico, Substantive and Procedural Issues Raised by the Accession of the EU to the ECHR
◦Beatrice I. Bonafè, The ECHR and the Immunities Provided by International Law
◦Pasquale De Sena, The Notion of “Contracting Parties’ Jurisdiction” Under Article 1 of the ECHR: Some Marginal Remarks on Nigro’s Paper
◦Benedetto Conforti, Comments on the Accession of the European Union to the ECHR
◦Emilio De Capitani, EU Accession to the ECHR: A Parliamentary Perspective
◦Marco Gestri, Access to a Court and Jurisdictional Immunities of States: What Scope for the Balancing of Interests Test?
◦General Aspects of the Functioning of the ECHR System
◦Antonio Bultrini, The European Convention on Human Rights and the Rule of Prior Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies in International Law
◦Simona Granata, Manifest Ill-Foundedness and Absence of a Significant Disadvantage as Inadmissibility Criteria of Inadmissibility for the Individual Application to the Court
◦Andrea Caligiuri & Nicola Napoletano, The Application of the ECHR in the Domestic Systems
◦Guido Raimondi, Reflections on the Rule of Prior Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights
◦Françoise Tulkens, The Link Between Manifest Ill-Foundedness and Absence of a Significant Disadvantage as Inadmissibility Criteria for Individual Applications
◦Pasquale Pirrone, The Value of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights for the Courts of the Respondent State: Domestic Judicial Decision in Favour of the Applicant and the Principle of “Doing as Much as Possible”
◦General Conclusion on the Symposium
◦Jean-Paul Costa, Concluding Remarks on the Future of the Strasbourg Court