Academic Journal
Προβολή σε EDS

Beyond Reasonable Doubt at its Worst – But Also at its Potential Best: Dissecting Ireland v the United Kingdom’s No-Torture Finding

Λεπτομέρειες βιβλιογραφικής εγγραφής
Τίτλος: Beyond Reasonable Doubt at its Worst – But Also at its Potential Best: Dissecting Ireland v the United Kingdom’s No-Torture Finding
Συγγραφείς: Dembour, Marie-Bénédicte
Συνεισφορές: Dembour, Marie-Benedicte
Πηγή: EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW
European Convention on Human Rights Law Review
Στοιχεία εκδότη: Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 2023.
Έτος έκδοσης: 2023
Θεματικοί όροι: inference, evidence, Human Rights Law, standard of proof, Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, raison de Cour, 16. Peace & justice, beyond reasonable doubt, Ireland v the United Kingdom, HRC, raison d'état, prima facie, Law and Political Science, European Court of Human Rights, burden of proof
Περιγραφή: Beyond reasonable doubt (brd) is arguably the Strasbourg Court’s default standard of proof. This favours the respondent state over the applicant, though less starkly so if inferences are allowed. In the foundational Irish Case of 1978, the Court accepted inferences – in theory. In practice, it drew no inference, even omitting to mention crucial facts. brd emerged as a tool of raison-d’état-turned-raison-de-Cour, apparently used to avoid the politically sensitive finding that the United Kingdom had tortured ira suspects during ‘the Troubles’. In 2018, as the Court refused to revise the no-torture finding, ‘disingenuous brd’ remained hovering: requiring direct, unattainable certainty, the Court illogically doubted the significance of declassified British documents indicating torture. brd, however, exists also in a ‘virtuous’ form, already present in Ireland’s original pronouncements. But for the Court’s fear of upsetting states and concomitant reluctance to apply brd according to its self-enunciated principles, brd at Strasbourg could be normatively sound.
Τύπος εγγράφου: Article
Περιγραφή αρχείου: application/pdf
ISSN: 2666-3236
2666-3228
DOI: 10.1163/26663236-bja10078
Σύνδεσμος πρόσβασης: http://doi.org/10.1163/26663236-bja10078
https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/01HK9WZBJR29TF4RFTXAJS50HT/file/01HK9X13YD9DFZ7A4YPXGT9ST3
http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-01HK9WZBJR29TF4RFTXAJS50HT
https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/01HK9WZBJR29TF4RFTXAJS50HT
Rights: CC BY
Αριθμός Καταχώρησης: edsair.doi.dedup.....922ec47e4d9ebbb9a17cc0140a7de5d2
Βάση Δεδομένων: OpenAIRE
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___%3A%3A922ec47e4d9ebbb9a17cc0140a7de5d2
    Name: EDS - OpenAIRE (ns324271)
    Category: fullText
    Text: View record at OpenAIRE
Header DbId: edsair
DbLabel: OpenAIRE
An: edsair.doi.dedup.....922ec47e4d9ebbb9a17cc0140a7de5d2
RelevancyScore: 956
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 955.546508789063
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Beyond Reasonable Doubt at its Worst – But Also at its Potential Best: Dissecting Ireland v the United Kingdom’s No-Torture Finding
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dembour%2C+Marie-Bénédicte%22">Dembour, Marie-Bénédicte</searchLink>
– Name: Author
  Label: Contributors
  Group: Au
  Data: Dembour, Marie-Benedicte
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW<br />European Convention on Human Rights Law Review
– Name: Publisher
  Label: Publisher Information
  Group: PubInfo
  Data: Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 2023.
