![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article offers a critical overview on some of the issues concerning sexual orientation and gender identity on which the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled in the last three decades. These issues include the criminalisation of consensual sexual activities between adults, the criminalisation of sadomasochistic activities, as well as the discrimination of lesbian, gay and bisexual persons in the armed forces. In the article, it is argued that case law of the ECtHR contributes to the creation of the ‘homosexual’ or ‘transgender’ as a legal subject. In particular, it is suggested that the fact of privileging some words rather than others can be considered as an attempt, from the part of judicial institutions, to give juridical legitimacy to a limited portion of forms of sexual and gender expressions available to individuals. The analysis for this article is also complemented by a comparison between the linguistic choices of the ECtHR with those of the former Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe (CoE), Thomas Hammarberg, in relation to issues relating to homophobia and transphobia.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Dr. Francesca Romana Ammaturo is a Lecturer in Sociology and Human Rights at the University of Roehampton. Her areas of research are LGBTQI rights and social movements in Europe, as well as the intersection between European citizenship and Sexual citizenship. Her work has appeared in a number of peer-reviewed journals and in 2017 she has published the monograph European Sexual Citizenship: Human Rights, Bodies, and Identities for Palgrave.
Notes
1. A previous version of this article has previously been published in French in the Journal Genre, Sexualité et Société.
2. See P. Johnson, Homosexuality and the European Court of Human Rights (London: Routledge, 2012).
3. See L. Duggan, The Twilight of Equality: Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack on Democracy (Boston: Beacon Press, 2003).
4. See F.R. Ammaturo, ‘The Right to a Privilege? Homonormativity and the Recognition of Same-sex Couples in Europe’, Social and Legal Studies 23, no. 2: 175–94. C. Ashford, ‘(Homo)Normative Legal Discourses and the Queer Challenge’, Durham Law Review 1 (2011): 77–98. M. Croce, ‘Desiring What the Law Desires: A Semiotic View on the Normalisation of Homosexual Sexuality’, Law, Culture and the Humanities (2014). K.M. Franke, ‘The Domesticated Liberty of Lawrence v. Texas’, Columbia Law Review 104 (2004): 1399–426. Y. Joshi, ‘Respectable Queerness’, Columbia Human Rights Law Review 43, no. 2 (2012): 415–67. C.F. Stychin, ‘Same-sex Sexualities and the Globalisation of Human Rights Discourse’, McGill Law Journal 49 (2003a): 951. C.F. Stychin, ‘Sexual Citizenship in the European Union’, Citizenship Studies 5, no. 3 (2003b): 285–301. F. Swennen and M. Croce, ‘The Symbolic Power of Legal Kinship Terminology. An Analysis of “Co-motherhood” and “Duo-motherhood” in Belgium and the Netherlands’, Social and Legal Studies 25, no. 2 (2015): 181–203.
5. See A. Hunt, ‘The Theory of Critical Legal Studies’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 6, no. 1 (1986): 1–45, 4.
6. See note 2.
7. See European Court of Human Rights, The Online Admissibility Checklist, http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=applicants&c=#n1357809352012_pointer (accessed October 31, 2017).
8. See P. Leach, Taking a Case to the European Court of Human Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
9. See P. Johnson, Going to Strasbourg: An Oral History of Sexual Orientation Discrimination and the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 179.
10. The ‘I’ is here included for ‘intersex persons’ but does not appear when analysing the case law, as there are no relevant cases adjudicated on these issues by the ECtHR.
11. See ILGA-Europe, A Factsheet on Strategic Litigation to promote LGBTI Rights in Europe, http://ilga-europe.org/sites/default/files/Attachments/factsheet_ligation_www.pdf (accessed April 27, 2017).
12. See D. NeJaime, ‘Marriage, Cruising, and Life in between: Clarifying Organisational Positionalities in Pursuit of Polyvocal Gay-based Advocacy’, Harvard Civil Rights-civil Liberties Law Review 38 (2003): 511–62.
13. See note 12, 516.
14. See note 2, 69–70.
15. See Handyside v. United Kingdom (1976), Application No. 5493/72, judgment 07 December 1976 (European Court of Human Rights), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22handyside%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-57499%22]} (accessed December 12, 2018).
16. See R. O’Connell, ‘Cinderella comes to the Ball: Art. 14 and the Right to Non-discrimination in the ECHR’, Legal Studies 29, no. 2 (2009): 211–29.
