Debating the Future of the European Court of Human Rights after the Interlaken Conference: Two Innovative Proposals

Keller, Helen; Fischer, Andreas; Kühne, Daniela

doi:10.1093/ejil/chq067

Cited by 14 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In any given case the Court formulates a legal position(s) on the interpretation of this Convention. The mere list and content of the general criteria for assessing (measuring) the presence or absence of substantial damage led to a sharp debate among judges of the Court, lawyers, governments of the State Parties to the Convention, experts (for some of the best-known works see Keller, Fischer and Kühne 2010: 1037-1039Leach 2011: 41;Jacobs, White and Ovey 2017: 17-18, 44). They are the continuation of previous discussions on the principle of 'dе minimis non еurеt еrееtor', the application of which used to be 'disguised' in nature (previously not formally fixed in the Convention, but rather referred to it in the judgments of the Court), as well discussions on the applicants' right to access the Court.…”

Section: Croatian Internationalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of Legal Entities to the European Court of Human Rights: a Significant Disadvantage as the Condition of Admissibility

Deshko¹

2018

Croatian International Relations Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article lists the content and deals with the criteria for assessing the presence or absence of material damage suffered by the applicant to the European Court of Human Rights, the subject of entrepreneurship, as a new condition for the admissibility of an individual application. The article establishes that the list and content of the criteria for assessing the presence or absence of material damage suffered by the applicant to the European Court of Human Rights are different for individuals and for legal entities – business entities. Moreover, the article initiates a discussion on the list and content of these criteria for the subjects of entrepreneurship – the applicants to the European Court of Human Rights. In the light of the Court’s practice, the author reveals their content as well as legal categories such as ‘substantial harm’, ‘financial harm’, ‘pecuniary damage’, ‘non-pecuniary damage’ incurred by the applicant, the subject of entrepreneurship, and highlights the issues to which objectives may be caused by ‘moral harm’ in case of violation of the rights of the subject of entrepreneurship.

show abstract

Section: Croatian Internationalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of Legal Entities to the European Court of Human Rights: a Significant Disadvantage as the Condition of Admissibility

Deshko¹

2018

Croatian International Relations Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The expansion of the Council of Europe has expanded the number contracting states to the Convention to 47, covering a population of 800 million. There were 404 applications to the Court in 1981, by 2008 there were 49 850 (Keller et al, 2010). Alongside issues of capacity are the issues of non-implementation of judgements --that states whose constitution or laws are found to violate the Convention have found it too easy to simply ignore rulings and continue discriminatory practices.…”

Section: Alex Jeffreymentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventions on Europe's political futures

McConnell

Kuus

Jeffrey

et al. 2017

Political Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At the best of times Europe is a vast and unwieldy topic. As was the case 25 years agoanother moment when a culmination of events warranted reflection on Europe's political futures-writing from the midst of geopolitical and geo-economic upheaval raises the challenge of how to gain perspective, to reflect on what is happening and to reassess how we approach issues. Yet as critical scholars it is imperative that we do so. In reflecting on the manifold challenges to the idea and space of Europe the interventions that follow are provocations: posing questions, unsettling taken for granted frameworks, and calling for new ways of thinking about and politically contributing to 'Europe'. Each author approaches Europe from a distinct perspective and offers a particular lens on contemporary European issues, bringing in ideas and framings from international relations, law, economic geography and migration studies. They also each draw on insights from their extensive empirical research in and on Europe. Cross-cutting the interventions are two calls to action: to rethink our analytical approaches to Europe, and to reframe our role as critical scholars. The interventions make the case for a renewed analytical toolbox through a focus on three themes that have long animated political geography scholarship on Europe: borders, power and crises. The spatial politics of Europe is a topic that has consistently featured in the pages of this journal. Underpinning much of this work has been an interest in Europe's borders: their post-Cold War realignment, the differentiation between 'permeable' internal and 'fortress' external borders of the EU (Scott and van Houtum 2009; Carr 2012) and the Union's relationship with its neighbours (Bialasiewicz et al 2009; Petrakos et al 2016). The interventions by Smith and Vaughan-Williams speak to this work on Europe's borders, and, in drawing on the work of Balibar and Derrida respectively, do so in ways that bring to the fore vital questions of inclusion and exclusion, openness to the Other and violent closures. Vaughan-Williams calls for attention to be turned to the emergence of bordering practices that are enacted under the guise of humanitarian action in order to render 'irregular' populations 'knowable' and thus 'governable'. Meanwhile Smith argues that paying attention to borders as an intermingling of the geopolitical and geo-economic is crucial to mapping out emerging political geographies of difference, (uneven) development and power(lessness) in Europe today. As illustrated by Smith's focus on inequality and marginalisation, the question of the nature of power in Europe runs through the interventions. Whilst much existing work has focused on the changing dynamics of EU 'soft' and 'civilian' power (Bachmann and Sidaway 2009;

show abstract

“…It has been argued that Article 35(3)(b) 'sits uncomfortably with the principle of access of individuals to international justice' 71 . 72 If a procedural perspective of access to justice is adhered to, the criterion is indeed problematic, since it blocks individual applicants from accessing a judicial institution. 73 The criterion may be assessed differently, however, if a broader, more substantive perspective is taken.…”

Section: Significant Disadvantagementioning

confidence: 99%

Access to justice in the European Convention on Human Rights system

Gerards

2017

Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The numerous reforms to the Convention system of the past two decades have unquestionably had an effect on applicants' means to access justice in the system. It is, however, open to question how these changes should be evaluated: with reference to the individual right to petition, or with reference to a more substantive and general conception of access to justice. This article explores these two approaches to the notion of access to justice both generally and for the Convention system specifically. The main argument of the article is to show the value of taking a substantive approach to access to justice in the Convention system. Thus, it challenges the centrality of the individual right to petition in discussions on reform of the system. Further, to show how taking a different perspective on access to justice may lead to different analyses, an evaluation in the light of both approaches is made of five sets of central changes to the Court's procedure and its working method. This includes the revised Rule 47, single-judge formations and the priority policy.

show abstract

Debating the Future of the European Court of Human Rights after the Interlaken Conference: Two Innovative Proposals

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

Application of Legal Entities to the European Court of Human Rights: a Significant Disadvantage as the Condition of Admissibility

Application of Legal Entities to the European Court of Human Rights: a Significant Disadvantage as the Condition of Admissibility

Interventions on Europe's political futures

Access to justice in the European Convention on Human Rights system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About