Law Democracy And The European Court Of Human Rights

Explores how the European Court of Human Rights understands 'democracy' and might support more deliberative, participatory and inclusive practices.

European Convention on Human Rights – Article 10 – Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. In the context of an effective democracy and respect for human rights mentioned in the Preamble to the European Convention on Human Rights, freedom of expression is not only important in its own right, but it also plays a central part in the protection of other rights under the Convention. Without a broad guarantee of the right to freedom of expression protected by independent and impartial courts, there is no free country, there is no democracy. This general proposition is undeniable. This handbook is a practical tool for legal professionals from Council of Europe member states who wish to strengthen their skills in applying the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in their daily work.

The European system of human rights protection faces institutional and political pressures which threaten its very survival. These intuitional pressures stem from the backlog of applications before the European Court of Human Rights, the large number of its judgments that remain unimplemented, and the political pressures that arise from sustained attacks on the Court's legitimacy and authority, notably from politicians and jurists in the United Kingdom. This book addresses the theme which lies at the heart of these pressures: the role of national parliaments in the implementation of judgments of the Court. It combines theoretical and empirical insights into the role of parliaments in securing domestic compliance with the Court's decisions, and provides detailed investigation of five European states with differing records of human rights compliance and parliamentary mobilization: Ukraine, Romania, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands. How far are parliaments engaged in implementation, and how far should they be? Do parliaments advance or hinder human rights compliance? Is it ever justifiable for parliaments to defy judgments of the Court? And how significant is the role played by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe? Drawing on the fields of international law, international relations, political science, and political philosophy, the book argues that adverse human rights judgments not only confer obligations on parliamentarians but also create opportunities for them to develop influential interpretations of human rights and enhance their own democratic legitimacy. It makes an authoritative contribution to debate about the future of the European and other supranational human rights mechanisms and the broader relationship between democracy, human rights, and legitimate authority.

This book provides a comparative analysis of how judgments from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) affect political participation and electoral justice at the national level. Looking at specific countries, the work analyses the legal impact the implementation of the ECtHR and the IACtHR judgments has, with a specific focus on cases in which the regional court concerned uses the "democratic argument", that is, arguments related to democracy and political rights. The reasoning is that although democracy is a much wider concept, judgments concerning violations of political rights and electoral justice provide reliable indicators to assess the status and sustainability of democracy in a State. Moreover, the analysis of the violations of political rights and electoral justice allows an in-depth comparison between the two regional human rights systems. Mindful of the broader scope of the fall-out generated by the non-implementation of judgments, including in socio-economic terms, the book includes a section exploring how judgments issued by the ECtHR and the IACtHR affect voters' participation in the countries under their jurisdiction. To this end, an original dataset including the 47 member States of the Council of Europe and the 20 countries which recognised the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the IACtHR is built. Multidisciplinary in aim and scope of analysis, the book will be an invaluable resource for researchers, academics and policymakers working in the areas of constitutional law, international human rights law and political economy.

This book analyses the concept of the rule of law in the context of international law, through the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. It investigates how the court has defined and interpreted the notion of the rule of law in its jurisprudence. It places this analysis against a background of more theoretical accounts of the idea of the rule of law, drawing in ideas of political philosophy. It also provides a comparative assessment, demonstrating how the idea of the rule of law has evolved in the UK, France, and Germany. The book argues that at the core of the concept of the rule of law are the notions of legality and judicial safeguards. It states that the Court has developed the requirements of legality, which the work analyses in detail, based on that concept. It assesses the independence of the judiciary as an aspect of the rule of law in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the relationship between the rule of law and the substantive contents of law. The book posits that the rule of law as seen at the Court is not mainly utilised with regard to 'freedom' rights, but is more concerned with procedural rights. It discusses the relationship between the rule of law and the view of the Convention as a constitutional instrument of the European public order, and shows that the rule of law and democracy are inextricably linked in the case law of the Court. Ultimately, the book demonstrates in its analysis of the Court's jurisprudence that the notion of the rule of law is a crucial part of the international legal order.

Explores the effects of the Strasbourg human rights system on the domestic law and politics of post-communist member states.

The orthodox view is that rights complement democracy. This book critically examines this view in the context of EU fundamental rights, specifically in situations where EU law requires member states to respect EU fundamental rights. It first sets out a legal theoretical account of how human rights can complement democracy. It argues that they can do so only if they are understood as both the conditions for the democratic process, and the outcome of such a democratic process. In light of this legal theoretical account of human rights, this book examines the demands which the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) imposes on the national orders in respect of EU fundamental rights. The conclusion reached is that the demands which EU fundamental rights impose on national legal orders entail a cost for the democratic legitimacy of those legal orders. Ultimately, accepting the demands of the CJEU in respect of EU fundamental rights may require the national legal order to abandon its commitment to protecting the human rights which are the foundation of the national legal order’s very legitimacy.

This insightful book considers how the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is faced with numerous challenges which emanate from authoritarian and populist tendencies arising across its member states. It argues that it is now time to reassess how the ECHR responds to such challenges to the protection of human rights in the light of its historical origins.