mgimolawМосковский журнал международного праваMoscow Journal of International Law0869-00492619-0893Moscow State Institute of International Relations10.24833/0869-0049-2010-1-31-46mgimolaw-800Research ArticleПРАВА ЧЕЛОВЕКАHUMAN RIGHTSПравовые аспекты применения Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод: до и после «Банковича»Legal Aspects of Application of the Convention on Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: before and after “Bancović”РусиноваВ. Н.RusinovaV. N.

Вера Николаевна Русинова – к.ю.н., LL.M. (Göttingen), заведующая кафедрой международного и европейского права юридического факультета

Vera N. Rusinova - Candidate of juridical sciences, LL.M. (Göttingen) Law Faculty Head of the Chair for International and European Law

verarusinova@gmail.comРоссийский государственный университет имени И. КантаРоссияImmanuel Kant State University of RussiaRussian Federation201030032010013146Copyright © Русинова В.Н., 20102010Русинова В.Н.Rusinova V.N.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.mjil.ru/jour/article/view/800

Вынесение Европейским судом по правам человека решения о неприемлемости жалобы Банковича и др. породило массу вопросов, связанных с возможностью распространения действия Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод на экстерриториальные акты применения силы, совершаемые государствами – участниками конвенции. Анализ этого решения приводит к выводу о том, что данное судом толкование сферы действия конвенции ratione loci не соответствует предыдущей практике конвенционных органов, игнорирует цели создания и особую природу данного международного договора, а также не учитывает решений других международных органов по защите прав человека. Решения, вынесенные Европейским судом по правам человека после 2001 г., доказывают, что Суд постепенно отказался от аргументов, положенных им в основу решения по делу Банковича и др.

Decision of the European Court of Human Rights on inadmissibility of the Bancovic and others application has given rise to many questions on possibility to apply Convention on protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms to the extraterritorial use of force by the States-parties to the Convention. It is deduced in this article that the abovementioned decision is not based on the previous jurisprudence of the conventional bodies, that interpretation of the scope of the convention ratione loci ignores the purposes and a special nature of the convention, and that the Court does not take into account the case-law of the other international human rights bodies. By making reference to the decisions rendered after 2001 the author proves that the European Court of Human Rights has gradually refused from the arguments used in the Bancovic and others decision.

Европейская конвенция по правам человекасфера примененияюрисдикцияэкстерриториальные актыприменение силыEuropean Convention on Human Rightsscope of applicationjurisdictionextraterritorial actsuse of forceReferencesAsserting Jurisdiction. International and European Law Perspectives / Ed. by P. Capps, M. Evans and S. Konstadinidis. Oxford, 2003.Asserting Jurisdiction. International and European Law Perspectives / Ed. by P. Capps, M. Evans and S. Konstadinidis. Oxford, 2003.Cerna Ch. Extraterritorial Application of the Human Rights Instruments of the Inter-American System // Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties /Ed. by F. Coomans, M. Kamminga. Antwerp-Oxford, 2004.Cerna Ch. Extraterritorial Application of the Human Rights Instruments of the Inter-American System // Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties /Ed. by F. Coomans, M. Kamminga. Antwerp-Oxford, 2004.Collected Edition of the Travaux Preparatoires of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Hague, 1976. Vol. III.Collected Edition of the Travaux Preparatoires of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Hague, 1976. Vol. III.Dennis M. Non-application of Civil and Political Right Treaties Extraterritorially During Times of International Armed Conflict // Israel Law Review. 2007. Vol. 40.Dennis M. Non-application of Civil and Political Right Treaties Extraterritorially During Times of International Armed Conflict // Israel Law Review. 2007. Vol. 40.Gondek M. Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights: Territorial Focus in the Age of Globalization? // Netherlands International Law Review. 2005.Gondek M. Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights: Territorial Focus in the Age of Globalization? // Netherlands International Law Review. 2005.Lawson R. Life after Bancović: On the Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights, in: Coomans, Kamminga.Lawson R. Life after Bancović: On the Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights, in: Coomans, Kamminga.McGoldrick D. Extraterritorial Application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights // Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties, in: Coomans, Kamminga.McGoldrick D. Extraterritorial Application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights // Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties, in: Coomans, Kamminga.O’Boyle M. The European Convention on Human Rights and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: A comment of the “Life after Bancovic”, in: Coomans, Kamminga.O’Boyle M. The European Convention on Human Rights and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: A comment of the “Life after Bancovic”, in: Coomans, Kamminga.Sheinin M. Extraterritorial Effect of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in: Coomans, Kamminga.Sheinin M. Extraterritorial Effect of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in: Coomans, Kamminga.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.