File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: The Failure to Destroy the Authority of the European Court of Human Rights: 2010–2018

TitleThe Failure to Destroy the Authority of the European Court of Human Rights: 2010–2018
Authors
Issue Date2022
PublisherBrill | Nijhoff.
Citation
The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 2022, v. 21, p. 244-277 How to Cite?
AbstractIn the 2010–2018 period, certain Member States of the Council of Europe engaged in an unprecedented attempt to undermine the authority of the European Court of Human Rights. The United Kingdom and Denmark, supported by critics in academia, notably sought to institutionalise the principles of “subsidiarity” and “the margin of appreciation” as formal deference doctrines. In a series of High Level Conferences, a large majority of Member States repudiated these efforts, leaving the basics of the Court’s powers intact. Despite scholarly efforts to demonstrate the contrary, our analysis does not confirm that the Court has “walked-back” rights, or retreated from its basic jurisprudential orientations. Rather, the Court has sought to address its “dilemma of effectiveness” through inter-judicial dialogue and complex forms of proceduralization.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/319622
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorStone Sweet, A-
dc.contributor.authorSandholtz, W-
dc.contributor.authorAndenas, M-
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-14T05:16:41Z-
dc.date.available2022-10-14T05:16:41Z-
dc.date.issued2022-
dc.identifier.citationThe Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 2022, v. 21, p. 244-277-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/319622-
dc.description.abstractIn the 2010–2018 period, certain Member States of the Council of Europe engaged in an unprecedented attempt to undermine the authority of the European Court of Human Rights. The United Kingdom and Denmark, supported by critics in academia, notably sought to institutionalise the principles of “subsidiarity” and “the margin of appreciation” as formal deference doctrines. In a series of High Level Conferences, a large majority of Member States repudiated these efforts, leaving the basics of the Court’s powers intact. Despite scholarly efforts to demonstrate the contrary, our analysis does not confirm that the Court has “walked-back” rights, or retreated from its basic jurisprudential orientations. Rather, the Court has sought to address its “dilemma of effectiveness” through inter-judicial dialogue and complex forms of proceduralization.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherBrill | Nijhoff. -
dc.relation.ispartofThe Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals-
dc.titleThe Failure to Destroy the Authority of the European Court of Human Rights: 2010–2018-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailStone Sweet, A: asweet@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityStone Sweet, A=rp02819-
dc.identifier.doi10.1163/15718034-12341474-
dc.identifier.hkuros339084-
dc.identifier.volume21-
dc.identifier.spage244-
dc.identifier.epage277-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000885885700002-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats