scholarly journals References to the US Supreme Court Decisions in the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (5) ◽  
pp. 319-349
Author(s):  
Grzegorz Maroń ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Bezemek

This chapter assesses public insult, looking at the closely related question of ‘fighting words’ and the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. While Chaplinsky’s ‘fighting words’ exception has withered in the United States, it had found a home in Europe where insult laws are widely accepted both by the European Court of Human Rights and in domestic jurisdictions. However, the approach of the European Court is structurally different, turning not on a narrowly defined categorical exception but upon case-by-case proportionality analysis of a kind that the US Supreme Court would eschew. Considering the question of insult to public officials, the chapter focuses again on structural differences in doctrine. Expanding the focus to include the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR), it shows that each proceeds on a rather different conception of ‘public figure’.


2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 64-78
Author(s):  
Leighton Vaughan Williams

This paper examines the 2012 US Supreme Court consideration of the Affordable Care Act, and the resulting judgment, with a view to learning what lessons this landmark case can afford us into the way in which the US Supreme Court works, so helping us forecast its decisions. Although this is simply one judgment among many, a case is advanced here that the details of the way that the judgment was made can be used to help arbitrate between conflicting interpretations in the literature as to the way that the US Supreme Court reaches its decisions. It is argued that consideration of this case does provide particular insights which might usefully improve forecasts of future Supreme Court decisions.


ICL Journal ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Azriel ◽  
Charles Mayo

Abstract2014 marks the 50th anniversary of the US Supreme Court decisions in Times v Sullivan and 40th anniversary of Gertz v Welch. These two decisions by the US Supreme Court had an important legal impact in the United States on federal law pertaining to libel, specifically proving actual malice and who is defined as a public figure or public official. This article analyzes both Supreme Court decisions within the context of present day online social media libel controversies. It also analyzes three recent federal court rulings where judges had to issue decisions based on Sullivan and Gertz’s actual malice and public figure legal principles. The article concludes that both Sullivan and Gertz are still relevant to how other federal, American courts decide issues related to defamation published in social media.


ICL Journal ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonios E. Kouroutakis

AbstractInstitutions such as the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice in due time have developed a status of supremacy through judicial activism. The main target of the article is to identify the judicial activism exercised by these Courts and to reason its need in the legal order. In the first part the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice are placed in the overall polity that they belong to and the development of their status and their characteristics are analyzed. The major concern of the first part is to examine how those declared their supremacy and focus on major cases and their reason­ing.In the second part the extent of the judicial supremacy in each legal order is discussed and its effects in the decision making process are examined. The assumption that judicial activ­ism is acceptable only if it expresses consensus in the legal order is tested and it is argued that up to an extent, Judicial Activism does not distort the political agenda when it ex­presses the consensus of the legal system. Finally, it is argued that when such activism exceeds the boundaries of the consensus, the other actors in the legal system would even­tually react and would limit such activism.


2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (02) ◽  
pp. 479-508
Author(s):  
Nate Ela

How do activist plaintiffs experience the process of human rights litigation under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS)? Answering this question is key to understanding the impact on transnational legal mobilization of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., in which the US Supreme Court sharply limited the scope of the ATS. Yet sociolegal scholars know remarkably little about the experiences of ATS litigants, before or after Kiobel. This article describes how activist litigants in a landmark ATS class action against former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos faced a series of strategic dilemmas, and how disagreements over how to resolve those dilemmas played into divisions between activists and organizations on the Philippine left. The article develops an analytical framework focused on litigation dilemmas to explain how and why activists who pursue ATS litigation as an opportunity for legal mobilization may also encounter strategic dilemmas that contribute to dissension within a social movement.


Teisė ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 83 ◽  
pp. 18-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gediminas Mesonis

Straipsnyje analizuojama, kokią reikšmę turi skirtingos koncepcijos atskleidžiant konkrečios žmogaus teisės turinį. Konstatuojama, kad net „Vakarų“ demokratinėse valstybėse sprendžiant dėl žmogaus teisių turinio nuolat konkuruoja individualistinis ir traibalistinis požiūris į žmogaus teises. Esama koncepcijų dichotomija šiame straipsnyje iliustruojama žodžio laisvės turinio raidos kontekste. Straipsnyje į šios teisės turinio raidą žvelgiama per valstybės vėliavos teisinį statusą, analizuojant Jungtinių Amerikos Valstijų Aukščiausiojo Teismo jurisprudencijos ir kitų šalių teisinio reguliavimo patirtį. Konstatuojama, kad anglų–amerikiečių (liberalioji) žmogaus teisių ir laisvių koncepcija, spręsdama žmogaus teisės turinio problemą, prioritetą linkusi atiduoti konkretaus asmens, o ne grupės interesui.The article analyses the significance of different conceptions in disclosing the content of a concrete human right. It is stated that even in “western” democratic states, when one decides regarding the content of human rights, there is continuous competition between the individualistic and tribalistic approach to human rights. The existing dichotomy of these conceptions is illustrated in the context of the development of the content of freedom of speech. In the article the development of the content of this right is considered through the legal status of the flag, while analysing the experience of the jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court and that of legal regulation of other countries. It is stated that the Anglo-American (liberal) conception of human rights, while deciding the issue of the content of a human right, tends to give priority to the interest of a concrete person, but not that of a group.


Author(s):  
Raymond Wacks

Privacy is acknowledged as an essential human right, recognized by a number of international declarations, among which the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are the most significant. Interpreting these provisions, the European Court of Human Rights provides important guidance in respect of the attempt to balance privacy against competing rights and interests, and this is briefly discussed. Leading decisions of the courts of various jurisdictions illustrate the problems of definition and the attempt to balance privacy against other competing rights. Cases before the US Supreme Court have generated an enormous, divisive debate concerning, in particular, the subject of abortion, which the Court has conceived to be an element of the right to privacy. A discussion of the celebrated US Supreme Court judgement in Roe v Wade is fundamental to an analysis of the meaning and limits of individual privacy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document