Analysis of 8 to 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Research Paper Example

Analysis of 8 to 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights In 1950, the European Convention on Human Rights, also know as the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was brought under the tutelage of the Council of Europe to protect basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. Any person who feels that his/her rights were violated by a state party can file a Court case. Just like a regular Court case, the decisions are legally binding. The Court may also award damages. While in conventional international relations discourse, states are the only political bodies awarded with acting powers in international law, the European Convention on Human Rights was the first to give to the individual the privilege of participating in international relations. In doing so, it reifies the level of the protection of the individual’s rights. Meanwhile, even though state parties can file cases against other states, this rarely happens. The Convention takes into consideration numerous human rights. This paper shall discuss the rights safeguarded by Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention. These are, respectively, right to respect of private life, right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, right to freedom of expression, right to freedom of assembly and association. Salient to this paper’s discussion would be extent of the state’s ability control or interfere in the aforementioned rights, as provided by the Convention. Each of the three articles will be stated, and then discuss in detail. Article 9, right to respect of private life states: 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article evidently protects the right of the individual against unlawful searches, against constant surveillance, as in phonetaps, or going through electronic mails and physical letters. The first provision clearly asserts that an individual, his family and his friends should not be monitored. But the second provision provides conditions that are very vague. In a sense they could account for a lot of things, depending on the situation and circumstances. For example, “…in the interest of national security” pertains clearly to individuals and groups that may be considered threats to the state. But this can encompass a multitude of people. There might be cases of people being judged in a bad light on the basis of their ideological and political leanings, without them actually being actual threats to the state. Even the term “state” can take on a myriad of interpretations, depending on who’s speaking, and for what reason. Protecting the interests of the “state” can mean preserving the present regime. In a sense, these political terms can be used to the disadvantage of individuals in question. Another term to be wary of is “the others”. The other can vary from case to case, and to give public authority the power to make valuations on whose rights and freedoms are of importance—the individual’s or the others’—can lead to injustices against the individual. Indeed, a very broad interpretation of the right to privacy, while advantageous at times for the individual, can also bring about his arrest in special cases. Furthermore, this article involves positive obligations. That is, while traditional human rights prohibit the state from interfering with rights, and thus not to do something (e.g. not to separate a family under family life protection), the it may also entail an obligation for the state to do something (e.g. to enforce access for a divorced father to his child). Article 9, right to freedom of thought says: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. 2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief, and to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". Consequently, it carries with it the right to practice one’s ethnic rituals, and to participate in organized religion and groups without being chastised for it. The individual is awarded freedom from discrimination based on religious beliefs or activities, or because of refusal to conform to a certain religion. Therefore, everyone is entitled to make connections and associations, and not be apprehended because of his/her choice of comrades or leanings. One may also protest for or against issues on grounds of religious belief. And unlike the case of totalitarian states, everyone has a right to education, and furthermore, the right to choose educational institutions that are in line with or respect their own convictions. But again, we see that the state is given the liberty to decide on whether an action is in accordance with the norms of the state society. While an extensive positive liberty is given to individuals when it comes to beliefs and religion, the state has the power to curtail activities and affiliations that they feel are threats to the current social order. Article 10, right to freedom of though states: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. This one is familiar to almost everyone and entails little explanation. The right of the media to broadcast is of special consideration in this article. Because the media holds power to promulgate information, the state is reserved the right to impose “formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties” as stated in the law. The power prescribe to the state seems just enough, until threats to this right arise. As seen in the case of the Philippines, circa Martial Law era, when all broadcasts made was subject to the approval and control of the dictatorship. Article 11, right to freedom of assembly: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. this article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State. When coupled with the right to freedom of speech, the two seems like an unmatchable force. But again, the state is allowed the liberty to dictate which assemblies and unions are unlawful, are threats to the nation. While trade unions and other groups designed to protect rights of certain people can empower causes, the state can just as easily ward off threats to their power or credibility by naming these groups pejoratively, such as the case of “the extreme left.” In reality, while these articles are designed to protect the individual, there is much leeway for the law. It is subject to interpretation, and in some cases, the bias is towards the central power source—the state. It is then up to individuals to learn of these rights and participate in their realization, and more importantly, to be vigilant and not fall prey to false pretenses of lawfulness. Read More