Walking Back Human Rights in Europe?
Abstract
Judges and scholars have long debated whether the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR or the Court) can only expand, never diminish, human rights protections in Europe. Recent studies have found that political backlashes and national-level restrictions have in- fluenced ECtHR case law. However, analysing whether the ECtHR is shifting in a regressive direction faces an empirical challenge: How can we observe whether the Court is limiting rights over time if it has never expressly overturned a prior judgment in a way that favours the government? We gain traction on this question by analysing all separate and minority opinions of the ECtHR Grand Chamber between 1998 and 2018. We focus on opinions as- serting that the Grand Chamber has tacitly overturned prior rulings or settled doctrine in a way that favours the respondent state, which we label as ‘walking back dissents’. We find that walking back dissents have become significantly more common in the last decade, revealing that some members of the ECtHR themselves believe that the Grand Chamber is increasingly overturning prior judgments in a regressive direction.
Downloads
References
Arnardóttir, O. M. (2018). The Brighton Aftermath and the Changing Role of the European Court of Human Rights. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 9(2), 223-239.
Barnett, M. y Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Cornell University Press.
Bates, E. (15 de diciembre de 2015). The Continued Failure to Implement Hirst v UK. EJIL: Talk! https://bit.ly/3hZ1tmf.
Bentsen, H. L. (2018). Court Leadership, Agenda Transformation, and Judicial Dissent: A European Case of a “Mysterious Demise of Consensual Norms”. Journal of Law & Courts, 6(1), 189.
Bradley, C. y Kelley, J. (2008). The Concept of International Delegation. Law and Contemporary Problems, 76, 1-36.
Brauch, J. A. (2005). The Margin of Appreciation and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Threat to the Rule of Law. Columbia Journal of European Law, 11, 113.
Bruinsma, J. (2008). The Room at the Top: Separate Opinions in the Grand Chamber of the ECHR (1998- 2006). Ancilla Juris, 32.
Bürli, N. (2017). Third-Party Interventions Before the European Court of Human Rights. Intersentia.
Busch, M. L. y Reinhardt, E. (2006). Three’s a Crowd: Third Parties and WTO Dispute Settlement. World Politics, 58(3), 446-477.
Çali, B. (2018). Coping with Crisis: Towards a Variable Geometry in the Jurisprudence the European Court of Human Rights? Wisconsin Journal of International Law, 35(2), 237-276.
Carozza, P. G. (1998). Uses and Misuses of Comparative Law in International Human Rights: Some Reflections on the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Notre Dame Law Review, 73(5), 1217-1238.
Carrubba, C. J., Gabel, M. y Hankla, C. (2008). Judicial Behavior under Political Constraints: Evidence from the European Court of Justice. American Political Science Review, 102(4), 435-452.
Centro Schell para los Derechos Humanos Internacionales. (s.f.). Robina Foundation Human Rights Fellows. https://bit.ly/3i5XGUo.
Ciacchi, A. C. (2017). Political Parties’ Programmes: Examples of Governance Against Human Rights? European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance, 4, 105-109.
Comisión Directiva del Consejo de Europa para los Derechos Humanos. (2015). El futuro a largo plazo del sistema del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos.
Christoffersen, J. y Madsen, M. R. (2013). Postscript: Understanding the Past, Present, and Future of the European Court of Human Rights. En Christoffersen, J. y Madsen, M. R. (Eds.), The European Court of Human Rights between Law and Politics (230-249). Oxford.
Dunoff, J. L. y Pollack, M. A. (2017). The Judicial Trilemma. American Journal of International Law, 11(2), 225-276.
Dzehtsiarou, K. (2015). European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights. Cambridge University Press.
Epstein, L., Landes, W. y Posner, R. (2013). The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice. Harvard University Press.
Epstein, L. y Martin, A. D. (2010). Does Public Opinion Influence the Supreme Court? Possibly Yes (But We’re Not Sure Why). University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 13(2), 263.
Friedman, B. (2009). The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Gearty, C. (2005). 11 September 2001, Counter-Terrorism, and the Human Rights Act. Journal of Law and Society, 32(1), 18-33.
Gerards, J. (2018). Margin of Appreciation and Incrementalism in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review, 18(3), 495-515.
Greenhouse, L. (15 de julio de 2001). Divided They Stand; The High Court and The Triumph of Discord. The New York Times. https://nyti.ms/33Stw1L.
Helfer, L. R. (1993). Consensus, Coherence and the European Convention on Human Rights. Cornell International Law Journal, 26, 133-165.
Helfer, L. R. (2008). Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Regime. European Journal of International Law, 19(1), 125-159.
Helfer, L. R. (2012). The Burdens and Benefits of Brighton. European Society of International Law, 1(1). https://bit.ly/3mHtGS2.
Helfer, L. R. (2019). The ILO at 100: Institutional Innovation in an Era of Populism. AJIL Unbound, 113, 396-401.
Helfer, L. R. (2020). Populism and International Human Rights Institutions: A Survival Guide. En Neuman, G. (Ed.), Human Rights in a Time of Populism: Challenges and Responses. Cambridge University Press.
Helfer, L. R. y Slaughter, A. M. (1997). Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication. Yale Law Journal, 107(2), 273-391.
Helfer, L. R. y Voeten, E. (2014). International Courts as Agents of Legal Change: Evidence from LGBT Rights in Europe. International Organization, 68, 77-100.
Kelemen, K. (2018). Judicial Dissent in European Constitutional Courts. Routledge.
Kennedy, R. (22 de febrero de 2019). A “European Race to the Bottom”: Human Rights Defenders Criticise Denmark’s new immigration bill. Euronews. https://bit.ly/3iXRK0I.
