Book contents
- Protecting the Individual from International Authority
- Protecting the Individual from International Authority
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Human Rights Protection in International Organizations: An Introduction
- 2 Conceptual Framework
- 3 UN Sanctions Policy and the Protection of Subsistence Rights: Fighting Off a Reputational Crisis
- 4 UN Sanctions Policy and the Protection of Due Process Rights: Making Use of Global Legal Pluralism
- 5 EU Sanctions Policy and the Protection of Subsistence Rights: Learning from the Early Mover
- 6 EU Sanctions Policy and the Protection of Due Process Rights: Judicial Lawmaking by the Court of Justice of the EU
- Notes on Chapters 3–6
- 7 UN Peacekeeping and the Protection of Bodily Integrity Rights: When Protectors Become Perpetrators
- 8 UN Peacekeeping and the Protection of Due Process Rights: Learning How to Protect the Rights of Detainees
- 9 NATO Peacekeeping and the Protection of Bodily Integrity Rights and the Right Not to Be Enslaved: Domestic Channels for NATO Reform
- 10 NATO Peacekeeping and the Protection of Due Process Rights: The OSCE and Council of Europe as Advocates for the Rights of Detainees
- Notes on Chapters 7–10
- 11 Human Rights Protection in World Bank Lending: Following the Lead of the US Congress
- 12 Human Rights Protection in IMF Lending: Organizational Inertia and the Limits of Like-Minded Institution-Building
- Notes on Chapters 11–12
- 13 The Rise of Human Rights Protection in International Organizations – Results and Theoretical Implications
- Book part
- Index
- References
10 - NATO Peacekeeping and the Protection of Due Process Rights: The OSCE and Council of Europe as Advocates for the Rights of Detainees
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 April 2017
Book contents
- Protecting the Individual from International Authority
- Protecting the Individual from International Authority
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Human Rights Protection in International Organizations: An Introduction
- 2 Conceptual Framework
- 3 UN Sanctions Policy and the Protection of Subsistence Rights: Fighting Off a Reputational Crisis
- 4 UN Sanctions Policy and the Protection of Due Process Rights: Making Use of Global Legal Pluralism
- 5 EU Sanctions Policy and the Protection of Subsistence Rights: Learning from the Early Mover
- 6 EU Sanctions Policy and the Protection of Due Process Rights: Judicial Lawmaking by the Court of Justice of the EU
- Notes on Chapters 3–6
- 7 UN Peacekeeping and the Protection of Bodily Integrity Rights: When Protectors Become Perpetrators
- 8 UN Peacekeeping and the Protection of Due Process Rights: Learning How to Protect the Rights of Detainees
- 9 NATO Peacekeeping and the Protection of Bodily Integrity Rights and the Right Not to Be Enslaved: Domestic Channels for NATO Reform
- 10 NATO Peacekeeping and the Protection of Due Process Rights: The OSCE and Council of Europe as Advocates for the Rights of Detainees
- Notes on Chapters 7–10
- 11 Human Rights Protection in World Bank Lending: Following the Lead of the US Congress
- 12 Human Rights Protection in IMF Lending: Organizational Inertia and the Limits of Like-Minded Institution-Building
- Notes on Chapters 11–12
- 13 The Rise of Human Rights Protection in International Organizations – Results and Theoretical Implications
- Book part
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Protecting the Individual from International AuthorityHuman Rights in International Organizations, pp. 220 - 235Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Amnesty International 2000. ‘Setting the Standard? UNMIK and KFOR’s Response to the Violence in Mitrovica’. AI Index EUR 70/013/2000. 13 March. www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur70/013/2000/en/ (28 October 2015).Google Scholar
Amnesty International 2002a. ‘Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Kosovo): International Officials Flout International Law’. AI Index EUR 70/008/2002. 1 September. https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/120000/eur700082002en.pdf (30 October 2015).Google Scholar
Amnesty International 2002b. ‘Bosnia-Herzegovina. SFOR Detention Violates Human Rights’. Press Release, AI Index EUR 63/019/2002. 27 November. www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/bosnia-herzegovina-sfor-detention-violates-human-rights (29 October 2015).Google Scholar
Amnesty International 2004a. ‘The Apparent Lack of Accountability of International Peace-Keeping Forces in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina’. AI Index EUR 05/002/2004. April. www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur05/002/2004/en/ (30 October 2015).Google Scholar
Amnesty International 2004b. ‘Serbia and Montenegro (Kosovo). The Legacy of Past Human Rights Abuses’. AI Index EUR 70/009/2004. April. www.forumnvo.org.rs/docs/Amnesty%20International-Serbia%20and%20Montenegro_Kosovo_The%20legacy%20og%20past%20human%20rights%20abuses.pdf (29 October 2015).Google Scholar
Amnesty International 2007. ‘Afghanistan, Detainees Transferred to Torture. ISAF Complicity?’ Report. AI Index ASA 11/011/2007. www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa11/011/2007/en/ (29 October 2015).Google Scholar
Amnesty International 2012. ‘Proposed New Rules for Detainees in International Military Operations Fall Far Short of Human Rights Standards’. AI Index IOR 50/002/2012. www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ior50/002/2012/en/ (29 October 2015).Google Scholar
Bergmann, Natalie and Porobic, Jasmin. 2008. ‘The constitutional court of Bosnia Herzegovina decisions on alleged human rights violations during NATO-led stabilization force operations’. NATO Legal Gazette 18: 2–10.Google Scholar
Brand, Marcus 2001. ‘Institution-building and human rights protection in Kosovo in the light of UNMIK legislation’. Nordic Journal of International Law 70: 461–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe 2002. ‘Kosovo. The Human Rights Situation and the Fate of Persons Displaced from their Homes’. Report by Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights. For the attention of the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, CommDH(2002)11, Strasbourg. 16 October. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=982119&Site=COE (29 October 2015).Google Scholar
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly 2004. ‘Resolution 1417’. http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17291&lang=en (28 October 2015).Google Scholar
Dupont, Pascal M. 2006. ‘Detention of individuals during peacekeeping missions. Lessons from Kosovo’, in Knoops, and Arnold, (eds.), Practice and Policies of Modern Peace Support Operations under International Law. Leiden: Brill, pp. 249–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Häußler, Ulf 2010. ‘Human rights accountability of international organisations in the lead of international peace missions’, in Wouters, , Brems, , Smis, and Schmitt, (eds.), Accountability for Human Rights Violations by International Organisations. Antwerp: Intersentia, pp. 213–268.Google Scholar
Lyck, Majbritt 2009. Peace Operations and International Criminal Justice. Building Peace after Mass Atrocities. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marshall, David and Inglis, Shelley 2003. ‘Human rights in transition: The disempowerment of human rights-based justice in the United Nations mission in Kosovo’. Harvard Human Rights Journal 16: 95–146.Google Scholar
Messineo, Francesco 2009. ‘The House of Lords in Al-Jedda and public international law: Attribution of conduct to un-authorized forces and the power of the Security Council to displace human rights’. Netherlands International Law Review LVI: 35–62.Google Scholar
Milanović, Marko and Papić, Tatjana 2009. ‘As bad as it gets: The European Court of Human Rights’ “Behrami and Saramati” decision and general international law’. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 58(2): 267–296.Google Scholar
NATO 2014. ‘The North Atlantic Council’. www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49763.htm (9 September 2015).Google Scholar
NATO 2015. ‘The Founding Treaty’. www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-F77B74F3-92C2643A/natolive/topics_67656.htm (29 October 2015).Google Scholar
OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) 2001. ‘Review of the Criminal Justice System, Mission in Kosovo, Department of Human Rights and Rule of Law’. October. www.osce.org/kosovo/23307?download=true (29 October 2015).Google Scholar
OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) 2003. ‘Review of the Criminal Justice System (March 2002–April 2003), Protection of Witnesses in the Criminal Justice System’. Mission in Kosovo, Department of Human Rights and Rule of Law. www.osce.org/kosovo/23307?download=true (29 October 2015).Google Scholar
Oxfam International 2010. ‘No One to Turn To. The Failure to Protect Civilians in Afghanistan’. A Joint Briefing Paper by 29 Aid Organizations Working in Afghanistan for the NATO Heads of Government Summit, Lisbon, 19–20 November. www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bn-nowhere-to-turn-afghanistan-191110-en.pdf (29 October 2015).Google Scholar
Pacquée, Didier and Dewulf, Steven 2006. ‘International territorial administrations and the rule of law: The case of Kosovo’. Essex Human Rights Review 4: 1–14.Google Scholar
Pejic, Jelena 2011. ‘The European Court of Human Rights’ Al-Jedda judgment: The oversight of international humanitarian law’. International Review of the Red Cross 93: 837–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjursen, Helene 2004. ‘On the identity of NATO’. International Affairs 80(4): 687–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations Economic and Social Council 2002. ‘Question of the Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Any Part of the World: Situation of Human Rights in Parts of South-Eastern Europe’. E/CN.4/2002/41. 8 January. www.refworld.org/pdfid/3cab02ec4.pdf (28 October 2015).Google Scholar
UNSC (United Nations Security Council) 2002. ‘Working Methods Handbook’. www.un.org/en/sc/about/methods/bgarriaformula.shtml (28 October 2015).Google Scholar
Wallander, Celeste 2000. ‘Institutional Assets and Adaptability: NATO after the Cold War’. International Organization 54(4): 705–735.Google Scholar
Winkler, Thomas 2010. ‘The Copenhagen process on detainees: A necessity’. Nordic Journal of International Law 78: 489–498.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by