Dr Natasha Holcroft-Emmess
Human Rights in Conflicts and Crises: Derogation under Human Rights Treaties
Thesis summary
The thesis investigates the conditions under which States can lawfully take measures in times of war or emergency that would, in normal circumstances, violate human rights. Since the Second World War, States have created international treaties under which they assume obligations to protect human rights. Certain of those obligations can be suspended in times of war or qualifying emergency, subject to the conditions in the treaties’ derogation clauses. How courts and other actors, including government legal advisers, understand the conditions for valid derogation determines the scope of rights protection in times of conflict and crisis.
Among its claims, the thesis reasserts the importance of distinguishing limitations of human rights from derogation measures (i.e. suspensions of human rights), in light of case law that arguably makes that distinction more difficult to draw. Holding that conceptual line is important if human rights protection is not to be watered down. The thesis also reveals unclarity in the law about whether the duty to notify derogation measures conditions States’ ability to rely on the derogation clause as a defence to alleged human rights violations. The thesis argues that failure adequately to notify derogation measures should preclude a valid derogation. This understanding would position the derogation clause as an important tool for transparency and accountability when States take measures exceptionally restrictive of rights.
Overall, the thesis is a call to rediscover and practically implement the safeguards for human rights envisioned by the drafters of the human rights treaties, to whom the grave consequences of emergency and wartime measures were all too clear. It aims to contribute to the achievement of the ambitious liberal project of the post-war period: the effective protection of human rights through international law.
Examiners’ assessment
The examiners described the dissertation as “an outstanding contribution to legal scholarship” in the field of human rights derogations, and encouraged Dr Holcroft-Emmess to develop the thesis for publication as a book.
In the recipient’s own words
“I am delighted and so very grateful that my thesis has been awarded the Oxford Nicolas Berggruen Prize. I would like to thank everyone who has supported my research in Oxford and beyond. My doctoral thesis critically analyses the conditions under which States may lawfully suspend (i.e. derogate from) certain obligations assumed under international human rights treaties. The thesis argues that derogation clauses can, if carefully construed, function as mechanisms for transparency and accountability over measures exceptionally restrictive of rights. The thesis aims to foster the effective protection of human rights, even in the challenging circumstances of conflict and crisis.”
About the recipient
Dr Natasha Holcroft-Emmess specialises in international human rights law, with a particular focus on the legal regulation of rights during conflicts, emergencies and crises. She studied for the BA in Jurisprudence, the Bachelor of Civil Law, the MPhil in Law and the DPhil in Law at the University of Oxford, completing her doctorate in 2025.
