It is the first case of ECtHR that we can not make an important evaluation and judgment of technological innovation. As the treaty kept silence in many organizations, many procedural problems came up at the first hearing of the court. Ireland challenged this procedure, but the court dismissed the objection. Another aspect that is not yet regulated is the style of judgment. ECtHR is French style, judgment is basically a long sentence structure.
Challenges may arise from the perspective of impairment. In one case, Brogan requested the British to oppose contempt in 1988, but thought that the situation in Northern Ireland was a public emergency, and therefore failed when complying with the provisions of Article 15. Derogation can provide an important means to maintain national security. When determining whether a decision is reasonable, the proportional principle limits the exercise of power to targets proportional to the goal. Therefore, within the requirements of the Convention, infringing the right of protection must be justified under the provisions of the Convention. As mentioned above, the "treaty" is full at the discretion of the state based on the degree of evaluation. In the words of Sir Ayna, "Beat the nuts with a hammer" (Brind, 1991).
According to Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights, if it is determined that it is impossible or unwilling to comply with specific provisions, the State may abstain under the European Convention on Human Rights Article 64. However, in the case of war, or in Article 3, Article 4 paragraph 1, or Article 15, if a dispute is challenged from the perspective of impairment, it is not allowed to relate to Article 2, so impairment is It is stipulated to be limited. In one case, Brogan requested the British to oppose contempt in 1988, but thought that the situation in Northern Ireland was a public emergency, and therefore failed when complying with the provisions of Article 15. Derogation can provide an important means to maintain national security