Northern Ireland's Emergency Laws and International Human Rights

Abstract

In this article, international law of human rights is used as a yardstick against which to measure the emergency provisions operating in Northern Ireland, where special trial procedures have been in place since 1973 for persons accused of terrorist offenses. In particular, the use of juries has been withdrawn, all matters of fact and law being decided instead by a single judge in the so called ‘Diplock’ courts. There are many unsatisfactory features of the emergency legislation associated with the Diplock court proceedings. Because of these features, it is probable that some defendants in the Diplock court system are not afforded the fair trial to which they are entitled under the international law of human rights. With respect to arrest, interrogation, the admissibility of confessions, the right of silence, access to family and lawyer, there is a risk that the requirements of a fair trial, as set out in Article 5 ECHR and Article 14 ICCPR, are not met. Also, the Northern Ireland's law on the use of lethal force may not comply with the European Convention's standard on protecting the right to life. The authors conclude that international human rights standards would be better protected in Northern Ireland if the European Convention on Human Rights were incorporated in domestic law. The British Government should ratify Protocol 4 to the Convention which would extend the rights guaranteed to individuals within the United Kingdom, and the first Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, thereby giving individuals an alternative mechanism for addressing violations of human rights.