Kuijer, M. (1997). Voting Behavior and National Bias in the European Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice. Leiden Journal of International Law, 10(1), 49-67.
Larsson, O. y Naurin, D. (2016). Judicial Independence and Political Uncertainty: How the Risk of Override Affects the Court of Justice of the EU. International Organization, 70(2), 377-408.
Letsas, G. (2013). The ECHR as a Living Instrument: Its Meaning and Legitimacy. En Føllesdal, A., Peters, B. y Ulfstein, G. (Eds.), Constituting Europe: The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context. Cambridge University Press.
Lupu, Y. y Voeten, E. (2012). Precedent in International Courts: A Network Analysis of Case Citations by the European Court of Human Rights. British Journal of Political Science, 42(2), 413-439.
Madsen, M. R. (2016). The Challenging Authority of the European Court of Human Rights: From Cold War Legal Diplomacy to the Brighton Declaration and Backlash. Law and Contemporary Problems, 79, 141-178.
Madsen, M. R. (2018). Rebalancing European Human Rights: Has the Brighton Declaration Engendered a New Deal on Human Rights in Europe? Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 9(2), 199-222.
Madsen, M. R., Cebulak, P. y Wiebusch, M. (2018). Backlash Against International Courts: Explaining the Forms and Patterns of Resistance to International Courts. International Journal of Law in Context, 14(2), 197-220.
McGoldrick, D. (2011). Religion in the European Public Square and in European Public Life—Crucifixes in the Classroom? Human Rights Law Review, 11(3), 451-502.
Mishler, W. y Sheehan, R. S. (1993). The Supreme Court as a Countermajoritarian Institution? The Impact of Public Opinion on Supreme Court Decisions. American Political Science Review, 87(1), 87-101.
Moravcsik, A. (2000). The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe. International Organization, 54(2), 217-252.
Moravcsik, A. (2001). Federalism in the European Union: Rhetoric and Reality. En Nicolaidis, K. y Howse, R. (Eds.), The Federal Vision: Legitimacy and Levels of Governance in the United States and the European Union. Oxford Scholarship Online.
Mowbray, A. (2007). An Examination of the Work of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. Public Law, (3), 507-528.
Mowbray, A. (2009). An Examination of the European Court of Human Rights’ Approach to Overruling its Previous Case Law. Human Rights Law Review, 9(2), 179-201.
Moynihan, H. (2016). Regulating the Past: The European Court of Human Rights’ Approach to the Investigation of Historical Deaths under Article 2 ECHR. British Yearbook of International Law, 86(1), 68-100.
Naurin, D. y Stiansen, Ø. (2020). The Dilemma of Dissent: Split Judicial Decisions and Compliance with Judgments from the International Human Rights Judiciary. Comparative Political Studies, 53(6).
O’Mahony, C. y Dzehtsiarou, K. (2013). Evolutive Interpretation of Rights Provisions: A Comparison of the European Court of Human Rights and the U.S. Supreme Court. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 44, 309.
Poll: Best and Worst ECtHR Judgment of 2018. (29 de enero de 2019). Strasbourg Observers. https://bit.ly/3kHOjf8.
Schabas, W. A. (2015). The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary. Oxford.
Staton, J. K. y Romero, A. (2019). Rational Remedies: The Role of Opinion Clarity in the Inter-American Human Rights System. International Studies Quarterly, 63(3), 477-491.
Staton, J. K. y Vanberg, G. (2008). The Value of Vagueness: Delegation, Defiance, and Judicial Opinions. American Journal of Political Science, 52(3), 504-519.
Stiansen, Ø. y Voeten, E. (2020). Backlash and Judicial Restraint: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights. International Studies Quarterly, 64(4), 770-784.
Stone Sweet, A. y Brunell, T. L. (2013). Trustee Courts and the Judicialization of International Regimes: The Politics of Majoritarian Activism in the ECHR, the EU, and the WTO. Journal of Law and Courts, 1(1), 61-88.
Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. (s.f.). HUDOC FAQ: Preguntas frecuentes. https://bit.ly/3hVFxIN.
Urueña, R. (2018). Double or Nothing? The Inter-American Court of Human Rights in an Increasingly Adverse Context. Wisconsin International Law Journal, 35(2) 398-425.
Vitale, D. (2014). The Value of Dissent in Constitutional Adjudication: A Context-Specific Analysis. Review of Constitional Studies, 19(1), 83-108.
Voeten, E. (2007). The Politics of International Judicial Appointments: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights. International Organization, 61(4), 669-701.
Voeten, E. (2008). The Impartiality of International Judges: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights. American Political Science Review, 102(4), 417-433.
Voeten, E. (2020). Populism and Backlashes against International Courts. Perspectives on Politics, 18(2), 407.
White, R. C. A. y Boussiakou, I. (2009). Separate Opinions in the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review, 9(1), 37-60.
Wildhaber, L. (1999). Opinions dissidentes et concordantes de juges individuels à la Cour Européenne des droits de l’homme. En Dupuy, R. J. (Ed.), Droit et justice: Mélanges en l’honneur de Nicolas Valticos (pp. 530-531). Editions A. Pedone.
Wildhaber, L. (2016). The Old Court, the New Court, and Paul Mahoney. Human Rights Law Journal, (36).
Copyright (c) 2021 Laurence R. Helfer, Erik Voeten
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This license allows the copy, distribution, exhibition and representation of the work provided authorship is acknowledged and the work is properly quoted. Commercial use of the original work or the generation of derived works are not allowed.
The authors hereby guarantee the right to the first publication of the work to the Revista Jurídica Austral.
