{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

The national security exception any exception from

Info iconThis 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.
Background 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
Background 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 ]}

Page2 / 4

The national security exception Any exception from these...

This preview shows document pages 2 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online