Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T17:04:28.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legitimacy and the Future of the European Court of Human Rights: Critical Perspectives from Academia and Practitioners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou  and
Alan Greene

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In April 2011, University College Dublin (UCD) School of Law research students held their Fifth Annual Postgraduate Conference, the theme of which was “The Legacy and Future of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Evaluating Sixty Years of the European Human Rights Project.” The articles contained in this special edition of the German Law Journal reflect the efforts made at this conference by its participants. While the papers presented vary quite widely in their substantive content, they are connected by a recurring theme— that the ECtHR faces a crisis of legitimacy. A judgment is legitimate if it is persuasive to the civic society constituted by the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), and perceived as authoritative by the subjects affected by the ECtHR's decision. The judgments of the ECtHR are fiercely criticized and their legitimacy is repeatedly questioned by the Contracting Parties and media in particular, and by civic society in general. As it stands, the ECtHR is suffocating from the overwhelming number of applications lodged, and even the tiny percentage of those applications that are decided by it face “a barrage of hostile criticism,” as Michael O'Boyle outlines in his article. The ECtHR's future, to a major extent, depends on how this crisis is tackled.

Type
Articles
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 12 , Issue 10: Special Issue Legitimacy and the Future of the European Court of Human Rights , 01 October 2011 , pp. 1707 - 1715
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 See for example, Başak Çali, Anne Koch and Nicole Bruch, The Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights: The View from the Ground (2011).Google Scholar

2 See for example, Mark Janis, Richard Kay & Anthony Wilfred Bradley, European Human Rights Law: Text and Materials 881 (2008); Helfer, Laurence, Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Regime 19 European Journal of International Law 125 (2008); O'Neill, Aidan, Reform of Strasbourg Court: a Modest Proposal, UK Human Rights Blog (28 Mar. 2011), available at http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/03/28/reform-of-strasbourg-court-a-modest-proposal-aidan-oneill-qc/ (last accessed: 27 September 2011). This phrase was used in the brochure published by the Council of Europe. See European Court of Human Rights, European Court of Human Rights: The ECHR in 50 Questions, (2010), available at http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/5C53ADA4-80F8-42CB-B8BD-CBBB781F42C8/0/FAQ_ENG_A4.pdf (last accessed: 27 September 2011).Google Scholar

3 See Helfer, supra note 2 at 129-130; Londras, Fiona de, The European Court of Human Rights, Dual Functionality, and the Future of the Court after Interlaken, 45 UCD Working Papers in Law, Criminology & Socio-Legal Studies Research Paper (2011). Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1773430 (last accessed: 27 September 2011).Google Scholar

4 See Buyse, Antoine, The Pilot Judgment Procedure at the European Court of Human Rights: Possibilities and Challenges, 57 Nomiko Vima 1890 (2009).Google Scholar

5 See Interlaken Declaration of 19 February 2010, available at http://www.eda.admin.ch/etc/medialib/downloads/edazen/topics/europa/euroc.Par.0133.File.tmp/final_en.pdf (last accessed: 29 September 2011) and Izmir Declaration of 27 April 2011, available at http://www.coe.int/t/dc/press/news/20110427_declaration_en.asp (last accessed: 29 September 2011).Google Scholar

6 See Helfer, supra note 2; de Londras, supra note 3.Google Scholar

7 See Başak Çali et. al., supra note 1.Google Scholar

8 See the chat show on the Russian state-owned television channel: A Duel (RTR Television broadcast 26 May 2011).Google Scholar

9 See Eur. Court H. R., Alekseyev v. Russia, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2010), available at: http://archive.equal-jus.eu/290/1/ECtHR-Alekseyex_v_Russia-2010-10-21.pdf (last accessed: 29 September 2011).Google Scholar

10 Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending the control system of the Convention (May 2004), available at http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/html/194.htm (last accessed: 29 September 2011). Protocol 14 came into force on 1 June 2010; it enshrined a number of procedural amendments to the ECHR including single-judge formation of the ECtHR, new admissibility criterion, and 9-year terms for judges to hold office, amongst others.Google Scholar

11 According to Article 46 of the ECHR, if the Committee of Ministers considers that a High Contracting Party refuses to abide by a final judgment in a case to which it is a party, it may, after serving formal notice on that Party, and by decision adopted by a majority vote of two-thirds of the representatives entitled to sit on the Committee, refer to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) the question of whether that Party has failed to fulfill its obligation to execute the judgment.Google Scholar

