The Challenging Authority of the European Court of Human Rights: From Cold War Legal Diplomacy to the Brighton Declaration and Backlash

Q2 Social Sciences Law and Contemporary Problems Pub Date : 2015-04-01 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2588471
M. Madsen
{"title":"The Challenging Authority of the European Court of Human Rights: From Cold War Legal Diplomacy to the Brighton Declaration and Backlash","authors":"M. Madsen","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2588471","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the changing authority of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) since its establishment in 1959. The first part focuses on the particular challenges the Cold War period posed for the Court and its constituencies. A second part considers the post-Cold War period in which the Court was fundamentally transformed from an ad hoc tribunal to becoming a permanent international Court for some 800 million Europeans. It argues that it was not until the mid- to late 1970s that the authority of the ECtHR expanded beyond a rather narrow group of litigants. The very limited case-load of the first fifteen years of operation made the Court of little or no importance to states other than those immediately involved in the scattered cases. Over time the ECtHR developed extensive authority, becoming a de facto supreme court of human rights in Europe. The European Court of Human Rights had a steady and growing business, and despite occasional counter-reactions to its expanding jurisprudence member states generally comply with its judgments. However, in recent years the European Court has come under repeated attack by new and old member alike, and especially the United Kingdom and Russia. It argues in conclusion that in recent years the authority of the Court has become increasingly uneven and partial and, in light of the 2012 Brighton Declaration, perhaps it has even started shrinking.","PeriodicalId":39484,"journal":{"name":"Law and Contemporary Problems","volume":"16 1","pages":"141-178"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"59","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Contemporary Problems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2588471","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 59

Abstract

This article examines the changing authority of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) since its establishment in 1959. The first part focuses on the particular challenges the Cold War period posed for the Court and its constituencies. A second part considers the post-Cold War period in which the Court was fundamentally transformed from an ad hoc tribunal to becoming a permanent international Court for some 800 million Europeans. It argues that it was not until the mid- to late 1970s that the authority of the ECtHR expanded beyond a rather narrow group of litigants. The very limited case-load of the first fifteen years of operation made the Court of little or no importance to states other than those immediately involved in the scattered cases. Over time the ECtHR developed extensive authority, becoming a de facto supreme court of human rights in Europe. The European Court of Human Rights had a steady and growing business, and despite occasional counter-reactions to its expanding jurisprudence member states generally comply with its judgments. However, in recent years the European Court has come under repeated attack by new and old member alike, and especially the United Kingdom and Russia. It argues in conclusion that in recent years the authority of the Court has become increasingly uneven and partial and, in light of the 2012 Brighton Declaration, perhaps it has even started shrinking.
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
欧洲人权法院权威的挑战:从冷战法律外交到布莱顿宣言和反弹
本文考察了欧洲人权法院(ECtHR)自1959年成立以来不断变化的权力。第一部分的重点是冷战时期对法院及其支持者构成的特殊挑战。第二部分审议了冷战后时期,在这一时期,国际法院从一个特设法庭根本转变为一个为大约8亿欧洲人服务的常设国际法院。它认为,直到20世纪70年代中后期,欧洲人权法院的权威才扩展到一个相当狭窄的诉讼群体之外。在最初15年的运作中,案件负荷非常有限,这使得法院对除了那些直接涉及分散案件的国家之外的国家来说很少或根本不重要。随着时间的推移,欧洲人权委员会发展了广泛的权力,成为欧洲事实上的最高人权法院。欧洲人权法院的业务稳步增长,尽管偶尔会对其扩大的法理产生反对意见,但成员国通常遵守其判决。然而,近年来,欧洲法院一再受到新老成员的攻击,特别是联合王国和俄罗斯。它在结论中认为,近年来,法院的权威变得越来越不平衡和不公正,根据2012年的《布莱顿宣言》,法院的权威甚至可能开始萎缩。
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
Law and Contemporary Problems
Law and Contemporary Problems Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: Law and Contemporary Problems was founded in 1933 and is the oldest journal published at Duke Law School. It is a quarterly, interdisciplinary, faculty-edited publication of Duke Law School. L&CP recognizes that many fields in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities can enhance the development and understanding of law. It is our purpose to seek out these areas of overlap and to publish balanced symposia that enlighten not just legal readers, but readers from these other disciplines as well. L&CP uses a symposium format, generally publishing one symposium per issue on a topic of contemporary concern. Authors and articles are selected to ensure that each issue collectively creates a unified presentation of the contemporary problem under consideration. L&CP hosts an annual conference at Duke Law School featuring the authors of one of the year’s four symposia.
期刊最新文献
The Influence of Re-Selection on Independent Decision Making in State Supreme Courts Voting Rights and the “Statutory Constitution” Challenging Gender in Single-Sex Spaces: Lessons from a Feminist Softball League Treaties and Human Rights: The Role of Long-Term Trends Correcting Federalism Mistakes in Statutory Interpretation: The Supreme Court and the Federal Arbitration Act
×
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