1. Introduction: Perspectives on the Protective Potential of Interim Measures in Human Rights Cases and the Legitimacy of Their Use

CJEU (Grand Chamber) Order in Case C-619/18 R Commission v Poland, 17 December 2018. On 19 October 2018, the Vice-President had already ordered Poland to suspend the effects of the Judiciary Reform Act and, in particular, to ensure that no sitting judge is removed as a result of the new retirement age. On the practice of the CJEU see Chap. 3 by Prechal and Pahladsingh.

Council of Europe Special Representative of the Secretary General on migration and refugees, ‘ECHR grants an interim measure in case concerning the Sea-Watch 3 vessel’, Newsletter February 2019. On the interim measures practice of the ECtHR in the context of non-refoulement see Chap. 7 by Zwaan.

The Hungarian Helsinki Committee, ‘Hungary Continues to Starve Detainees in the Transit Zones, Information update by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC), 23 April 2019 https://​www.​helsinki.​hu/​wp-content/​uploads/​Starvation-2019.​pdf.

See e.g. Shelton’s contribution, Chap. 2.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2017, also noting that ‘legitimate may apply to a legal right or status but also, in extended use, to a right or status supported by tradition, custom, or accepted standards.’

See e.g. Bodansky 1999; Kumm 2004; Peters 2006; and Weiler 2004.

See e.g. Keller and Ulfstein 2012; Grossman 2009, 2013; Dzehtsiarou and Coffey 2014; Føllesdahl 2013a; Helfer and Alter 2013; Thomas 2014; Ulfstein 2014; Voeten 2013; and Von Bogdandy and Venzke 2012a, b.

See e.g. Franck 1990.

See e.g. Hernández 2014; Von Bogdandy and Venzke 2012a, b, 2013; Petersen 2011; Tzanakopoulos 2011; and Ulfstein 2009.

See e.g. Føllesdal 2013b.

Thomas Franck focused on procedural legitimacy, ‘generally accepted principles of right process’. Franck 1990.

On motivation, see e.g. Ruiz Fabri and Sorel 2008.

Franck 1990, 52, 94, 142.

See e.g. Rieter 2019. On the approach by the ICJ to provisional measures in general see the contributions by Thirlway, Wittich, Sparks and Somos, Le Floch, Rieter, Tanaka, and Marotti in: Palombino et al. 2021. On the approaches of the ICJ, ITLOS and arbitral tribunals, see Miles 2017.

See e.g. ICJ Order for provisional measures in Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v Russian Federation), 19 April 2017, para 99.

In the context of the ICJ now often referred to as conditions.

On the controversy, see e.g. the individual opinions attached to the ICJ Order for provisional measures in Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v Russian Federation), 19 April 2017. See further Rieter 2019 and the discussions on the ICJ in Palombino et al. 2021.

ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Gambia v. Myanmar), Order of 23 January 2020.

See e.g. Rieter 2021.

Rieter 2010.

See also Rieter 2012.

Miles 2017.

E.g. Bodansky 1999.

More closely, see e.g. Shany 2014; Shaw 2011; https://​www.​asil.​org/​blogs/​idea-effective-international-law; Couvreur 2017.

E.g. is the test whether a state has paid compensation? Or is the test whether it has taken concrete measures to help prevent similar violations in the future, and if so, how concrete should these measures be?

Expert seminar Urgency and Human Rights, Radboud University Nijmegen, 29-30 May 2015. The seminar was organised by Rosa Möhrlein and Eva Rieter (Research Centre for State and Law, Radboud University, in collaboration with Karin Zwaan (Centre for Migration Law, Radboud University), Yves Haeck and Clara Burbano Herrera (Ghent University) and Andrea Saccucci (Università della Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”) and with financial contribution from Radboud University International Office and Ghent University. Next to the contribution of scholars, well-known practitioners offered new and refreshing insights. Speakers were Clara Burbano Herrera & Yves Haeck (Ghent University); Oksana Chelisheva (journalist), Carla Ferstman (REDRESS; University of Essex)), Brian Griffey (OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights); Jelle Klaas (director Public Interest Litigation Program); Philip Leach (Middlesex University; European Human Rights Advocacy Centre); Placide Ntole (SOS Information Juridique Multisectorielle, South Kivu), Róisín Pillay (International Commission of Jurists), Sacha Prechal (judge at the Court of Justice of the European Union; Utrecht University), Andrea Saccucci (Università della Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”; Saccucci & Partners; Doughty Street Chambers); Dinah Shelton (George Washington University; former President Inter-American Commission on Human Rights); Amrit Singh (Open Society Justice Initiative); Özlem Ülgen (Birmingham City University); Richard van Elst (Radboud University); Theo van Boven (Maastricht University, former UN Special Rapporteur against Torture); William Worster (Hague University of Applied Sciences). The participating scholars and practitioners argued from diverse perspectives but agreed on the need for further development of ideas to improve the tools available in urgent human rights cases importance arrived at a common understanding of the importance of improving the legitimacy and protective potential of interim measures. This book aims to contribute to the further discussion in this respect.

See e.g. Griffey (Chap. 8); Leach (Chap. 9); Zwaan (Chap. 7); Burbano Herrera and Haeck (Chap. 10).

See the literature referenced above.

See e.g. Griffey (Chap. 8).

Recently on the ICJ, as a court of general jurisdiction, and its approach to provisional measures specifically in human rights cases, see Rieter 2019. In general on the ICJ’s approach to provisional measures, see the contributions in Palombino et al. 2021.

See e.g. Shelton (Chap. 2); Prechal and Pahladsingh (Chap.3); Pillay (Chap. 4); Ebobrah (Chap. 5); and Harrington (Chap. 6).

The contributors work in academia, with practical experience in the field, or are specialists in international organisations. Most of the contributors are both scholar and practitioner, most notably Dinah Shelton (former Commissioner with the Inter-American Human Rights Commission), Sacha Prechal (Judge at the Court of Justice of the European Union), Aniel Pahladsing (lawyer at the Dutch Council of State) and Philip Leach (director at the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre).

As discussed elsewhere, the ICJ has also ordered provisional measures in the context of armed conflict, including in response to provisional measures requests by Ukraine. Specifically on ICJ Ukraine v Russia, see e.g. Rieter 2019. See also the discussions in Palombino et al. 2021. See further ITLOS Case concerning the detention of three Ukrainian Naval Vessels (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Order for provisional measures of 25 May 2019.

See Griffey (Chap. 8).