When the European Court of Human Rights speaks, what should it say? Testing Brettschneider's value democracy at the supranational level

No abstract available

When the European Court of Human Rights speaks, what should it say? Testing Brettschneider's value democracy at the supranational level

No abstract available

Searching for the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights: The Neglected Role of ‘Democratic Society’

In this article, I argue against the claim that the practice of the European Court of Human Rights cannot be reconciled with the democratic-procedural standards by which state parties, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, decide about the content and scope of human rights norms. First, I suggest drawing the attention to the neglected balancing exercise of the review process, in which the Court has to determine whether a violation is nevertheless ‘necessary in a democratic society’. Second, I shed light on the role that ‘pluralism’ plays in the balancing (with particular emphasis on Articles 8–11). Third, I argue that Thomas Christiano’s egalitarian argument for democracy can best illuminate the Court’s reliance on pluralism

Uncovering the Nature of ECHR Rights:An Analytical and Methodological Framework

How does the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) understand the nature of human rights? The article develops a framework for the analysis of this question and shows how it can be applied. The first part identifies a gap at the intersection of doctrinal and philosophical approaches to human rights practice that leaves the ECtHR’s understanding of the nature of rights unaccounted for. The second part develops an analytic and methodological framework based on the idea of grounds, content and scope of human rights to bridge this disciplinary divide and facilitate a more perspicuous analysis of the Court’s conception of the nature of human rights. The third part tests this framework by examining the Court’s doctrines in relation to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the right to free elections

Human rights: moral or political?

No abstract available

Proportionality as procedure: Strengthening the legitimate authority of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has a new mechanism to receive individual complaints and issue views, which makes the question of how the Committee should interpret the broad articles of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights more pressing than ever. Most commentators on the legitimacy of the CESCR’s interpretation have argued that interpreters should make better use of Articles 31–33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) in order to improve the legitimacy of their findings. In this article, we argue conversely that the individual communication mechanism should be evaluated and reformed in terms of legitimate authority. In the context of the Committee’s process of interpretation, we contend that proportionality is better suited than the various interpretive options of the VCLT to offer a consistent procedure that is able to generate legitimacy by attenuating the tension between personal and collective autonomy

Human Rights Theory and Human Rights History: A Tale of Two Odd Bedfellows

The burgeoning of recent publications on human rights shows how fashionable an object of study international human rights have become lately, and this especially among philosophers and historians. Curiously, however, given that joint development, human rights theorists and human rights historians seem to be following separate paths, without much interaction between them besides historians ‘showcas[ing] the theoretical and philosophical debates about the meaning of human rights and theorists gesturing at some of the historical origins of the concept of human rights usually to then distance themselves from them.The specific question that arises for human rights theorists in this context is not only whether human rights history should matter for their normative endeavour, but also how it could be integrated methodologically in the latter, if at all. Is human rights history more than a source of information for the philosopher of human rights? Should it be used, for instance, to identify the object of human rights theorizing and then maybe to interpret it? And may it provide a critical tool for non-ideal human rights theories