Electing Team Strasbourg: Professional Diversity on the European Court of Human Rights and Why it Matters

Reforms to the process for electing judges to the European Court of Human Rights have generally focused on identifying the most qualified individual candidates. This Article argues for a more holistic approach, advancing a theory of why professional diversity on the European Court of Human Rights is an asset in collegial decision making. The results of original interviews with several Strasbourg judges are presented, followed by an empirical analysis of the professional backgrounds of all judges elected to the European Court of Human Rights since 1998. Although the interviews indicate that the judges themselves see the value of professional diversity, the quantitative evidence suggests a trend in the direction of a more professionally homogenous bench. The Article concludes with some suggestions for how the promotion of professional diversity might be appropriately pursued in future reforms to the process for electing Strasbourg judges

Suspension and Expulsion of the Members of the Council of Europe: Difficult Decisions in Troubled Times

The effectiveness and legitimacy of the Council of Europe canbe undermined by the actions of Member States which fail to complywith their international law obligations of genuine cooperation withthe organization. This articlefirst briefly examines the practice ofinternational organizations in applying sanctions such as expulsion andsuspension to their members. It then explains why it is necessary todiscuss potential sanctions that the Council can apply in the context ofcurrent controversies involving the Council and Member States. It willbe argued that the scale and intensity of challenges distinguish thecurrent state of affairs from other‘problematic’periods in the Council’shistory. It proceeds to outline the considerations thatshould be takeninto account in deciding whether a Member State should be suspendedor expelled. These considerations include the implications of sanctionson the legitimacy of the Council of Europe, the level of human rightsprotection and thefinancial stability of the organization

The Council of Europe's Approach towards Ageism

In this chapter, I examine the degree of interest in ageism among Council of Europe members, and the degree of interest in its elimination through the Council of Europe forum. I also examine the interpretation of the concept of ageism by various Council of Europe institutions. Finally, I explore the Council’s willingness and ability to eliminate or at least mitigate ageism effect

Can the European Court of Human Rights Prevent War? Interim Measures in Inter-State Cases

This article discusses a new notion of general interim measures in inter-state cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Such measures are not precise and do not give the Contracting Parties clear instructions of what should be done to comply with the Court’s order. It is argued here that such measures can undermine the legitimacy of the ECtHR because they do not possess those qualifications that made specific interim measures in individual cases so influential

European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the Strasbourg Court

In order to be effective, international tribunals should be perceived as legitimate adjudicators. European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights provides in-depth analyses on whether European consensus is capable of enhancing the legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Focusing on the method and value of European consensus, it examines the practicalities of consensus identification and application and discusses whether State-counting is appropriate in human rights adjudication. With over 30 interviews from judges of the ECtHR and qualitative analyses of the case law, this book gives readers access to firsthand and up-to-date information and provides an understanding of how the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg interprets the European Convention on Human Rights

Can the European Court of Human Rights Prevent War? Interim Measures in Inter-State Cases

This article discusses a new notion of general interim measures in inter-state cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Such measures are not precise and do not give the Contracting Parties clear instructions of what should be done to comply with the Court’s order. It is argued that such measures can undermine the legitimacy of the ECtHR because they do not possess those qualifications that made specific interim measures in individual cases so influential

Does Consensus Matter? Legitimacy of European Consensus in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

International tribunals including the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) face a substantial structural handicap: they operate in a system which lacks the coercive force to enforce their judgments. Thus, to at least some extent, the execution of their judgments depends on them issuing rulings that are considered legitimate by reference to the method of their reasoning. One of the methods of reasoning commonly applied by the ECtHR is that of “European consensus”; an argument based on comparative analysis. While “European consensus” is used by the court, the Convention itself does not contain any definition, criteria or regulation of the concept. Moreover, the ECtHR has not clearly defined what it means by European consensus and it has not been analysed systematically in academic work. This paper argues that European consensus as employed by the ECtHR is a legitimising tool, but that its potential can be unlocked only if the court clearly states its meaning and application. It is a legitimising method of reasoning because it brings clarity and foreseeability to case law in relation to almost all Convention rights, although it has never been the sole basis of a judgment and therefore plays a subsidiary, albeit important, legitimising role