PL EN


2019 | 1(17) | 56-68 (13)
Article title

KLAUZULA ZAKAZU NADUŻYCIA PRAW JAKO QUASI-WYJĄTEK OD KONIECZNOŚCI OCHRONY PRAW JEDNOSTKI. ROZWAŻANIA Z PERSPEKTYWY UNIWERSALNEGO SYSTEMU OCHRONY PRAW CZŁOWIEKA

Content
Title variants
EN
PROHIBITION OF THE ABUSE OF RIGHTS AS A QUASI-EXCEPTION FROM THE NECESSITY OF THE PROTECTION HUMAN RIGHTS: CONSIDERATIONS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE UNIVERSAL SYSTEM OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Languages of publication
PL
Abstracts
EN
The prevention of the abuse of rights is a legal instrument which aims at the protection of the spirit of law associated with the basic principles of a democratic system. Nevertheless its application sometimes leads to a decreasing effectiveness of the protection of human rights, and sometimes turns against democracy itself and the rule of law. The objective of this analysis is to consider the possibility of the optimalization of using application of such provision from the angle of the effective protection of individuals’ rights. The article has been prepared on the basis of dogmatic methodology with elements of historical analysis. The results of the analysis can contribute to the elaboration of a systemic approach towards the prevention of rights abuse with benefits for the protection of individual rights as well as foreseeability of law.
Year
Issue
Pages
56-68 (13)
Physical description
Contributors
  • Zakład Prawa Konstytucyjnego Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, al. Niepodległości 53, 61-714 Poznań, adres e-mail: hanawicz@gmail.com, ORCID ID 0000-0002-0224-3677
References
  • Baumann-Pauly D. & Nolan J. 2016, Business and Human Rights: From Principles to Practice, New York.
  • Brems E., Gerards J. 2013, Shaping Rights in the ECHR: The Role of the European
  • Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human Rights, Cambridge.
  • Cannie & Vorhoof 2011, The abuse clause and the freedom of expression in the European
  • Convention on Human Rights: an added value for democracy and human rights protection, “Netherlands Quarterly on Human Rights”, nr 29, s. 54–83.
  • Clapham A. 1993, Human Rights in Private Sphere, Oxford.
  • Gruszczynski L. & Werner W. 2014, Deference in International Courts and Tribunals: Standard of Review and Margin of Appreciation, Oxford.
  • Karavias M. 2013, Corporate Obligations under International Law, Oxford.
  • Langer L. 2014, Religious Offence and Human Rights: The Implications of Defamation of Religions, Cambridge.
  • Morsink J. 2009, Inherent Human Rights: Philosophical Roots of the Universal Declaration, Philadephia.
  • Roca J.G. & Santolaya P. 2012, Europe of Rights: A Compendium on the European Convention of Human Rights, Danvers.
  • Roosevelt E. 1948, “Adoption of the Declaration of Human Rights”, Paris, available at http://www.udhr.org/history/Biographies/bioer.htm (23.06.2010).
  • Saul B. 2014, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Commentary, Cases and Materials, Oxford.
  • Taylor P.M. 2005, Freedom of Religion: UN and European Human Rights Law and Practice, Cambridge.
  • Thiel M. 2016, The ‘Militant Democracy’ Principle in Modern Democracies, London– New York
  • Van Dijk P., Van Hoof G.J.H. 1998, Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Cambridge.
  • Orzecznictwo ETPC
  • Cumpana i Mazare przeciwko Rumunii z dn. 17.12.2004, nr sprawy 33348/96
  • Vogt przeciwko Niemcom z dn. 1.11.1995, nr sprawy 17851/91
  • Witzsch przeciwko Niemcom z dn. 13.12.2005 r., nr sprawy 7485/03
  • Sprawy Komitetu Praw Człowieka
  • M.A.przeciwko Włochom z 21.09.1981 r., Komunikat nr 117/1981
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-395bdcc0-f82c-4606-9de3-b8ba1ce4692f
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.