European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights

Abstract

In order to be effective, international tribunals should be perceived as legitimate adjudicators. European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights provides in-depth analyses on whether European consensus is capable of enhancing the legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Focusing on the method and value of European consensus, it examines the practicalities of consensus identification and application and discusses whether State-counting is appropriate in human rights adjudication. With over 30 interviews from judges of the ECtHR and qualitative analyses of the case law, this book gives readers access to firsthand and up-to-date information, and provides an understanding of how the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg interprets the European Convention on Human Rights.

Subsidiariedad y tribunales internacionales de derechos humanos: ¿deferencia hacia los estados o división cooperativa del trabajo?

“…En tercer lugar, el estado del consenso europeo en una determinada materia también puede ser relevante para relajar el juicio de proporcionalidad, aunque condicionado a la presencia de un vínculo entre la formación de consensos y la dinámica de un progreso paulatino en el sistema general de protección (sobre la relación entre interpretación evolutiva y consenso europeo, véase Dzehtsiarou, 2011). La falta de consenso es un argumento importante para evitar el efecto «sorpresa» que una aplicación alejada del estado de la cuestión en Europa podría provocar.…”

Human rights as transnational constitutional law

“…66;see also McCrudden 2013;Ziemele 2012;Wildhaber et al 2013;Besson and Graf-Brugere 2014;Dzehtsiarou 2015). The latter comparative reference to international law external to European states parties, or, at least, to those at stake in a given case, and hence to international law that does not bind them, has been contested (see Letsas 2010 European states' consensus constrains the court's evolutive interpretation of the ECHR and guides it.…”

“…85: 'can and must'). More specifically, the 'European consensus' so defined has been used to establish the degree or intensity of the margin of appreciation of states when specifying and restricting international human rights' duties (see, for example, Mowbray 2014;Spano 2014;Spielmann 2014;Dzehtsiarou 2015).…”

“…Regrettably, the 'European consensus' is not the sole criterion or test at play in the ECtHR's reasoning pertaining to the margin of appreciation, however, and its application remains largely unpredictable as a result (see, for example, Mowbray 2014;Spano 2014;Spielmann 2014;Dzehtsiarou 2015). Nevertheless, there are ways for the European consensus to be streamlined, and then generalized into other regional, but also universal human rights regimes (Besson 2017b ).…”

Paving the Way: Adjustments of Systems and Mutual Influences between the European Court of Human Rights and European Union Law Before Accession

“…The search for consensus is, first and foremost, necessary for reasons of legitimacy. 106 Yet, the technique is not exempt from criticism. It is not so much the fact that the ECtHR uses it to develop rights; rather it is the way in which it uses that method.…”