European court to rule on Irish abortion rights

[jannyk]

Source: BBC

The European Court of Human Rights is due to rule on whether the Irish Republic's anti-abortion laws violate women's human rights.

The case was brought to the Strasbourg-based court by three Irish women who say their health was put at risk by having to travel abroad for abortions. Abortion is illegal in Ireland unless the woman's life is in danger. If the court rules in favour of the three women, Ireland will be obliged to change its laws.

It is estimated that more than 4,000 Irish women every year have an abortion overseas, most of them in England.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12005803

---

This should be interesting. I can remember when they used to search your luggage for condoms and/or birth pills.

[Lionel Mandrake]

1. K&R

I hope the European Court of Human Rights lives up to its name and does the right thing for women in Ireland.

[Solly Mack]

2. k/r

[pampango]

3. Irish abortion laws breach human rights, court rules

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1216/breaking11.html

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Ireland has failed to properly implement the constitutional right to abortion where a woman is entitled to one where her life is at risk.

The ruling will put issue of abortion back on the political agenda and is likely to force the Government to introduce legislation or official guidelines on access to abortion for women whose lives are at risk.

The court unanimously ruled this morning that the rights of one of three women who took a case challenging Irish abortion laws were breached because she had no “effective or accessible procedure” to establish her right to a lawful abortion.

The Strasbourg-based court, which is separate from the EU, adjudicates on human rights issues among all 47 member states of the Council of Europe. This 17-judge court is reserved to hear cases that raise serious questions affecting the interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights. As a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights – now incorporated into Irish law – the Government is obliged to remedy any breaches of the convention.

An interesting clash between individual rights and national sovereignty. Thankfully, individual rights won this one. :)

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

4. What gives a European court jurisdiction over Irish law?

Isn't Ireland a sovereign nation?

I'm all for eliminating Ireland's anti-abortion law, just assumed that it would be up to Irish govt to do it.

:hi:

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. It's been a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights since the 1950s

Though absent from the United Nations drafting efforts in these early years, Ireland
played a major role in the drafting and adoption of the European Convention on Human
Rights. It was not the first State to ratify the Convention, but was among those whose
participation was necessary for it to enter into force, on 3 September 1953. Ireland was the
first State to make a declaration under article 46 of the Convention, by which it recognised
the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. Officials in the Department of
Justice had assured the government that there was virtually no chance Ireland could actually
be brought before the Court, given their perception that Irish legislation was consistent with
the provisions of the Convention. But they insisted on the symbolic importance of such a
gesture. Ironically, given what we can now see as the naïve equanimity of government
bureaucrats, Ireland was respondent in the first case to be litigated before the European Court
of Human Rights.
...
One of the main stumbling blocks in the negotiations was the right of individual
petition to the European Commission of Human Rights. On this point, Ireland was
particularly vocal in its support. It ran up directly against the British, who were not at all
keen on the idea. MacBride said that a ‘convention on human rights which did not grant any
right of redress to individuals was not worth the paper it was written on’.47 A compromise
text was eventually agreed to, by which States could ratify the Convention yet not accept the
right of individual petition. In order to establish jurisdiction of the European Commission on
Human Rights to receive individual petitions, a special declaration was required, in
accordance with article 25. Eventually, all delegations but one – Ireland – voted in favour of
the text. Ireland said it was prepared to have its vote registered as an abstention in order to
achieve unanimity.

http://www.nuigalway.ie/human_rights/Projects/ireland_project/Docs/Ireland%20ECHR%20and%20Personal%20contribution%20of%20Sean%20MacBride.pdf

The right for individual petition to the European Court of Human Rights eventually came in during the 1990s, with Protocols 9 and 11.

[pampango]

6. Ireland is one of the signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights and are subject to

its provisions.

"The European Court of Human Rights (French: Cour européenne des droits de l’homme) in Strasbourg is a supra-national court, established by the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides legal recourse of last resort for individuals who feel that their human rights have been violated by a contracting party to the Convention. Application before the court can also be brought by other contracting parties.

The Convention was adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe, all 47 of whose member states are parties to the Convention."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights

Unlike the Europeans, the US has always been very reluctant to sign up to any international judicial agreement that would subject us to international tribunals like the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court. The ECHR, ICJ and ICC protect the rights of individuals at the expense, potentially, of the sovereignty of countries. Europeans and their national governments seem more willing to do this than the American government.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

7. Signing a document is one thing ... adhering to it is something else

Ok, so Ireland is a signatory, along with Albania, Serbia, Azerbaijan, and Russia.

Given some of the membership, it looks like the bar is set fairly low for "human rights" adherence.

If Ireland refuses to change its laws, what is the consequence from the Council of Europe?

[pampango]

8. Good question. The far right in Europe seems to want their countries out of the EU, ECHR, and any

other multilateral agreement in the name of national sovereignty. I wouldn't be surprised if conservatives in Ireland (who probably like their abortion law just the way it is) don't try to get their government to ignore the ECHR's ruling.

"If Ireland refuses to change its laws, what is the consequence from the Council of Europe?" - Good question. I don't know the answer. Like any international agreement its value lies partially in its enforceability. Some agreements are just "pretty words" because there is no mechanism to hold national governments accountable to do what they said they would do.

Of course, you get the opposite issue if an agreement is enforceable. You get national governments complaining that they shouldn't have to do what they said they would do, because they are sovereign nations and should be able to do whatever they want.

No one forced Ireland to sign up to the ECHR. Conservatives there may now be shocked that the agreement is not just "pretty words" but that they are expected to actually comply with the terms of the agreement they signed. The right wing in Ireland may try to convince voters that the country should withdraw from the ECHR. If they do, I hope the voters teach them a lesson.

[Mudoria]

9. Ruling in..

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/16/ireland.abortion.ruling/index.html?hpt=T2


"The European Court of Human Rights condemned Ireland's laws on abortion Thursday, ruling the country violated the human rights of a woman forced to go abroad to end her pregnancy.

It did not, however, recommend a change to Irish law, which prohibits abortion in all cases."