The national security exception any exception from

Info icon This preview shows pages 2–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
The “national security” exception Any exception from these rules has to be prescribed by law, necessary to protect certain purposes. Legitimate Restrictions An individual’s right to move freely within the State or to leave the State is only acceptable if those restrictions satisfy the requirements of paragraph 3, article 12 of the ICCPR. Paragraph 3, article 12 of the ICCPR provides that both rights “shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law , are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognised in the present Covenant.” Provided by Law General Comment No. 27, para. 13 notes that the law must establish the conditions under which the rights may be limited and that “laws authorising the application of restrictions should use precise criteria and may not confer unfettered discretion on those charged with their execution.” Necessary to Protect Permissible Purposes General Comment No. 27, para. 14 provides that “it is not sufficient that the restrictions serve the permissible purposes; they must also be necessary to protect them . Restrictive measures must conform to the principle of proportionality; they must be appropriate to achieve their protective function; they must be the least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve their desired result; and they must be proportional to the interest to be protected.” Some examples of inappropriate restrictions: “if an individual were prevented from leaving a country merely on the ground that he or she is the holder of ‘State secrets,’ or if an individual were prevented from travelling internally without a specific permit.” Id at para. 16. Some examples of appropriate restrictions: “restrictions on State Secrets The Committee has also held that a State party may not invoke national security when the information that the individual has distributed, is a matter of public knowledge already . In Kang , as noted above, the Supreme Court of Korea had defined a state secret as something that, “even though the information is self-evident and natural common-sense knowledge in the Republic of Korea…might provide benefit to an anti-State organisation and might cause damage to us.” Kang v. Republic of Korea , Communication No. 878/1999, CCPR/C/78/D/878/1999, para. 2.4 n.3.
Image of page 2

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Restrictions on freedom of expression must satisfy a three-part test that is very similar to the one articulated in the ICCPR.
Image of page 3
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern