The Fine-Mechanics of Judicial Decision-Making at the European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 227-252
Author(s):  
Angelika Nussberger
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fine Mechanics

The European Court of Human Rights and Transnational Judicial Dialogue

ICL Journal ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla M Zoethout
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
The Us

AbstractOver the past decade, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) seems more and more inclined to use foreign sources of law, that is to say, law that does not originate in the Convention itself or in one of the Member States of the Council of Europe. Unlike in the US, there is little discussion in Europe about this form of judicial dialogue in the case-law of the ECtHR. This paper seeks both to clarify transnational dialogue by the ECtHR and find ways to justify this practice, against the backdrop of the American debate on this topic. First, the concept of transnational judicial dialogue is analysed (Part II). Then judicial dialogue as it presents itself in the judgments of the ECtHR is assessed, especially when non-Convention or foreign law is being used in a substantive way (Part III). Subsequently, an attempt is made to define when and why the use of foreign law by the ECtHR can be considered a justifiable approach in judicial decision-making (Part IV). The paper rounds off with some concluding remarks (Part V).

Human Dignity in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Paul Costa
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Central Element ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
European Court ◽  
Conceptual Link

The chapter first gives several examples of where ‘dignity’ (or ‘a person’s dignity’, or ‘human dignity’) has been a central element in the reasoning of the Court, or in the arguments advanced by judges in separate opinions. Based on this analysis, the principal question addressed is why the Court draws on ‘dignity’, a word neither explicitly nor, implicitly mentioned in the text of the Convention or the Protocols. What are the reasons for having—or not having—recourse to the concept of dignity in judicial decisions? Is there any objective reason for such choice? Or does it depend on the subjective preferences of the judges sitting on the bench? Is ‘dignity’ necessary for judicial decision-making in order to reach a specific conclusion in a case? Or does ‘dignity’ simply reinforce the legal reasoning of the Court, enabling the Court to give more weight to the arguments of one of the parties in the case? Finally, the chapter looks for a possible conceptual link between human dignity and human rights, insofar as this arises from the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court.

scholarly journals Why Attacks on Civic Space Matter in Strasbourg: The European Convention on Human Rights, Civil Society and Civic Space

2019 ◽  
pp. 13-37
Author(s):  
Antoine Buyse
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
European Court ◽  
Civic Space ◽  
Work First

This article explores the role of the European Convention on Human Rights in addressing the issue of attacks on civic space, but also the potential effects of shrinking civic space on Strasbourg’s work. First, an overview of the notions of civil society and civic space is given, linking these concepts to democracy and human rights. Subsequently, the formal and informal roles for civil society in the judicial decision-making are discussed. Finally, the substantive protection offered to civil society and civic space under the ECHR and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights is analysed. This article argues that the differentiations in theory on the varying contributions of civil society to democracy and human rights are to a large extent reflected in Strasbourg jurisprudence. Even more importantly, the ECHR system and civil society benefit from each other. This is why the current attacks on civic space are not just a problem for civil society itself, but also for the work of the European Court: it is submitted that a shrinking of civic space can also negatively affect the Strasbourg system, as the two are intertwined to a considerable extent.Received: 06 July 2019Accepted: 10 October 2019Published online: 20 December 2019

The Protection of the Right to Work Through the European Convention on Human Rights

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 313-332
Author(s):  
Virginia Mantouvalou
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Right To Work ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

AbstractThe right to work was until recently under-explored in academic literature and judicial decision-making. Classified often as a social right, it was viewed as a non-justiciable entitlement. Today, as the right to work is sometimes used as a slogan in favour of deregulation of the labour market, as well as a slogan against immigration and unionisation, the analysis of the right to work as part of a labour law agenda is crucial. Against this background, this chapter examines the right to work in the European Convention on Human Rights. Even though the right to work is not explicitly protected in the ECHR, the chapter identifies in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights certain principles that underpin the right to work, which can serve as guidance in the interpretation of existing provisions of the Convention.

scholarly journals POLICE, PROSECUTION, COURTS AND WARTIME DEMONSTRATIONS: ADELA PANKHURST IN THE AUSTRALIAN HIGH COURT

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jocelynne Scutt
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
High Court ◽  
Majority Opinion ◽  
Police Powers ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Disorderly Conduct ◽  
The Law

Rights of assembly and freedom of speech are a rich ground for decision-making by police, prosecutors and courts in determining a balance with obligations of authorities to keep the peace and prevail against disorderly conduct or riot. Recent claims of abuse of police powers through “kettling” have reached the European Court of Justice. These cases directly address the scope and exercise of police authority in maintaining order during demonstrations. Yet not only police powers are in issue at times of political disputation. Two cases heard early last century by the Australian High Court illustrate the way in which both the decision to prosecute and judicial decision-making may be influenced by socio-political considerations, particularly in time of war. Pankhurst v Porter and Pankhurst v Kiernan saw Adela Pankhurst, youngest daughter in the redoubtable Pankhurst family of Suffragette fame, testing the limits of the law during the struggles to ensure that sending wheat abroad to feed the troops would not justify pricing bread out of the reach of ordinary, working-class households. The success of the appeal in Pankhurst v Porter exposed error in the prosecutorial process. The failure of the appeal in Pankhurst v Kiernan exposed flawed reasoning in the majority opinion and the strength of the dissenting judgment in it’s application of the law to the facts and the need to maintain objectivity or at least neutrality as to the particular appellant.

scholarly journals Who are judicial decisions meant for? The ‘global community of law’ in Southern Africa

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 585-599 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Brett
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Global Community ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
High Court ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
First Case ◽  
Vexed Question

Rationalist models of judicial decision-making expect courts to defend their institutional integrity in politically sensitive cases. This article presents two African case studies of courts not doing so. They have elicited predictable backlash from executives and placed their institutions in avoidable danger. I argue that judges’ desire for esteem from emerging global judicial networks can explain this otherwise puzzling behaviour. These new networks become particularly salient in human rights cases. This conclusion partially supports Anne-Marie Slaughter’s controversial claims about the significance of ‘the global community of law’ but also identifies risks this poses for courts’ domestic authority. The argument is made with reference to two recent and well-known decisions by the High Court of Botswana and the Southern African Development Community Tribunal. The first case, Sesana (2006), dealt with the vexed question of indigenous rights in Africa. The second case, Campbell (2008), concerned the compensation of expropriated commercial farmers from Zimbabwe.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document