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Year
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subject Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22inference%22">inference</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22evidence%22">evidence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Human+Rights+Law%22">Human Rights Law</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22standard+of+proof%22">standard of proof</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Human+Rights+and+Humanitarian+Law%22">Human Rights and Humanitarian Law</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22raison+de+Cour%22">raison de Cour</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%2216%2E+Peace+%26+justice%22">16. Peace & justice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22beyond+reasonable+doubt%22">beyond reasonable doubt</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ireland+v+the+United+Kingdom%22">Ireland v the United Kingdom</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22HRC%22">HRC</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22raison+d'état%22">raison d'état</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22prima+facie%22">prima facie</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Law+and+Political+Science%22">Law and Political Science</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22European+Court+of+Human+Rights%22">European Court of Human Rights</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22burden+of+proof%22">burden of proof</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Description
  Group: Ab
  Data: Beyond reasonable doubt (brd) is arguably the Strasbourg Court’s default standard of proof. This favours the respondent state over the applicant, though less starkly so if inferences are allowed. In the foundational Irish Case of 1978, the Court accepted inferences – in theory. In practice, it drew no inference, even omitting to mention crucial facts. brd emerged as a tool of raison-d’état-turned-raison-de-Cour, apparently used to avoid the politically sensitive finding that the United Kingdom had tortured ira suspects during ‘the Troubles’. In 2018, as the Court refused to revise the no-torture finding, ‘disingenuous brd’ remained hovering: requiring direct, unattainable certainty, the Court illogically doubted the significance of declassified British documents indicating torture. brd, however, exists also in a ‘virtuous’ form, already present in Ireland’s original pronouncements. But for the Court’s fear of upsetting states and concomitant reluctance to apply brd according to its self-enunciated principles, brd at Strasbourg could be normatively sound.
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Article
– Name: Format
  Label: File Description
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: application/pdf
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 2666-3236<br />2666-3228
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1163/26663236-bja10078
– Name: URL
  Label: Access URL
  Group: URL
  Data: <link linkTarget="URL" linkTerm="http://doi.org/10.1163/26663236-bja10078" linkWindow="_blank">http://doi.org/10.1163/26663236-bja10078</link><br /><link linkTarget="URL" linkTerm="https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/01HK9WZBJR29TF4RFTXAJS50HT/file/01HK9X13YD9DFZ7A4YPXGT9ST3" linkWindow="_blank">https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/01HK9WZBJR29TF4RFTXAJS50HT/file/01HK9X13YD9DFZ7A4YPXGT9ST3</link><br /><link linkTarget="URL" linkTerm="http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-01HK9WZBJR29TF4RFTXAJS50HT" linkWindow="_blank">http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-01HK9WZBJR29TF4RFTXAJS50HT</link><br /><link linkTarget="URL" linkTerm="https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/01HK9WZBJR29TF4RFTXAJS50HT" linkWindow="_blank">https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/01HK9WZBJR29TF4RFTXAJS50HT</link>
– Name: Copyright
  Label: Rights
  Group: Cpyrght
  Data: CC BY
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: edsair.doi.dedup.....922ec47e4d9ebbb9a17cc0140a7de5d2
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsair&AN=edsair.doi.dedup.....922ec47e4d9ebbb9a17cc0140a7de5d2
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1163/26663236-bja10078
    Languages:
      – Text: Undetermined
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 51
        StartPage: 1
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: inference
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: evidence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Human Rights Law
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: standard of proof
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Human Rights and Humanitarian Law
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: raison de Cour
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: 16. Peace & justice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: beyond reasonable doubt
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ireland v the United Kingdom
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: HRC
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: raison d'état
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: prima facie
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Law and Political Science
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: European Court of Human Rights
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: burden of proof
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Beyond Reasonable Doubt at its Worst – But Also at its Potential Best: Dissecting Ireland v the United Kingdom’s No-Torture Finding
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dembour, Marie-Bénédicte
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dembour, Marie-Benedicte
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 24
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 26663236
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 26663228
            – Type: issn-locals
              Value: edsair
            – Type: issn-locals
              Value: edsairFT
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Convention on Human Rights Law Review
              Type: main
ResultId 1