Parliaments and the European Court of Human Rights

Donald, Alice; Leach, Philip

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198734246.001.0001

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Britain has been a recurrent protagonist of these clashes. In no other state ‘have proposals to weaken the Court or denounce the Convention become part of mainstream political discourse as they have in the United Kingdom’ (Leach & Donald 2016:10). In recent years scepticism towards the ECtHR has increased even more.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The court simply does not hand down enough salient decisions capable of cementing the loyalty of overlapping constituencies. For this reason, international courts often rely on elite‐level legitimation strategies, such as carefully crafted rulings that adjust the margin of appreciation granted to policymakers, or the promotion of partnerships with local actors (Burley & Mattli 1993; Leach & Donald 2016; Gonzalez‐Ocantos 2018).…”

Section: International Courts Backlash and Public Opinionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Defending the European court of human rights: Experimental evidence from Britain

Dinas

González-Ocantos

2020

European J Political Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As nationalist sentiments gain traction globally, the attitudinal and institutional foundations of the international liberal order face new challenges. One manifestation of this trend is the growing backlash against international courts. Defenders of the liberal order struggle to articulate compelling reasons for why states, and their citizens, should continue delegating authority to international institutions. This article probes the effectiveness of arguments that emphasise the appropriateness and benefits of cooperation in containing preferences for backlash among the mass public. We rely on IR theories that explain why elites create international institutions to derive three sets of arguments that could be deployed to boost support for international courts. We then use experimental methods to test their impact on support for backlash against the European Court of Human Rights in Britain (ECtHR). First, in line with principal‐agent models of delegation, we find that information about the court's reliability as an ‘agent’ boosts support for the ECtHR, but less so information that signals Britain's status as a principal. Second, in line with constructivist approaches, associating support for the court with the position of an in‐group state like Denmark, and opposition with an out‐group state like Russia, also elicits more positive attitudes. This finding points to the importance of ‘blame by association’ and cues of in/out‐group identity in building support for cooperation. The effect is stronger when we increase social pressure by providing information about social attitudes towards Denmark and Russia in Britain, where the public overwhelmingly trusts the Danes and distrusts the Russians. Finally, in contrast to Liberal explanations for the creation of the ECtHR, the study finds no evidence that highlighting the court's mission to promote democracy and international peace contains backlash. We show that the positive effects of the first two arguments are not driven by pre‐treatment attitudes such as political sophistication, patriotism, internationalism, institutional trust or political preferences.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: International Courts Backlash and Public Opinionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defending the European court of human rights: Experimental evidence from Britain

Dinas

González-Ocantos

2020

European J Political Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…124 Kritik am Europarat wurde in den letzten Jahren nicht nur seitens autokratischer Systeme geäußert -auch rechtsstaatlich fest verankerte Mitgliedstaaten, wie das Vereinigte Königreich, stören sich an der auch aus ihrer Sicht zu weit gehenden Auslegung des EGMR und haben einen Austritt aus der EMRK in Erwägung gezogen. 125 In der diesjährigen Queen's Speech wurde eine neue Bill of Rights vorgestellt, die den Vorrang der nationalen Rechtsprechung vorsieht und eine damit einhergehende Distanzierung vom EGMR zur Folge hat. Die Präambel und Artikel 3 Absatz 1 der Bill of Rights betonen, dass der Supreme Court bei der Auslegung von Fragen, die sich aus dem innerstaatlichen Recht im Zusammenhang mit den Konventionsrechten ergeben, das letzte Wort hat.…”

Section: Auswirkungen Auf Das Europäische Menschenrechtsschutzsystemunclassified

Die wechselvolle Geschichte der Mitgliedschaft Russlands im Europarat

Lanzl¹

2022

ZaöRV / HJIL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Keywords 802 I. Aufnahme und erste Phase der Mitgliedschaft 802 II. Die schwierige Mitgliedschaft der Russischen Föderation 808 1. Zwischen Annäherung und Entfremdung 808 2. Annexion der Krim (2014): Zäsur in den europäisch-russischen Beziehungen 811 III. Der Bruch und der Ausschluss Russlands 813 IV. Rechtliche Implikationen des Ausschlusses Russlands aus dem Europarat 814 1. Auswirkungen auf die Anwendbarkeit der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention 815 a) Zeitliche Anwendbarkeit der EMRK 815 b) Zusammensetzung des Gerichtshofs 820 c) Ablauf von Verfahren gegen die Russische Föderation 822 2. Auswirkungen auf den Menschenrechtsschutz in der Russischen Föderation 822 3. Auswirkungen auf das Europäische Menschenrechtsschutzsystem 825 V. Ausblick

show abstract

“…45 Protokol'ün 3. madde sinin, Sözleşme'nin 8 ilâ 11. maddelerinde sıralananlara benzer bir "meş ru amaçlar" (legitimate aims) listesiyle kısıtlanmadığı dikkate alındığında, Sözleşmeci Devletler'ce kısıtlanması mümkün görünmektedir. 46 Ancak, bu yönde bir kısıtlamanın yapılabilmesi için kısıtlama nedeni olan meşru amacın hukukun üstünlüğü ve Sözleşme'nin genel amaçlarıyla uyumlu olduğunun Sözleşmeci Devlet tarafından kanıtlanması gerekir. 47 Dolayı sıyla, Protokol'ün 3. maddesinin gerekliliklerinin incelenmesi açısından, son tahlilde karar vermek görevi AİHM'ye aittir.…”

Section: Serbest Seçim Hakkının Sınırlandırılması Ve Devletlerinunclassified

Avrupa İnsan Haklari Mahkemesi̇ İçti̇hatlari Açisindan Serbest Seçi̇m Hakki

Altinkök¹

2015

Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ÖZMahkeme, serbest seçim hakkının bireyler ve Sözleşme düzeni açısın dan taşıdığı önemi birçok kararında vurgulamıştır. Ancak, Mahkemenin serbest seçim hakkının yorumuna ilişkin konularda temkinli davrandığını ve bu hususu içtihatlarına da yansıttığını görmek mümkündür. Seçimlerle ilgili haklar alanında Mahkeme tarafından belirlenen asgari standartlar, siyasi ifade özgürlüğü, örgütlenme özgürlüğü ve toplanma özgürlüğü ile ilgili içtihatlarda tanınan çok daha yüksek korumadan farklıdır. Bu açıdan Mahkemenin serbest seçim hakkına ilişkin verdiği kararlardaki yaklaşı mının eleştirildiğini de görmekteyiz. Bu çalışmada, serbest seçim hakkı nın kapsamı, demokrasi ile ilişkisi, sınırlandırılması, devletlerin takdir yetkisi, oy kullanma hakkı, aday olma hakkı, seçim sistemleri, seçimlerin yönetimi, siyasal partilere yapılan devlet yardımları ve partilerin medya dan yararlandırılması konuları Mahkeme içtihatları çerçevesinde incelen miş ve Mahkemeye yöneltilen eleştirilere değinilerek birtakım öneriler ortaya konulmuştur.Anahtar Kelimeler: Serbest seçim hakkı, seçme hakkı, seçilme hakkı, seçim sistemleri ve yönetimi.

show abstract

Parliaments and the European Court of Human Rights

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Defending the European court of human rights: Experimental evidence from Britain

Defending the European court of human rights: Experimental evidence from Britain

Die wechselvolle Geschichte der Mitgliedschaft Russlands im Europarat

Avrupa İnsan Haklari Mahkemesi̇ İçti̇hatlari Açisindan Serbest Seçi̇m Hakki

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About