12 See Hirst v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 6 October 2005, (2006) 42 Eur. Ct. H. R. at 41 (2006); Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 24 November 2010, 160 N.L.J. 1685 (2010).Google Scholar

13 The Right Hon Jack Straw, Acting Shadow Deputy Prime Minister 2010 (Labour Party).Google Scholar

14 See The Backbench Parliamentary Debates:“Prisoners' right to vote” UK Parliament website (10 Feb, 2011). Available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110210/debtext/110210-0002.htm (last accessed: 27 September 2011).Google Scholar

15 Louis Henkin, International Law: Politics and Values 71-72 (1995).Google Scholar

16 See, as discussed in Michael O'Boyle's article (this issue), The Future of the European Court of Human Rights, 12 German Law Journal (2011), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=1388 (last accessed: 27 September 2011). See also, infra note 18.Google Scholar

17 See generally Albert Venn Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution 39-48 (1902).Google Scholar

18 Such is the view of Labor MP Yasmin Qureshi, who stated that “[T]he debate is about whether prisoners should have the right to vote, but it seems to have been turned into an opportunity to bash the European Court of Human Rights, the ECHR and the Human Rights Act.” See 523 Parl. Deb., H.C. (2011) 535 (U.K). During the course of this debate, Conservative MP Nick Boles urged the government to find a way to tell the ECtHR to go “Back in your (sic) box.” See 523 Parl. Deb. (2011) 56 (U.K). Many quarters of the British media also seemed to corroborate Qureshi's assertion; see James Slack, Stop meddling in asylum cases, unelected Euro judges warned by 47 countries (title of archived article is different from original cited. Please check to see if they are the same), Daily Mail, 27 Apr. 2011. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381351/Stop-meddling-asylum-cases-unelected-Euro-judges-warned-47-countries.html (last accessed: 27 September 2011); McKinstry, Leo, We have to ditch the European Court of Human Rights, The Express, 14 Apr. 2011, available at: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/240547/We-have-to-ditch-the-European-Court-of-Human-Rights (last accessed: 27 September 2011); Dominic Raab, What happens if we defy Europe? Nothing; The Government should refuse to enact EU laws that make no sense-like votes for prisoners The Daily Telegraph, 3 Feb. 2011, available at: (last accessed: September 27, 2011).Google Scholar

19 See Henkin, supra note 15.Google Scholar

20 Aileen Kavanagh, Constitutional Review under the UK Human Rights Act (1998) 146 (2009).Google Scholar

21 Fiona de Londras & Cliona Kelly, European Convention on Human Rights Act: Operation, Impact and Analysis 166-169 (2010).Google Scholar

22 See however the debate infra note 26, relating to the criticisms that can be levied on all aspects of the judiciary engaging in “activism” due to the “democratic deficit” they suffer from.Google Scholar

23 A v. The United Kingdom, 2 WLR 87 (2005).Google Scholar

24 Hoffmann, Lord, The Universality of Human Rights, 125 Law Quarterly Review 416, 428-429 (2009).Google Scholar

25 See Londras, Fiona de, International Human Rights Law and Constitutional Rights: In Favour of Synergy, 9 International Review of Constitutionalism 307 (2009).Google Scholar

26 See Waldron, Jeremy, The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review 115 Yale L. J. 1346 (2006).Google Scholar

27 See Follesdal, Andreas & Hix, Simon, Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik, 44 Journal of Common Market Studies 533 (2006); Featherstone, Kevin, Jean Monnet and the ‘Democratic Deficit’ in the European Union 32 Journal of Common Market Studies 149 (1994).Google Scholar

28 Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen 1963 ECR 1, 1970 CMLR 1.Google Scholar

29 According to Article 46 of the ECHR, supra note 11, the High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the ECtHR in any case to which they are parties.Google Scholar

30 Wessel, Jared, Relational Contract Theory and Treaty interpretation: End-Game Treaties v. Dynamic Interpretation, 60 Annual Survey of American Law 149 (2004).Google Scholar

31 Friedrich a Hayek, The Road To Serfdom 75-76 (1944).Google Scholar

32 Letter from Isaac Newton to Robert Hooke, 5 February 1676. See Jean-Pierre Maury, Newton: Understanding the Cosmos (1992).Google Scholar