While the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, the Convention) and its main guardian, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, the Court), have been in operation since 1953 and 1959, respectively, it was only in 1995 that a ruling in McCann and others v the United Kingdom on Article 2 of the Convention – encompassing the right to life – was handed down. In this landmark case, the Court ruled that the aforementioned article is one of the ‘most fundamental provisions in the Convention’. One could hardly agree more with this ruling since, as a matter of fact, the ‘existence and the adherence’ to the right to life is indispensable, especially as without this right, ‘any enjoyment of other rights is impossible’ (p. 12). Also, when Article 2 of the ECHR is violated inasmuch as life is taken away, it is impossible to reverse the wrong that was done (ibid).

The remarks above already demonstrate the particular importance of the right to life and the need for an extensive treatise of the Convention's Article 2. The volume at hand, which evolved from Hannah Russel's PhD, was released as Volume 81 in the Series Modern Studies in European Law and focuses on the greatest threat to the right to life, namely, the use of force. The work addresses many issues and developments of the right to life since the McCann case and investigates how it can be better protected in Europe. In so doing, Russel draws from the experience of four European conflicts – the Basque, Chechen and Turkish-Kurdish conflict as well as the Northern Ireland Troubles – which are invoked to illustrate the point. It is primarily during conflicts that the right to life is ofter disregarded and under great threat, which is why Russel draws important findings from these conflicts for the analysis of Article 2 of the Convention. The four case studies are perfectly apt to draw from and their analysis enriches the volume.

The main feature of Russel's book, however, is the proposed guidelines, set out in the volume's appendix, which are based on the Convention's wording and its corresponding case law.