![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"})
Notes
1 Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet, ‘The Reception of the ECHR in National Legal Orders’, in A Europe of Rights, ed. Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 3–31, 4 (‘broad and pervasive impact’); Janneke Gerards, ‘The European Court of Human Rights and the National Courts: Giving Shape to the Notion of “Shared Responsibility”’, in Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the Judgments of the ECtHR in National Case-Law: A Comparative Analysis, ed. Janneke Gerards and Joesph Fleuren (Cambridge: Intersentia, 2014), 13–95, (‘a huge impact on national law, national judicial decision making and national constitutional division of competences’).
2 See Tom Campbell, Keith Ewing and Adam Tomkins, Sceptical Essays on Human Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); Spyridon Flogaïtis, Tom Zwart and Julie Fraser, The European Court of Human Rights and its Discontents: Turning Criticism into Strength (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2013); and Patricia Popelier, Sarah Lambrecht, and Koen Lemmens, Criticism of the European Court of Human Rights: Shifting the Convention System: Counter-Dynamics at the National and EU Level (Cambridge: Law and Cosmopolitan Values: Intersentia, 2016); Mikael Madsen, ‘The Challenging Authority of the European Court of Human Rights; From Cold War Legal Diplomacy to the Brighton Declaration and Backlash’, Law and Contemporary Problems 79, no. 1 (2016): 141–79.
3 Council of Europe, Copenhagen Declaration, (Copenhagen, 2018), https://rm.coe.int/copenhagen-declaration/16807b915c, paragraphs 26, 27 and 29.
4 Council of Europe, The Longer-Term Future of the System of the European Convention on Human Rights. Report of the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) adopted on 11 December 2015 (Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2016), paragraph 187.
5 Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989, ICJ Rep. 1991, 53 at 70.
6 Bernadette Rainey, Elizabeth Wicks, and Clare Ovey, Jacobs, White and Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights, 6th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 67.
7 Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC] (2008) Application no. 34503/97, paragraphs 65–66.
8 Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia (2010), Application no. 25965/04, paragraph 273.
9 Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC] (2014), Application no. 29750/09, paragraph 100 (emphasis added).
10 Cyprus v Turkey [GC] (2014), Application no. 25781/94, paragraph 23 (emphasis added).
11 See David John Harris, Michael O’Boyle, Colin Warbrick, and Carla Buckley, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 7; Basak Cali, ‘Specialized Rules of Treaty Interpretation: Human Rights’, in The Oxford Guide to Treaties, ed. Duncan B. Hollis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 525–51, 537.
12 Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland [GC], Application no. 5809/08 (2016), paragraph 80 and Naït-Liman v. Switzerland [GC], Application no. 51357/07 (2018), paragraph 174.
13 Legality of Use of Force, (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium) (2004), paragraph 100.
14 Harris O’Boyle, Warbrick and Buckley, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 7.
15 Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Chad) (1994), 6 at 25. See on effective interpretation, Richard Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 179–81.
16 Golder v the United Kingdom [Plenary] (1975), Application no. 4451/70.
17 Soering v the United Kingdom [Plenary] (1989), Application no. 14038/88.
18 Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey (2005), Applications nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99.
19 Soering v the United Kingdom [Plenary] (1989), paragraph 87.
20 Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey, paragraph 102.
21 Perinçek v Switzerland [GC] (2015), Application no. 27510/08, paragraph 122.
22 Johnston v Ireland (1986), Application no. 9697/82, paragraph 52.
23 Taxquet v Belgium [GC] (2010), Application no. 926/05, paragraph 83 (emphasis added).
24 David Kosař and Lucas Lixinski, ‘Domestic Judicial Design by International Human Rights Courts’, American Journal of International Law 109, no. 4 (2015): 713–60. See also David Kosař, ‘Policing Separation of Powers: A New Role for the European Court of Human Rights?’, European Constitutional Law Review 8, no. 1 (2012): 33–62; and David Kosař, ‘Nudging Domestic Judicial Reforms from Strasbourg: How the European Court of Human Rights Shapes Domestic Judicial Design’, Utrecht Law Review 13, no. 1 (2017): 112–23.
