Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-b4m5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-17T01:01:23.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

European Human Rights Convention in Domestic Law: A Comparative Study. By Andrew Z. Drzemczewski. New York: The Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1983. Pp. xiv, 372. Indexes. $63.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2017

Rosalyn Higgins
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Reviews and Notes
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 78 , Issue 4 , October 1984 , pp. 954 - 956
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Treatment of Polish Nationals Case, 1932 PCIJ, ser. A/B, No. 44, at 24, and Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 27.

2 Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations Case (Advisory Opinion), 1925 PCIJ, ser. B, No. 10, at 120.

3 Ireland v. United Kingdom, Judgment of Jan. 18, 1978 (Eur. Ct. H.R.), para. 239, reprinted in 17 ILM 680(1978).

4 Duffy, , English Law and the European Convention on Human Rights, 29 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 583 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 But to elevate one’s disagreement with a proposal briefly made, to a central criticism of the book, seems wholly inappropriate. Cf. Muchlinski’s review of this book in his essay, Improving the Protection of Human Rights, 47 Mod. L. Rev. 240 (1984). Muchlinski suggests that the European Convention cannot be looked at separately from other methods of promoting human rights. While, as a general proposition this is surely right, it cannot mean that an author is to be criticized for choosing to write in detail about a particular regional institution for human rights. His comment that Drzemczewski suggests that the lawyer should not trouble himself with broader, interdisciplinary issues raised by his research is totally unfounded. Drzemczewski neither says nor implies any such thing.