Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > A Utilitarian Account of Article 3 ECHR

Research

Electronic data

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

A Utilitarian Account of Article 3 ECHR

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

A Utilitarian Account of Article 3 ECHR. / Letwin, Jeremy.
In: European Convention on Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 3, No. 3, 30.09.2022, p. 350-391.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Letwin, J 2022, 'A Utilitarian Account of Article 3 ECHR', European Convention on Human Rights Law Review, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 350-391. https://doi.org/10.1163/26663236-bja10045

APA

Letwin, J. (2022). A Utilitarian Account of Article 3 ECHR. European Convention on Human Rights Law Review, 3(3), 350-391. https://doi.org/10.1163/26663236-bja10045

Vancouver

Letwin J. A Utilitarian Account of Article 3 ECHR. European Convention on Human Rights Law Review. 2022 Sept 30;3(3):350-391. Epub 2022 Jul 11. doi: 10.1163/26663236-bja10045

Author

Letwin, Jeremy. / A Utilitarian Account of Article 3 ECHR. In: European Convention on Human Rights Law Review. 2022 ; Vol. 3, No. 3. pp. 350-391.

Bibtex

@article{37ed524bc93a4447a8a892f0da5da612,
title = "A Utilitarian Account of Article 3 ECHR",
abstract = "The greatest impediment to the acceptance of a utilitarian theory of human rights is the perceived inability of utilitarianism to deal with absolute rights, such as those contained in Article 3 European Convention on Human Rights. In this paper, I argue that a sophisticated form of indirect utilitarianism can in fact provide a solid foundation for Article 3 absolute rights. I develop an account of the moral rights underlying Article 3 and apply that account to some key elements of the European Court of Human Rights{\textquoteright} (ECtHR) Article 3 jurisprudence. I show how the indirect utilitarian account can explain: (1) the ECtHR{\textquoteright}s conclusion that the G{\"a}fgencase did not involve a conflict of Convention rights; (2) the ECtHR{\textquoteright}s answer to the question {\textquoteleft}what counts as torture?{\textquoteright}; and (3) the ECtHR{\textquoteright}s jurisprudence on the difference between the scope of the obligation to prevent torture and the scope of the obligation to prevent inhuman and degrading treatment.",
author = "Jeremy Letwin",
year = "2022",
month = sep,
day = "30",
doi = "10.1163/26663236-bja10045",
language = "English",
volume = "3",
pages = "350--391",
journal = "European Convention on Human Rights Law Review",
issn = "2666-3236",
publisher = "Martinus Nijhoff Publishers/ Brill Academic",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Utilitarian Account of Article 3 ECHR

AU - Letwin, Jeremy

PY - 2022/9/30

Y1 - 2022/9/30

N2 - The greatest impediment to the acceptance of a utilitarian theory of human rights is the perceived inability of utilitarianism to deal with absolute rights, such as those contained in Article 3 European Convention on Human Rights. In this paper, I argue that a sophisticated form of indirect utilitarianism can in fact provide a solid foundation for Article 3 absolute rights. I develop an account of the moral rights underlying Article 3 and apply that account to some key elements of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) Article 3 jurisprudence. I show how the indirect utilitarian account can explain: (1) the ECtHR’s conclusion that the Gäfgencase did not involve a conflict of Convention rights; (2) the ECtHR’s answer to the question ‘what counts as torture?’; and (3) the ECtHR’s jurisprudence on the difference between the scope of the obligation to prevent torture and the scope of the obligation to prevent inhuman and degrading treatment.

AB - The greatest impediment to the acceptance of a utilitarian theory of human rights is the perceived inability of utilitarianism to deal with absolute rights, such as those contained in Article 3 European Convention on Human Rights. In this paper, I argue that a sophisticated form of indirect utilitarianism can in fact provide a solid foundation for Article 3 absolute rights. I develop an account of the moral rights underlying Article 3 and apply that account to some key elements of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) Article 3 jurisprudence. I show how the indirect utilitarian account can explain: (1) the ECtHR’s conclusion that the Gäfgencase did not involve a conflict of Convention rights; (2) the ECtHR’s answer to the question ‘what counts as torture?’; and (3) the ECtHR’s jurisprudence on the difference between the scope of the obligation to prevent torture and the scope of the obligation to prevent inhuman and degrading treatment.

U2 - 10.1163/26663236-bja10045

DO - 10.1163/26663236-bja10045

M3 - Journal article

VL - 3

SP - 350

EP - 391

JO - European Convention on Human Rights Law Review

JF - European Convention on Human Rights Law Review

SN - 2666-3236

IS - 3

ER -