structural:summarization, information:classification
"Not inconsistent with other obligations under international law"

The ECtHR ensures compliance with international legal standards regarding derogations from human rights during emergencies. As affirmed in Lawless v. Ireland (no. 3) (1961), the Court has the authority to independently review Article 15 § 1 derogations, ensuring compliance with international legal standards. In Brannigan and McBride v. the United Kingdom (1993), the ECtHR clarified that derogations need not always entail formal proclamation, recognizing "official statements" as sufficient indication. Marshall v. the United Kingdom (dec.) (2001) established that prolonged emergency measures do not per se violate international legal obligations. Hassan v. the United Kingdom (2014) demonstrated the ECtHR's flexibility in interpreting Convention provisions in alignment with principles of international humanitarian law, even in the absence of formal derogations. Georgia v. Russia (II) (2021) outlined the ECtHR's methodical approach to reconciling ECHR obligations with international humanitarian law in armed conflict situations.