17. See note 2, 77.
18. See note 2, 80–81.
19. See Tyrer v. United Kingdom (1978), Application No. 5856/72, judgment 25 April 1978 (European Court of Human Rights), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22tyrer%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-57587%22]}, (accessed December 12, 2018).
20. See M. De Salvia, La Convenzione Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo (Napoli: Editoriale Scientifica, 2006), 69.
21. See note 5, 4.
22. See J.B. Baron and J. Epstein, ‘Language and the Law: Literature, Narrative and Legal Theory’, in The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique, ed. D. Kairys (New York: Basic Books, 1982), 662–79, 673.
23. See N. Bobbio, The Age of Rights (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996). D.J. O’Byrne, Human Rights in a Globalising World (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2016).
24. See A.P. Romero, ‘Methodological Descriptions: “Feminist” and “Queer”’, in Feminist and Queer Legal Theory: Intimate Encounters, Uncomfortable Conversations, ed. M.A. Fineman, J.E. Jackson, and A.P. Romero (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), 179–98, 190.
25. See I. Ward, An Introduction to Critical Legal Theory (Abingdon: Routledge Cavendish, 1998), 156.
26. See B.S. Turner, ‘Outline of a Theory of Human Rights’, Sociology 27, no. 3 (1993): 489–512. M. Waters, ‘Human Rights and the Universalisation of Interests: Towards a Social Constructionist Approach’, Sociology 30, no. 3 (1996): 593–600. N. Bobbio, The Age of Rights, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990). R. Rorty, ‘Human Rights, Rationality, and Sentimentality’, in Wronging Rights: Philosophical Challenges for Human Rights, ed. A.S. Rathore and A. Cistelecan (Abingdon: Routledge, 2011), 107–31.
27. See N.J. Beger, Tensions in the Struggle for Sexual Minority Rights in Europe: Que(e)rying Political Practices (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2009), 108.
28. See note 27.
29. Until its abolishment by Protocol 11 ECHR in 1998, the Commission (established in 1954) decided on the admissibility of applications before bringing them to the ECtHR (only established in 1959). After the entry into force of Protocol 11 in 1998, an enlarged ECtHR started to carry out decisions on admissibility for received applications.
30. See Dudgeon v. United Kingdom (1981), Application No. 7525/76, judgment 20 October 1081 (European Court of Human Rights), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22dudgeon%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-57473%22]} (accessed December 12, 2018).
31. See Norris v. Ireland (1988), Application No. 10581/83, judgment 26 October 1988 (European Court of Human Rights), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22norris%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-57547%22]} (accessed December 12, 2018). Modinos v. Cyprus (1993), Application No. 15070/83, judgment 22 April 1993 (European Court of Human Rights), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22modinos%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-57834%22]} (accessed December 12, 2018).
32. See note 30.
33. For more details on the limited applicability of the 1967 Sexual Offences Act to Northern Ireland, see Johnson (Going to Strasbourg, 30 and 77–82).
34. See note 30. Para. 49.
35. See note 30, para. 52.
36. See note 30, para. 61.
37. See note 30, para. 32.
38. For a discussion of the concept of the invisibility of lesbian existence, see A. Rich, ‘Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 5, no. 4 (1980): 631–60.
39. See note 30.
40. See note 31.
41. In Modinos v. Cyprus (1993), the ECtHR noted that, following Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (1981), the Cypriot Attorney General had not instituted any prosecution for homosexual conduct that could be in breach of Article 8 ECHR. The legislation, as in the case of Northern Ireland, remained on the statute books.
42. See note 30, para. 37.
43. See Norris v. Ireland (1988), Application No. 10581/83, judgment 26 October 1988 (European Court of Human Rights), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22norris%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-57547%22]} (accessed December 12, 2018), para. 10.
44. Modinos v. Cyprus (1993), Application No. 15070/83, judgment 22 April 1993 (European Court of Human Rights), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22modinos%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-57834%22]}, (accessed December 12, 2018), para. 7.
45. See note 30.
46. See R. Wintemute, Sexual Orientation and Human Rights: The United States Constitution, the European Convention and the Canadian Charter (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995). See note 2.
47. Part of the infamous ‘Operation Spanner’ in the UK.
48. See Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v United Kingdom (1997), Application No. 21627/93, 21826/93 and 21794/93, judgment 19 February 1997 (European Court of Human Rights), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22laskey%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-58021%22]} (accessed December 12, 2018).
