During the last decades, States no longer tend to invoke the principle of non-interference when it comes to the scrutiny of their human rights record by peer review, reporting mechanisms or judicial procedures. Nevertheless, compliance with the recommendations or judgments of international human rights fora is a persistent concern in a number of States. Infringement proceedings was introduced in the Council of Europe only with Protocol 14 to the ECHR. While for quite a long time dormant, the procedure was invoked in December 2017 against Azerbaijan. This paper lays out the salient features of the procedure and explores whether non-execution could be effectively addressed by the judicialisation of the monitoring mechanism. Whereas the infringement procedure provides strong signals to other States with bad compliance record, it remains to be seen whether it will secure execution, due to the underlying political reasons of non-compliance.
Abstract:The fact that international law is characterized by the lack of unified system of sanctions and central enforcement authorities certainly weakens the normative character of international human rights obligations as well. After a brief description of the theoretical and practical problems relating to compliance with international law, this paper focuses on the contemporary challenges the international human rights mechanisms are confronted with. It is argued that in spite of the lack of centralized enforcement, the last decades witnessed the intensification and diversification of compliance procedures. Nevertheless, the persistent gap between commitment and actual compliance calls into question the efficacy of international human rights bodies. The paper analyses the weaknesses of the execution of the decisions of human rights tribunals, notably at universal level and in the European regional system. It is argued that despite the efforts to strengthen international supervision, all international human rights tribunals rely on national implementation. Thus, compliance ultimately depends on the political will of the States. Despite the relative strength of the oversight mechanism in the field of human rights, compliance has remained a domestic issue.Keywords: United Nations; human rights; human rights treaties; human rights treaty bodies, compliance; supervision; Human Rights Committee; European Convention on Human Rights; European Court of Human Rights Resumen: El hecho de que las leyes internacionales se caractericen por la falta de un sistema unificado de sanciones y de unas autoridades centrales encargadas de su ejecución, ciertamente debilita el carácter normativo de las obligaciones internacionales en el ámbito de los derechos humanos. Tras una breve descripción de los problemas teóricos y prácticos relativos al cumplimiento de las leyes internacionales, este artículo se centra en los retos contemporáneos con que se encuentran los mecanismos internacionales en el ámbito de los derechos humanos. Se dice que a pesar de la falta de aplicación centralizada, las últimas décadas han sido testigos de la intensificación y diversificación de los procedimientos de cumplimiento. Sin embargo, la brecha persistente entre el compromiso y el cumplimiento real pone en duda la eficacia de los organismos internacionales de derechos humanos. El artículo analiza las debilidades de la ejecución de las decisiones de los tribunales de derechos humanos, en particular a nivel universal y en el sistema regional europeo. Se argumenta que a pesar de los esfuerzos para fortalecer la supervisión internacional, todos los tribunales internacionales de derechos humanos se basan en la aplicación nacional. Por tanto, el cumplimiento depende en última instancia de la voluntad política de los Estados. A pesar de la relativa fortaleza del mecanismo de supervisión en el ámbito de los derechos humanos, el cumplimiento ha seguido siendo una cuestión interna. Palabras clave:
After the introduction of the then Article F.1 TEU by the Amsterdam Treaty, later supplemented by the Nice Treaty, Hungary has earned the dubious reputation to be the first Member State against which an Article 7 TEU procedure has been triggered. While the predominantly political process is apparently stalled for the time being, the Court had to deal with various aspects of the deteriorating rule of law situation. Although forming part of an undeniably fragmented approach, the Court’s judgments nevertheless clearly attest the retrogressive developments in Hungary since 2010. The analysis of the Court’s jurisprudence is based on the qualitative measurement of the rule of law indicators drawn up by the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe. The identification of the cases pertinent to our investigation presents a challenge by itself as there is no label attached to a case dossier titled “rule of law”. In addition, several relevant cases deal with issues which prima facie do not have a bearing on this topic. Thus, e.g. the case relating to the radical lowering of the retirement age for Hungarian judges apparently revolves around age discrimination in the workplace while in fact these measures were politically motivated and had an adverse effect on judicial independence. The subject-matter of the cases identified so far range from the independence of the judiciary and regulatory bodies to the functioning of NGOs and higher education institutions; from the criminalisation of assistance for asylum seekers to the judicial challenge of the conditionality regulation. Most cases are infringement proceedings initiated by the European Commission but the Court was also turned upon through preliminary reference or actions for annulment. By analysing the submissions of the parties, the opinions of the Advocate General as well as the Court’s assessment thereof, the paper aims to evaluate the role of the Court: its potential and the limitations. While not denying the Court’s contribution to the provision of consistent responses against the systemic threats against EU values, there are various institutional and procedural constraints hampering the Court’s ability to secure compliance in the subject area.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.