Module LAW3137 for 2018/9
- Overview
- Aims and Learning Outcomes
- Module Content
- Indicative Reading List
- Assessment
Undergraduate Module Descriptor
LAW3137: Lethal Force, the ECHR and Democracy
This module descriptor refers to the 2018/9 academic year.
Module Aims
The aim of the module is to introduce you to the deeper dimensions of human rights law in relation to the specific areas of State killing and deaths in custody under Article 2, ECHR. The module aims to give you the necessary legal, theoretical and contextual background in order to analyse effectively the rationales, application and limits of human rights law in this area, as well as their significance for European democracy. This is relevant for both academic purposes and your ability to engage critically with law in context, which is significant for legal practice and other employment-related applications.
| On successfully completing the programme you will be able to: | |
|---|---|
| Module-Specific Skills | 1. Demonstrate detailed knowledge of the ECHR and related case law on the topics covered on the module, together with a substantial range of major concepts, values and principles relevant to their application; 2. Demonstrate detailed knowledge of a wide range of social, political and contextual implications of the issues studied; 3. Demonstrate critical awareness of key elements of related procedural matters; |
| Discipline-Specific Skills | 4. Integrate and assess relevant information from primary and secondary legal sources using appropriate interpretative techniques; 5. Demonstrate detailed knowledge and understanding of the methods and rationales for studying human rights law in context, as well as their limits; |
| Personal and Key Skills | 6. Manage relevant resources and information effectively, and to develop your own arguments and opinions with minimum guidance; 7. Communicate and engage in debate effectively and accurately, orally and in writing, in a manner appropriate to the discipline; and 8. Work independently and to manage time well in preparing for scheduled learning activities, and to complete specific tasks, exercises and assessments within a limited time frame. |
How this Module is Assessed
In the tables below, you will see reference to 'ILO's. An ILO is an Intended Learning Outcome - see Aims and Learning Outcomes for details of the ILOs for this module.
Formative Assessment
A formative assessment is designed to give you feedback on your understanding of the module content but it will not count towards your mark for the module.
| Form of assessment | Size of the assessment (eg length / duration) | ILOs assessed | Feedback method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discursive essay-type question | One hour students will be given an essay question to answer in self-imposed exam conditions but with access to their notes. | 1-8 | Written/oral |
Summative Assessment
A summative assessment counts towards your mark for the module. The table below tells you what percentage of your mark will come from which type of assessment.
| Coursework | Written exams | Practical exams |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 100 | 0 |
...and this table provides further details on the summative assessments for this module.
| Form of assessment | % of credit | Size of the assessment (eg length / duration) | ILOs assessed | Feedback method |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Examination - open note | 100 | Two hours (two questions from choice of five questions) | 1-8 | Written/ oral |
| 0 | ||||
| 0 | ||||
| 0 | ||||
| 0 | ||||
| 0 | ||||
| 0 |
Re-assessment
Re-assessment takes place when the summative assessment has not been completed by the original deadline, and the student has been allowed to refer or defer it to a later date (this only happens following certain criteria and is always subject to exam board approval). For obvious reasons, re-assessments cannot be the same as the original assessment and so these alternatives are set. In cases where the form of assessment is the same, the content will nevertheless be different.
| Original form of assessment | Form of re-assessment | ILOs re-assessed | Timescale for re-assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Examination - open note | Examination - open note (Two hours (two questions from choice of five questions)) | 1-8 | August/September re-assessment period |
Indicative Reading List
This reading list is indicative - i.e. it provides an idea of texts that may be useful to you on this module, but it is not considered to be a confirmed or compulsory reading list for this module.
D.J. Harris, M. O'Boyle, E.P. Bates and C.M. Buckley, Harris, O'Boyle & Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 3rd edn (Oxford University Press, 2014)
S. Bronnitt, M. Gani and S. Hufnagel, Shooting to Kill: Socio-Legal Perspectives on the Use of Lethal Force (Hart, 2012)
P. Squires and P. Kennison, Shooting to Kill? Policing, Firearms and Armed Response, (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010)
E. Wicks, The Right to Life and Conflicting Interests, (OUP, 2010)
F. Leverick, Killing in Self-Defence , 2006 (OUP)
S. Uniacke, Permissible Killing , 1996 (CUP)
P. A. J. Waddington, The Strong Arm of the Law (OUP, 1991) and Policing Citizens (UCL, 1999)
S. Skinner, ‘Deference, Proportionality and the Margin of Appreciation in Lethal Force Case Law under Article 2 ECHR’ (2014) 1 European Human Rights Law Review 32-38
S. Skinner, “The Right to Life, Democracy and State Responsibility in ‘Urban Guerilla’ Conflict: The Grand Chamber Judgment in Giuliani and Gaggio v Italy ”, (2011) 11.3 Human Rights Law Review 567-577
J. Chevalier-Watts, ‘Effective Investigations Under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Securing the Right to Life or an Onerous Burden on a State?’ (2010) 21(3) European Journal of International Law 701-721
J. Chevalier-Watts, ‘A Rock and a Hard Place: Has the European Court of Human Rights Permitted Discrepancies to Evolve in Their Scrutiny of Right to Life Cases?’ (2010) 14.2 International Journal of Human Rights 300-318
F. De Sanctis, ‘What Duties Do States Have with Regard to the Rules of Engagement and the Training of Security Forces under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights?’ (2006) 10(1) The International Journal of Human Rights 31-44
ELE – http://vle.exeter.ac.uk/