49. See A.D.T. v. United Kingdom (2000), Application No. 35765/97, judgment 31 July 2000 (European Court of Human Rights), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22a.d.t.%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-58922%22]} (accessed December 12, 2018).
50. See note 48, para. 8.
51. In the description of the ECtHR these consensual practices included various forms of maltreatment of genitalia, ritualistic beatings with bare hands or other instruments, as well as forms of branding that left no serious injuries to the participant (Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v. the United Kingdom, 1997: para. 8).
52. See note 49.
53. For the 1967 Sexual Offences Act, section 1(7), an act was not be considered private if more than two persons were taking part or were present. This only applied to ‘gross indecency’ committed by men.
54. See note 48.
55. See P. Califia, Public Sex: Culture of Radical Sex (Pittsburgh: Cleis Press, 1995), 144.
56. See note 52, 144.
57. See G. Rubin, ‘Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of Politics of Sexuality’, in Social Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Studies: A Reader, ed. P.M. Nardi and B.E. Schneider (Abingdon: Routledge, 1998), 107.
58. See note 54, 107.
59. See note 54, 107.
60. See note 48.
61. See note 48, para. 11.
62. See note 49.
63. See note 49, para. 36.
64. See note 49, para. 37.
65. See note 49.
66. See note 49.
67. See M. Grigolo, ‘Sexualities and the ECHR: Introducing the Universal Sexual Legal Subject’, European Journal of International Law 14, no. 5 (2003): 1023–44. See note 2.
68. See note 48.
69. See note 49, para. 10.
70. See note 54, 107.
71. See note 48.
72. See K.A. and A.D.V. v. Belgium (2005), Application No. 42758/98 and 45558/99, judgment 17 February 2005 (European Court of Human Rights), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-68354%22]} (accessed December 12, 2018).
73. See Pay v. United Kingdom (2008), Application No. 32792/05, judgment 16 September 2008 (European Court of Human Rights), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-88690&filename=001-88690.pdf (accessed December 12, 2018).
74. See Mosley v. United Kingdom (2011), Application No. 48009/08, judgment 10 May 2011 (European Court of Human Rights), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22mosley%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-104712%22]} (accessed December 12, 2018).
75. See note 72.
76. See note 73.
77. See note 54, 107.
78. See D. Richardson, ‘Locating Sexualities: From Her to Normality’, Sexualities 7, no. 4 (2004): 391–411. M. Warner, Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993). Y. Joshi, ‘Respectable Queerness’, Columbia Human Rights Law Review 43, no. 2 (2012): 415–67.
79. See M. Bernstein, ‘Celebration and Suppression: The Strategic Uses of Identity by the Lesbian and Gay Movement’, American Journal of Sociology 103, no. 3 (1997): 531–65.
80. See Schalk and Kopf v. Austria (2010), Application No. 30141/04, judgment 24 June 2010 (European Court of Human Rights), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22schalk%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-99605%22]} (accessed December 12, 2018). See also X. and Others v. Austria (2013), Application No. 19010/07, judgment 19 February 2013 (European Court of Human Rights), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{%22fulltext%22:[%22x%20and%20others%20v%20austria%22],%22itemid%22:[%22003-4264492-5083115%22]} (accessed December 12, 2018). See as well as Fretté v. France (2002), Application No. 36515/97, judgment 26 May 2002 (European Court of Human Rights), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22frette%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-60168%22]} (accessed December 12, 2018). Lastly, see E.B. v. France (2008), Application No. 43546/02, judgment 22 January 2008 (European Court of Human Rights), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{%22fulltext%22:[%22e.b.%22],%22itemid%22:[%22003-2245258-2392886%22]} (accessed December 12, 2018).
81. See F.R. Ammaturo, ‘The Right to a Privilege? Homonormativity and the Recognition of Same-sex Couples in Europe’, Social and Legal Studies 23, no. 2: 175–94.
82. See Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. United Kingdom (1999), Application No. 31417/96 and 32377/96, judgment 27 September 1999 (European Court of Human Rights), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22lustig%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-58407%22]} (accessed December 12, 2018). Smith and Grady v. United Kingdom (1999), Application No. 33895/96 and 33986/96, judgment 27 September 1999 (European Court of Human Rights), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22smith%20and%20grady%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-58408%22]}, (accessed December 12, 2018).
83. See note 9, 63.
84. This consists in the attempt within the military to enhance ‘sex talk’ so that the creation of a public dimension of homosexuality has as its direct effect that of confining this same aspect in the private sphere, therefore paradoxically denying it.
85. See Cooper in D. Bell and J. Binnie, The Sexual Citizen: Queer Politics and Beyond (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000), 64.
86. The judgements were issued on the same date (27 December 1999), and the ECtHR substantially replicates its arguments in both, except the specific circumstances of the cases submitted by the applicants.
87. See Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. United Kingdom (1999), Application No. 31417/96 and 32377/96, judgment 27 September 1999 (European Court of Human Rights), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22lustig%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-58407%22]} (accessed December 12, 2018), para. 42.
88. See note 87, para. 85.
89. See Smith and Grady v. United Kingdom (1999), Application No. 33895/96 and 33986/96, judgment 27 September 1999 (European Court of Human Rights), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22smith%20and%20grady%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-58408%22]} (accessed December 12, 2018), para. 95.
90. See P. Lockwood and Z. Kunda, ‘Superstars and Me: Predicting the Impact of Role Models on the Self’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73, no. 1 (1997): 91–103.
91. See J. McGuigan, ‘The Neoliberal Self’, Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research 6, no. 1 (2014): 223–40.
92. See M. Croce, ‘Desiring What the Law Desires: A Semiotic Vie of the Normalisation of Homosexual Sexuality’, Law, Culture and the Humanities (2014), 10.
93. See note 88, 12.
94. See note 2, 33.
95. See note 9.
96. See Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 2011).
97. See J. Donovan, ‘Homosexual, Gay, and Lesbian: Defining the Words and Sampling the Populations’, Journal of Homosexuality 24, no. 1–2 (1993): 27–47, 30.
98. See ECtHR, Case 104-55, X. v. Federal Republic o, Yearbook I (1955–57), ECtHR, Case 167/56, X. v. Federal Republic of Germany, Yearbook I (1955–57), ECtHR, Case 530/59, X. v. Federal Republic of Germany, Collection of Decisions, and ECtHR, Case 5935/72, X. v. Federal Republic of Germany, D&R.
99. See note 92.
100. See note 92.
101. See A. Zwicky, ‘Two Lavender Issues for Linguists’, in Queerly Phrased: Language, Gender, and Sexuality, ed. A. Livia and K. Hall (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 21–34, 22.
102. See K. Marx, ‘On the Jewish Question’, in Karl Marx: Selected Readings, ed. D. McLellan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977).
103. See note 97.
104. See note 30.
105. See Fretté v. France (2002), Application No. 36515/97, judgment 26 May 2002 (European Court of Human Rights), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22frette%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-60168%22]} (accessed December 12, 2018).
106. See Karner v. Austria (2003), Application No. 40016/98, judgment 24 July 2003 (European Court of Human Rights), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22karner%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-61263%22]} (accessed December 12, 2018).
107. See note 93.
108. See K. Roen, ‘“Either/Or” and “Both/Neither”: Discursive Tensions in Transgender Politics’, Signs 27, no. 2 (2002): 501–22, 502.
109. See note 104, 502.
110. In this case, the ECtHR had conceded that it was necessary to go beyond the ‘biological criteria’ in the definition of the gender of the spouse, thus allowing transgender persons to marry someone of the opposite gender.
111. See Goodwin v. United Kingdom (2002), Application No. 28957/95, judgment 11 July 2002 (European Courto f Human Rights), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22goodwin%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-60596%22]} (accessed December 12, 2018), para. 76.
112. See note 104, 502.
113. See note 104, 502.
114. See note 92, 35.
115. See C. Ashford, ‘(Homo)Normative Legal Discourses and the Queer Challenge’, Durham Law Review 1 (2011): 77–98.
116. See E. Voeten, ‘The Politics of International Judicial Appointment: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights’, International Organisation 61, no. 4 (2007): 669–701.
117. See D.J. O’Byrne, ‘On the Sociology of Human Rights: Theorising the Language-structure of Rights’, Sociology 46, no. 5 (2012): 829–43, 835.
118. See note 112, 835.
119. See note 19, Para. 4.
120. See H. Motschenbacher, Language, Gender and Sexual Identity, Postructuralist Perspectives (Vol. 29) (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, 2010).
121. See R. Brontsema, ‘A Queer Revolution: Reconceptualising the Debate over Linguistic Reclamation’, Colorado Research in Linguistics 17, no. 1 (2004): 1–17.
122. See J. Gamson, ‘Must Identity Self-destruct? A Queer Dilemma’, Social Problems 42, no. 3 (1995): 390–407.