25 Cuenzca Zarzoso v. Spain (2018), Application no. 23383/12.
26 Cuenzca Zarzoso v. Spain, paragraph 51.
27 Case Concerning the Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), ICJ Judgment 13 July 2009, paragraph 64. See also Eirik Bjorge, The Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 5.
28 Copenhagen Declaration, paragraph 26.
29 Hassan v. the United Kingdom, para. 101.
30 Al- Saadoon and Mufdhi v The United Kingdom ECHR 2010- II 61, paragraph 120. Article 2(1) reads: ‘Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law’ (emphasis added).
31 Harris O’Boyle, Warbrick and Buckley, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 8; Bernadette Rainey, Elizabeth Wicks, and Clare Ovey, Jacobs, White and Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights, 73; William A. Schabas, The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary, European Convention on Human Rights. ed. (Oxford: Oxford Commentaries on International Law, Oxford University Press, 2015), 48. International Law Commission, First report on subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to treaty interpretation by Georg Nolte, Special Rapporteur, A/ CN.4/ 660, 19 March 2013, para 37 (footnotes omitted, emphasis added).
32 Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou, European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 38.
33 Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 5856/72 (1978), paragraph 31.
34 Marckx v. Belgium, Application no. 6833/74 (1979), paragraph 41.
35 Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [Grand Chamber] Application no. 28957/95 (2002), paragraph 85.
36 Dzehtsiarou, European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights, 45–9.
37 Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [Grand Chamber] Application no. 34503/97 (2008), paragraph 85 (emphasis added).
38 Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC] (2016), Application no. 18030/1, paragraph 138 (emphasis added).
39 Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary, paragraph 139 (emphasis added).
40 Naït-Liman v. Switzerland [GC] (2018), Application no. 51357/07, paragraph 175 (emphasis added).
41 Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia (2010), Application no. 25965/04, paragraphs 278–280.
42 Tănase v Moldova [GC] (2010), Application no. 7/08, paragraph 176; Kiyutin v. Russia (2011), Application no. 2700/10, paragraph 67; A.-M.V. v. Finland (2017), Application no. 53251/13.
43 Dzehtsiarou, European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights, 142. On a moral reading, see George Letsas, ‘The ECHR as a Living Instrument: Its Meaning and Legitimacy’, in Constituting Europe: The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context, ed. Andreas Føllesdal, Birgit Peters and Geir Ulfstein (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 106–42.
44 George Letsas, A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 80–1; Andrew Legg, The Margin of Appreciation in International Human Rights Law: Deference and Proportionality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). See also George Letsas, ‘Two Concepts of the Margin of Appreciation’, Oxford Journal of legal Studies 26, no. 4 (2006): 705–32 and Legg, The Margin of Appreciation in International Human Rights Law: Deference and Proportionality.
45 See Andreas Føllesdal, ‘Survey article: Subsidiarity’, The Journal of Political Philosophy 6, no. 2 (1998): 190–218; Paolo G. Carozza, ‘Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law’, American Journal of International Law 97, no. 1 (2003): 38–79; Isabel Feichtner, ‘Subsidiarity’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2009); Gerald L. Neuman, ‘Subsidiarity’, in The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law, ed. Dinah Shelton (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 360–79; Andreas Follesdal, ‘Subsidiarity and International Human Rights Courts: Respecting Self-Governance and Protecting Human Rights - or Neither?(Subsidiarity in Global Governance)’, Law and Contemporary Problems 79, no. 2 (2016): 147–63, 148 and Markus Jachtenfuchs and Nico Krisch, ‘Subsidiarity in Global Governance’, Law and Contemporary Problems 79 (2016): 1–26, 6.
46 Lukasz Gruszczynski and Wouter Werner, ‘Introduction’, in Deference in International Courts and Tribunals: Standard of Review and Margin of Appreciation, ed. Lukasz Gruszczynski and Wouter Werner (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 1–15; and Yuval Shany, ‘Toward a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in International Law?’, European Journal of International Law 16, no. 5 (2005): 907–40.
47 Jan Bohanes and Nicolas Lockhart, ‘Standard of Review in WTO Law’, in The Oxford Handbook of International Trade Law, ed. Daniel Bethlehem, Isabelle Van Damme, Donald McRae, and Rodney Neufeld (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 378–437.
48 Caroline Henckels, Proportionality and Deference in Investor-State Arbitration: Balancing Investment Protection and Regulatory Autonomy (Cambridge: Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, Cambridge University Press, 2015), 7.
49 Rosemary Rayfuse, ‘Standard of Review in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’, in Deference in International Courts and Tribunals: Standard of Review and Margin of Appreciation, ed. Lukasz Gruszczynski and Wouter Werner (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 337–54.
50 International Court of Justice, Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand Intervening), Judgment 31 March 2014. See Enzo Cannizzaro, ‘Proportionality and Margin of Appreciation in the Whaling Case: Reconciling Antithetical Doctrines?’, European Journal of International Law 27, no. 4 (2016): 1061–9.
51 See on the IACtHR: Bernard Duhaime, ‘Subsidiarity in the Americas. What Room Is There for Deference in the Inter-American System?’, in Deference in International Courts and Tribunals: Standard of Review and Margin of Appreciation, ed. Lukasz Gruszczynski and Wouter Werner (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 289–315; Nino Tsereteli, ‘Emerging Doctrine of Deference of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights?’, International Journal of Human Rights 20, no. 8 (2016): 1097–112; and Andreas Follesdal, ‘Exporting the Margin of Appreciation: Lessons for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’, International Journal of Constitutional Law 15, no. 2 (2017): 359–71. On the UN human rights treaty bodies: Dominic McGoldrick, ‘A Defence of the Margin of Appreciation and an Argument for its Application by the Human Rights Committee’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 65, no. 1 (2016): 21–60; and Yuval Shany, ‘All Roads Lead to Strasbourg?: Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine by the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee’, Journal of International Dispute Settlement 9, no. 2 (2018): 180–98.
52 Handyside v United Kingdom (1976), Application no. 5493/72, paragraph 48.
53 High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights, Brighton Declaration http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2012_Brighton_FinalDeclaration_ENG.pdf, paragraph 12 a).
54 The Brussels Declaration can be found at: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Brussels_Declaration_ENG.pdf.
55 Council of Europe, Article 1 of Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (CETS No. 2013) (not yet in force).
56 A. and Others v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 3455/05 (2009), paragraph 184.
57 Rohlena v the Czech Republic [GC], Application no. 59552/08 (2015), paragraph 51.
58 Biao v Denmark [GC] (2016), Application no. 38590/10, paragraph 93.
59 Pentikäinen v Finland [GC] (2015), Application no. 11882/10, paragraph 87.
60 Naït-Liman v. Switzerland [GC] (2018), paragraph 173.
61 See for example Bayatyan v. Armenia [GC] (2011), Application no. 23459/03: ‘The Court may also have regard to any consensus and common values emerging from the practices of the States Parties to the Convention’ (paragraph 122).
62 İzzettin Doğan and others v Turkey [GC] (2016), Application no. 62646/10, paragraph 112 (emphasis added).
63 von Hannover v. Germany (No. 2) [GC], Applications nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08 (2012), paragraph 107.
64 Robert Spano, ‘Universality or Diversity of Human Rights?: Strasbourg in the Age of Subsidiarity’, Human Rights Law Review 14, no. 3 (2014): 1–16; Eva Brems, ‘Procedural Protection: An Examination of Procedural Safeguards Read Into Substantive Convention Rights’, in Shaping Rights in the ECHR: The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human Rights, ed. Eva Brems and Janneke Gerards (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 137–62; Matthew Saul, ‘The European Court of Human Rights’ Margin of Appreciation and the Processes of National Parliaments’, Human Rights Law Review 15, no. 4 (2015): 745–75; Oddný Mjöll Arnardottir, ‘The “Procedural Turn” Under the European Convention on Human Rights and Presumptions of Convention Compliance’, International Journal of Constitutional Law 15, no. 1 (2017): 9–35; Patricia Popelier and Catherine Van De Heyning, ‘Subsidiarity Post-Brighton: Procedural Rationality as Answer?’, Leiden Journal of International Law 30, no. 1 (2017): 5–23; and Robert Spano, ‘The Future of the European Court of Human Rights—Subsidiarity, Process-Based Review and the Rule of Law’, Human Rights Law Review 18, no. 3 (2018): 1–22.
65 Basak Çalı, ‘Coping with Crisis: Whither the Variable Geometry in the Jurisprudence the European Court of Human Rights?’, Wisconsin International Law Journal 35, no. 2 (2018): 237–76, 269. See also Spano, The Future of the European Court of Human Rights—Subsidiarity, Process-Based Review and the Rule of Law, 20–2.
66 Aksu v. Turkey [GC], Applications nos 4149/04 and 41029/04 (2012), paragraph 67; Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC] Application no. 40454/07 (2015), paragraph 92; Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC] (2017) Application no. 931/13, paragraph 164.
67 Copenhagen Declaration, paragraph 28 c).
68 Copenhagen, Declaration, paragraph 10.
69 Martti Koskenniemi, Fragmentation of International Law. Difficulties Arising from Diversification and Expansion of International Law. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission (The Erik Castrén Institute Research Reports 21/2007 Helsinki, at 243–244 (paragraphs 479–480).
70 Tanase v. Moldova, [GC], Application no. 7/08, paragraph 176 (emphasis added).
71 National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 31045/10, paragraph 76.
72 Hassan, paragraph 102 (emphasis added).
73 Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC] (2016), Application no. 18030/11, paragraph 138.
74 Naït-Liman v. Switzerland, paragraph 174.
75 Campbell McLachland, ‘The Principle of Systemic Integration and Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 54 (2005): 279, 294, 304–306; Vassilis Tzevelekos, ‘The Use of Article 31(3)(C) of the VCLT in the Case Law of the ECtHR: An Effective Anti-Fragmentation Tool or a Selective Loophole for the Reinforcement of Human Rights Teleology - Between Evolution and Systemic Integration’, Michigan Journal of International Law 31 (2010): 621–90; Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou, ‘What is Law for the European Court of Human Rights?’, Georgetown Journal of International Law 49 (2018): 89–134; and Adamantia Rachovitsa, ‘The Principle of Systemic Integration in Human Rights International Law’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 66, no. 3 (2017): 557–88.
76 Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 35763/97 (2001)
77 Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and others v. the Netherlands, Application no. 65542/12 (2013).
78 Behrami and Behrami v. France and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway [GC] Applications no. 71412/01 and 78166/01.
79 Belilos v, Switzerland [Plenary] (1988), Application no. 10328/83.
80 See International Law Commission, Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties (2011), Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2011, vol. II, Part Two, Rule 4.5.3.; Edward Swaine, ‘Treaty Reservations’, in The Oxford Guide to Treaties, ed. Duncan Hollis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 277–301, 298.
81 Hassan, paragraph 104.
82 Hassan, paragraph 105.
83 Hassan, partly dissenting opinion of judge Spano joined by judges Nicolaou, Bianku and Kalaydjieva, paragraph 19.
84 Tzevelekos, ‘The Use of Article 31(3)(C) of the VCLT in the Case Law of the ECtHR, 661, 664.
85 National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, paragraph 76.
86 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland [GC] (2005), (Application no. 45036/98).
87 Bosphorus, paragraphs 155–156.
88 Michaud v. France (2012), Application no. 12323/11.
89 Avotiņš v. Latvia [GC] (2016), Application no. 17502/07.
90 Bosphorus, paragraph 150.
91 Bosphorus, paragraph 154.
92 Opinion 2/13 of the Court (Full Court) 18 December 2014, paragraph 168, 191 and 258.
93 Dominik Düsterhaus, ‘The ECtHR, the CJEU and the AFSJ: A Matter of Mutual Trust’, European Law Review 42, no. 3 (2017): 388–401, 396: Lize R. Glas and Jasper Krommendijk, ‘From Opinion 2/13 to Avotiņš: Recent Developments in the Relationship between the Luxembourg and Strasbourg Courts’, Human Rights Law Review 17, no. 3 (2017): 567–87, 586.
94 Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland [GC] 2016.
95 Al-Dulimi, paragraph 140.
96 Al-Dulimi, paragraph 145.
97 Al-Dulimi, paragraph 147.
98 Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Kadi & Al Barakaat Int’l Found. v. Council & Comm’n, 2008 E.C.R. I-06351; Joined Cases C- 584/ 10 P, C- 593/ 10 P, and C- 595/ 10 P European Commission and others v Kadi [2013] ECR I- 0000.