Inclusive Democracy: Franchise Limitations on Non-Resident Citizens as an Unjust Restriction of Rights under the European Convention on Human Rights

IF 0.3 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Utrecht Journal of International and European Law Pub Date : 2017-04-12 DOI:10.5334/UJIEL.367
J. Fraser
{"title":"Inclusive Democracy: Franchise Limitations on Non-Resident Citizens as an Unjust Restriction of Rights under the European Convention on Human Rights","authors":"J. Fraser","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.367","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Public International Law and Policy Group (PILPG) advises parties in peace negotiations, on drafting post-conflict constitutions, and assists in prosecuting war criminals. As part of this work, PILPG assists States in establishing and implementing electoral systems that meet international standards for democratic elections, and undertakes election monitoring. Free and fair elections are crucial for the legitimacy of democratic States and are protected by human rights law. The present article focuses on the issue of the franchise and on the restrictions permitted under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Specifically, this article addresses franchise restrictions on non-resident citizens across ECHR member States. Setting out the protections for the franchise in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 ECHR, this article analyses the permissible limitations on those rights according to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The article presents a comparative analysis of other voting rights cases, such as the limitations on prisoners’ franchise. After considering whether residency-based limitations pursue legitimate and proportionate aims, it questions whether blanket restrictions disenfranchising non-resident citizens should be permissible today. The article concludes by advocating the importance of an inclusive franchise for the legitimacy of democratic systems as well as the protection of individual rights, and inviting the ECtHR to revisit its jurisprudence on this topic.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":"33 1","pages":"23-43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.367","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The Public International Law and Policy Group (PILPG) advises parties in peace negotiations, on drafting post-conflict constitutions, and assists in prosecuting war criminals. As part of this work, PILPG assists States in establishing and implementing electoral systems that meet international standards for democratic elections, and undertakes election monitoring. Free and fair elections are crucial for the legitimacy of democratic States and are protected by human rights law. The present article focuses on the issue of the franchise and on the restrictions permitted under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Specifically, this article addresses franchise restrictions on non-resident citizens across ECHR member States. Setting out the protections for the franchise in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 ECHR, this article analyses the permissible limitations on those rights according to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The article presents a comparative analysis of other voting rights cases, such as the limitations on prisoners’ franchise. After considering whether residency-based limitations pursue legitimate and proportionate aims, it questions whether blanket restrictions disenfranchising non-resident citizens should be permissible today. The article concludes by advocating the importance of an inclusive franchise for the legitimacy of democratic systems as well as the protection of individual rights, and inviting the ECtHR to revisit its jurisprudence on this topic.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
包容性民主:对非居民公民的特许经营限制是《欧洲人权公约》对权利的不公正限制
国际公法和政策小组在和平谈判、起草冲突后宪法方面为各方提供建议,并协助起诉战犯。作为这项工作的一部分,PILPG协助各国建立和实施符合国际民主选举标准的选举制度,并进行选举监督。自由公正的选举对民主国家的合法性至关重要,并受到人权法的保护。本条侧重于《欧洲人权公约》允许的特许权和限制问题。具体而言,本条涉及欧洲人权公约各成员国对非居民公民的特许经营权限制。本文阐述了《欧洲人权公约第一号议定书》第三条对特许权的保护,并根据欧洲人权法院的判例分析了对这些权利的允许限制。文章对其他投票权案件进行了比较分析,例如对囚犯选举权的限制。在考虑了基于居住权的限制是否追求合法和相称的目标后,它质疑今天是否应该允许剥夺非居民公民权利的全面限制。文章最后主张包容性选举权对民主制度合法性和保护个人权利的重要性,并邀请欧洲人权法院重新审视其关于这一主题的判例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Legal Nature of the Climate Change Regime: Fluctuation between Lex Lata and Lex Ferenda The Concept of a Virtual Registered Office in EU Law: Challenges and Opportunities Discharge of Debts of Insolvent Entrepreneurs Under the Restructuring and Insolvency Directive Editorial of Volume 38, Issue I of the Utrecht Journal of International and European Law Will Victims’ Rights Be Lost in Translation? Bridging the Information Gap in Universal Jurisdiction Cases
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1