Is international human rights law harbouring island injustice?: the case of the ‘colonial clause’ of the European Convention on Human Rights

Abstract

The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), signed in 1950, is one of the most prominent instruments of international human rights law. Even so, the ECHR contains a controversial clause (Article 56) that carries a strong colonial ‘aroma’. This clause allows States to choose how the ECHR applies to ‘territories for whose international relations [they are] responsible’ creating thus illegitimate double standards in the protection of human rights in overseas territories. While the colonial character of this provision has been criticised, it was never observed that islands are the first victims of these double standards. My presentation aims to illustrate that the ‘colonial clause’ of the ECHR is eventually an ‘island clause’ gone unnoticed. Relying on the perception of islandness in Island Studies, I will argue that this lack of attention to the geographical/topological implications of this clause is only one symptom of a wider deficiency, namely of the fact that islandness is disregarded in international human rights law. While international human rights law is premised on universality, it qualifies, in reality, as a continental construction. Even though human rights law has been developed to provide protection against injustices with no geographical or other distinction, human rights standards themselves – just like in the case of Article 56 ECHR – may harbour island injustice.