Preview

Kutafin Law Review

Advanced search

The Paradox of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights’ Transformative Power

https://doi.org/10.17803/2313-5395.2017.2.8.315-333

Full Text:

Abstract

Human rights problems exist all over Europe. Although the European Court of Human Rights is competent to deal with individual complaints about such problems, the Court is much criticised. Moreover, there may be little political will or capacity to tackle the structural problems which have caused such complaints to be made. At the same time, the judgments of the Court can be shown to have great impact on national case-law, legislation and policy. Paradoxically, thus, the Court’s case-law has an important transformative power, as is further explained in this essay.

About the Author

J. Gerards
Utrecht University
Russian Federation


References

1. Akbulut, O. (2016). Turkey: The European Convention on Human Rights as a tool for modernisation, in Popelier, P., Lambrecht, S., and Lemmens, K. Criticism of the European Court of Human Rights. Shifting the Convention System: Counter-Dynamics at the National and EU Level. Intersentia

2. Alter, K. J., Helfer, L. R., and Madsen, M. R. (2016). How Context Shapes the Authority of International Courts. Law and Contemporary Problems. 79. 1-36.

3. Bates, E. (2010). The Evolution of the European Convention on Human Rights - From its Inception to the Creation of a Permanent Court of Human Rights. OUP.

4. Bjorge, E. (2015). Domestic application of the ECHR. Courts as faithful trustees. Oxford University Press.

5. Cameron, I. and Bull, Th. (2014). Sweden, in Gerards, J. H. and Fleuren, J. W. A. Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the judgments of the ECtHR in national case law. A comparative analysis. Intersentia.

6. Flogaitis, S., Zwart, T., and Fraser, J. (2013). The European Court of Human Rights and its Discontents. Turning Criticism into Strength. Edward Elgar.

7. Gamper, A. (2016). Austria: Endorsing the Convention System, Endorsing the Constitution, in Popelier, P., Lambrecht, S., and Lemmens, K. Criticism of the European Court of Human Rights. Shifting the Convention System: Counter-Dynamics at the National and EU Level. Intersentia.

8. Gerards, J. H. (2016). The Irrelevance of the Netherlands Constitution, and the Impossibility of Changing It. Revue Interdisciplinaire d’Études Juridiques. 77. 207-233.

9. Gerards, J. H. and Fleuren, J. W. A. (2014). Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the judgments of the ECtHR in national case law. A comparative analysis. Intersentia.

10. Gerards, J. H. and Fleuren, J. W. A. (2014). The Netherlands, in Gerards, J. H. and Fleuren, J. W. A. Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the judgments of the ECtHR in national case law. A comparative analysis. Intersentia.

11. Glas, L. R. (2016). The Theory, Potential and Practice of Procedural Dialogue in the European Convention on Human Rights System. Intersentia.

12. Helfer, L. R. (2008). Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Regime. European Journal of International Law. 19. 125-159

13. Helfer, L. R. and Slaughter, A.-M. (1997). Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication. Yale Law Review. 107. 273-391.

14. Kavanagh, A. (2009). Constitutional Review under the UK Human Rights Act. Cambridge University Press.

15. Keller, H. and Stone Sweet, A. (2008). A Europe of Rights. The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems. Oxford University Press.

16. Klein, E. (2014). Germany, in Gerards, J. H. and Fleuren, J. W. A. Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the judgments of the ECtHR in national case law. A comparative analysis. Intersentia.

17. Koivu, V. (2015). European Convention on Human Rights and the transition of legal culture. Lapin Yliopisto.

18. Kovler, A. I. (2016). European Convention on Human Rights in Russia: Fifteen years later, in Motoc, I. and Ziemele, I. The Impact of the ECHR on Democratic Change in Central and Eastern Europe. Cambridge University Press.

19. Krisch, N. (2010). Beyond Constitutionalism. The Pluralist Structure of Postnational Law. Oxford University Press.

20. Madsen, M. R. (2016). The Challenging Authority of the European Court of Human Rights: From Cold War Legal Diplomacy to the Brighton Declaration and Backlash. Law and Contemporary Problems. 79. 141-178.

21. Martinico, G. and Pollicino, O. (2010). The National Judicial Treatment of the ECHR and EU Laws. A Comparative Constitutional Perspective. European Law Publishing.

22. Masterman, R. (2014). The United Kingdom, in Gerards, J. H. and Fleuren, J. W. A. Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the judgments of the ECtHR in national case law. A comparative analysis. Intersentia.

23. Masterman, R. (2016). The United Kingdom: From Strasbourg Surrogacy towards a British Bill of Rights? In Popelier, P., Lambrecht, S., and Lemmens, K. Criticism of the European Court of Human Rights. Shifting the Convention System: Counter-Dynamics at the National and EU Level. Intersentia.

24. Matta, A. and Mazmanyan, A. (2016). Russia: In Quest for A European Identity, in Popelier, P., Lambrecht, S., and Lemmens, K. Criticism of the European Court of Human Rights. Shifting the Convention System: Counter-Dynamics at the National and EU Level. Intersentia.

25. Motoc, I. and Ziemele, I. (2016). The Impact of the ECHR on Democratic Change in Central and Eastern Europe. Cambridge University Press.

26. Popelier, P. (2016). The supremacy dilemma: The Belgian Constitutional Court caught between the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice, in Popelier, P., Lambrecht, S., and Lemmens, K. Criticism of the European Court of Human Rights. Shifting the Convention System: Counter-Dynamics at the National and EU Level. Intersentia.

27. Popelier, P., Lambrecht, S., and Lemmens, K. (2016), Criticism of the European Court of Human Rights. Shifting the Convention System: Counter-Dynamics at the National and EU Level. Intersentia.

28. Popelier, P., Van de Heyning, C., and Van Nuffel, P. (2011). Human rights protection in the European legal order: The interaction between the European and the national courts. Intersentia.

29. Sadurski, W. (2009). Partnering with Strasbourg: Constitutionalisation of the European Court of Human Rights, the Accession of Central and East European States to the Council of Europe, and the Idea of Pilot Judgments. Human Rights Law Review. 9. 397-453.

30. Schaiko, G., Lemmens, P., and Lemmens, K. (2014). Belgium, in Gerards, J. H. and Fleuren, J. W. A. (2014). Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the judgments of the ECtHR in national case law. A comparative analysis. Intersentia.

31. Simmons, B. A. (2009). Mobilizing for Human Rights. International Law in Domestic Policies. Cambridge University Press.

32. Slaughter, A.-M. (1994). A Typology of Transjudicial Communication. University of Richmond Law Review. 29. 99.

33. Stone Sweet, A. (2012). The European Convention on Human Rights and National Constitutional Reordering. Cardozo Law Review. 33. 1859-1868.

34. Visser, M. de (2014). Constitutional Review in Europe. A comparative analysis. Hart.


Review

For citation:


Gerards J. The Paradox of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights’ Transformative Power. Kutafin Law Review. 2017;4(2):315-333. https://doi.org/10.17803/2313-5395.2017.2.8.315-333

Views: 68


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2713-0525 (Print)
ISSN 2713-0533 (Online)