The Issue of Correlation between Absolute and Relative Human Rights: Logical-Gnosiological Analysis
Keywords:human rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to life, the right to personal inviolability, the European Court of Human Rights, the prohibition of tortures
AbstractDue to applying the newest methodological techniques in performing a profound scientific logical-gnoseological analysis, the article under discussion reveals certain axiological factors, which might be regarded as ontological “markers” of such indispensable human rights as the right to life and the right to personal inviolability. In order to achieve the goal, set by the authors of the article, they have carried out a profound juridicalphilological analysis of the contents of the articles of the II and III European Conventions on of Human Rights of 1950 . While analyzing the juridical contents of numerous cases, heard by the European Court of Human Rights on the protection of the right to life and the right to personal inviolability, the authors of the article have reached somewhat ambiguous conclusions. The latter may serve as an efficient ground for further research in the field of logicalgnosiological analysis of the human rights protection, ensured by the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950. In particular, the article under studies reasonably questions the unambiguous perception of the individual’s right to personal inviolability as something absolute and indisputable. This critique has been stipulated by a profound logicalontological analysis of the court file of the lawsuit “Gäfgen v. Germany” , which was heard by the European Court of Human Rights. In addition, the authors of the article have certain doubts concerning the fact that the individual’s right to life has been referred to as a relative one. The above doubts have resulted from a profound logical juridicalphilological analysis of the lawsuit court file “McCann and Others v. United Kingdom” . Another thing that causes the whole range of questions, is the correlation between the axiological components of the protection of the individual’s right to life and his/her personal inviolability. In other words, why is the right to life is referred to the list of relative human rights, whereas individual’s personal inviolability – to that of absolute ones? The authors of the article do not expect that their investigation will somehow mitigate the importance of the issue of correlation between the right to individual’s personal inviolability and his/her right to life. Consequently, they are open for further scientific discussions on the subject both during the conference and on the pages of various scholastic journal.
European Convention on Human Rights from 1950. Available from: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf. Gäfgen v. Germany. Available from: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int /eng?i=001- 99015.
McCann and Others v. United Kingdom. Available from: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57943.
Koziura MI, editor. The Universal Theory of Law. Kziv: Vaite; 2016.
Boyle K. New Institutions for Human Rights Protection. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014.
Dhiman O. Understanding Human Rights. An Overview. Dheli: Kalpay Publications; 2011.
Reid K. A Practitioner's Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights. 5th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell; 2015.
Schabas W. The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
Fassbender B., editor. Securing Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.
Tomuschat C. Human Rights: Between Idealism and Realism. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014.
Dudash TI. The Practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Kyiv: Alerta; 2014.
Zubareva AY. The U.N. Committee on Human Rights. Lviv: Ivan Franko Lviv National University; 2017.
Manukian VI. International Protection of Human Rights: Law, Precedents, Comments. Kyiv: Istina; 2010.
Manukian VI. Strasbourg Law. The European Court of Human Rights. Law, Practice, Comments. Kharkiv: Pravo; 2017.
Gosepat S, Lohman G, editors. Philosophy of Human Rights. Kyiv: Nika Center; 2012.
Tomasi v. France. Available from: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i= 001- 57796. Ireland v. UK. Available from : http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i= 001- 181585.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2018 Serhiy MELENKO, Dan PARANYUK
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work, with an acknowledgement of the works authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in European Journal of Law and Public Administration.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as an earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
EJLPA Journal has an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs