References
- Amnesty International et al. (2012, March 5). Joint NGO preliminary comments on the first draft of the Brighton declaration on the future of the European Court of Human Rights. Retrieved from https://amnesty.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Brighton_Joint_NGO_preliminary_comments_5_March.pdf
- Amnesty International et al. (2018, February 13). Joint NGO response to the draft Copenhagen declaration. Retrieved from https://amnesty.dk/media/3931/joint-ngo-response-to-the-copenhagen-declaration-13-february-2018-with-signatures.pdf
- Arai-Takahashi, T. (2013). The margin of appreciation doctrine: A theoretical analysis of Strasbourg’s variable geometry. In A. Føllesdal, B. Peters, & G. Ulfstein (Eds.), Constituting Europe. The European Court of Human Rights in a national, European and global context (pp. 62–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Bates, E. (2014). Analysing the prisoner voting Saga and the British challenge to Strasbourg. Human Rights Law Review, 14, 503–540. doi: 10.1093/hrlr/ngu024
- Besson, S. (2016). Subsidiarity in international human rights law – what is subsidiary about human rights? The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 61, 69–107. doi: 10.1093/ajj/auw009
- Brighton Declaration. (2012, April 20). High level conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights. Brighton Declaration. Retrieved from https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2012_Brighton_FinalDeclaration_ENG.pdf
- Brayson, K. (2017). Securing the future of the European Court of Human Rights in the face of UK opposition. Political compromise and restricted rights. International Human Rights Law Review, 6, 53–85. doi: 10.1163/22131035-00601001
- Brussels Declaration. (2015, March 27). High-level conference on the “implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, our shared responsibility”. Brussels Declaration. Retrieved from https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Brussels_Declaration_ENG.pdf
- Cahill, M. (2017). Theorizing subsidiarity. Towards an ontology-sensitive approach. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 15, 201–224. doi: 10.1093/icon/mox003
- Cameron, D. (2012, January 25). Speech on the European Court of Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/speech-on-the-european-court-of-human-rights
- Cassese, S. (2015). Ruling indirectly – judicial subsidiarity in the ECtHR. Retrieved from https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Speech_20150130_Seminar_Cassese_ENG.pdf
- Chaplin, J. (2014). Subsidiarity and social pluralism. In M. Evans & A. Zimmermann (Eds.), Global perspectives on subsidiarity (pp. 65–83). Dordrecht: Springer.
- Churchill, W. (1949). Speech by Winston Churchill (London, 28 November 1949). London: Kingsway Hall. Retrieved from https://www.cvce.eu/obj/address_given_by_winston_churchill_london_28_november_1949-en-ce26cc27-30bc-4ec1-b0df-8a572f3dcc0e.html
- Copenhagen Declaration. (2018, April 13). High level conference on the European Court of Human Rights. Copenhagen Declaration. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/copenhagen-declaration/16807b915c
- Council of Europe. (2013): Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Explanatory Report, CETS No. 213). Retrieved from https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Protocol_15_explanatory_report_ENG.pdf
- Danish Government. (2018, February 5). Draft Copenhagen Declaration. Retrieved from https://menneskeret.dk/sites/menneskeret.dk/files/media/dokumenter/nyheder/draft_copenhagen_declaration_05.02.18.pdf
- Donald, A., Gordon, J., & Leach, P. (2012). The UK and the European Court of Human Rights. Manchester: Equalitiy and Human Rights Commission. Retrieved from https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/83._european_court_of_human_rights.pdf
- Donald, A., & Leach, P. (2018). A wolf in sheep’s clothing: Why the draft Copenhagen declaration must be rewritten. Retrieved from https://www.ejiltalk.org/a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing-why-the-draft-copenhagen-declaration-must-be-rewritten /
- European Court of Human Rights. (2010). Interlaken follow-up – principle of subsidiarity. Note by the Jurisconsult. Retrieved from https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2010_Interlaken_Follow-up_ENG.pdf
- European Court of Human Rights. (2018a). Annual report 2017. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2017_ENG.pdf
- European Court of Human Rights. (2018b). Opinion on the draft Copenhagen Declaration. Retrieved from https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Opinion_draft_Declaration_Copenhague%20ENG.pdf
- European Court of Human Rights, judgments. Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int
- Al-Skeini and others v. United Kingdom, 7 July 2011.
- Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, 20 September 2018.
- Animal Defenders International v. United Kingdom, 22 April 2013.
- Austin and others v. United Kingdom, 15 March 2012.
- Belgian Linguistics case, 23 July 1968.
- Campbell and Cosans v. United Kingdom, 25 Februar 1982.
- Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, 22 October 1981.
- Handyside v. United Kingdom, 7 December 1976.
- Hirst v. United Kingdom (No. 2), 6 October 2005.
- Hugh Jordan v. United Kingdom, 4 May 2001.
- Ireland v. United Kingdom, 18 January 1978.
- McHugh and others v. United Kingdom, 10 February 2015.
- Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom, 17 January 2012.
- Perlala v. Greece, 22 February 2007.
- Sahin Alpay v. Turkey, 20 March 2018.
- Tyrer v. United Kingdom, 25 April 1978.
- VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, 28 June 2001.
- Føllesdal, A. (2014). Subsidiarity and the global order. In M. Evans & A. Zimmermann (Eds.), Global perspectives on subsidiarity (pp. 207–220). Dordrecht: Springer.
- Füglistaler, G. (2016). The principle of subsidiarity and the margin of appreciation doctrine in the European Court of Human Rights’ post-2011 Jurisprudence. Lausanne: Université de Lausanne. Retrieved from https://serval.unil.ch/resource/serval:BIB_A4FA8A7A4A0B.P001/REF
- Interlaken Declaration. (2010, February 19). High level conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights. Interlaken Declaration. Retrieved from https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2010_Interlaken_FinalDeclaration_ENG.pdf
- Izmir Declaration. (2011, April 27). High level conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights. Izmir Declaration. Retrieved from https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2011_Izmir_FinalDeclaration_ENG.pdf
- Kuyper, A. (1998). Sphere sovereignty. In A. Kuyper (J. Bratt, Ed.), A centennial reader (pp. 461–490). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
- McKinley Brennan, P. (2014). Subsidiarity in the tradition of the catholic social doctrine. In M. Evans & A. Zimmermann (Eds.), Global perspectives on subsidiarity (pp. 29–47). Dordrecht: Springer.
- McWilliams, M. (2010). Human rights act underpins devolution. In S. Chakrabarti et al. (Eds.), Common sense: Reflections on the human rights Act (pp. 44–47). London: Liberty.
- Petzold, H. (1993). The Convention and the principle of subsidiarity. In R. S. J. Macdonald (Ed.), The European system for the protection of human rights (pp. 41–62). Dordrecht: Nijhoff.
- Pius, X. I. (1931). Encyclical letter Quadragesimo Anno. Retrieved from http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno.html
- Rui, J. (2013). The Interlaken, Izmir and Brighton Declarations: Towards a Paradigm Shift in the Strasbourg Court’s interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights? Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 31, 28–54.
- Spano, R. (2014a). Universality or diversity of human rights? Strasbourg in the age of subsidiarity. Human Rights Law Review, 14, 487–502. doi: 10.1093/hrlr/ngu021
- Spano, R. (2014b). The European Court of Human Rights and national courts: A constructive conversation or a dialogue of disrespect? The Torkel Opsahl Memorial Lecture 2014. Retrieved from https://www.jus.uio.no/smr/om/aktuelt/aktuelle-saker/2014/docs/judge-spano-torkel-opsahl-memorial-lecture---oslo---2014.pdf
- United Kingdom Government. (2012, February 23). Draft Brighton Declaration. Retrieved from http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/321624-draft-brighton-declaration-on-echr-reform.html
- United Kingdom Government. (2017, November 2). Action plan, Hirst No. 2 and others, Council of Europe document DH-DD(2017)1229.
- Weinberger, L. (2014). The relationship between sphere sovereignty and subsidiarity. In M. Evans & A. Zimmermann (Eds.), Global perspectives on subsidiarity (pp. 49–63). Dordrecht: Springer.