Die Rechtsstaatsidee lässt sich nicht abstrakt verwirklichen, sondern nur im jeweiligen nationalen und historischen Kontext und damit unter den Bedingungen der jeweiligen Rechtskultur, die die Einstellung zum Recht und somit die Bedeutung des Rechts als gesellschaftliches Regelungsinstrument prägt. In Russland werden traditionelle Defi zite, zu denen etwa die unsystematische Rechtskodifi zierung, die verspätete Herausbildung der Rechtswissenschaft, die geringe Verbreitung von Rechtskenntnis der Bevölkerung zu zählen sind, nur langsam aufgeholt. Immerhin unternimmt die politische Führung Anstrengungen, die Situation durch Kodifi zierungen, Umbau der Juristenausbildung und Einbindung in eine gemeineuropäische Rechtskultur zu verändern. Allerdings tragen in sich widersprüchliche rechtliche Regelungen, Scheinargumentationen, eine zum Teil mehr quantitativ als qualitativ ausgerichtete Rechtsproduktion und nach wie vor bestehende Vollzugsdefi zite dazu bei, dass das Erbe des Rechtsnihilismus so schnell nicht in Vergessenheit geraten wird.

After more than thirty years of horror from the outbreak of the Great War in 1914 to the conclusion of Second World War in 1945, the European general population and political leadership thought it absolutely necessary that post-war institutions be created that would make a third European world war less likely. This book introduces us to one such institution, the European Court of Human Rights. The book explores its uniqueness as an international adjudicatory body in the light of its history, structure, and procedure, as well as its key doctrinal usages. It also shows the Court to be an exciting and instructive new development of modern international law and human rights law. The book traces the history of the Court from its political context in the 1940s to the present day, answering pressing questions about its origins and internal workings. What was the best model for such an international organization? How should it evolve within more and more diverse legal cultures? How does a case move among different decision-making bodies? These questions help frame the six parts of the book, whilst the final section reflects on the past successes and failures of the Court, shedding light on possible future directions.

No abstract

International courts differ from national courts in terms of the perception of their diversity. Factors that constitute the identity of adjudicators and are perceived as neutral at the domestic level, such as age, former profession, and cultural background, are not necessarily considered neutral in an international court. Conversely, factors that are not seen as acceptable domestically, such as membership of a political party, may be acceptable for judges at the international level. In order to understand the role of international judges in general and those on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) bench in particular, this chapter scrutinizes the factors influencing the world views and personalities of judges and their effects on the judicial process (leaning towards collective or individual decision-making) as well as the extent to which the judiciary is perceived as trustworthy. The chapter also analyses the ECtHR’s continuous battle with the fundamental balancing act of dispensing individual justice while safeguarding the consistency of the system in its entirety. In the final section, the chapter examines the factors that unify the Court despite, or perhaps even because of, its diversity.

No abstract