How Should Personal and Political Autonomy Feature in the ECtHR’s Margin of Appreciation?

Author:

Scherz AntoinetteORCID

Abstract

AbstractCourts are often criticised as undemocratic. The backlash against international courts in the last decade is also partly driven by this concern. Human rights courts’ legitimacy is particularly challenged because they aim to protect human rights against the very states that need to comply with and implement the courts’ judgements. Therefore, several international courts have developed mechanisms of deference to states. One especially interesting tool is the European Court of Human Rights’ margin of appreciation doctrine. This paper proposes that the margin of appreciation can ensure the conditions of personal autonomy by protecting human rights while respecting the democratic decisions of states. Yet, states’ decisions should only be respected insofar as they realise political autonomy. Understanding the margin in this way allows us to critically evaluate arguments made under this label. The paper reviews developments in the ECtHR practice with regard to (a) different cases that use the margin of appreciation doctrine, (b) appeals to a European consensus, and (c) the procedural turn in its review and assesses whether and how they can be justified in the light of considerations about personal and political autonomy.

Funder

Stockholm University

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

General Medicine

Reference34 articles.

1. Alter KJ (2008) Agents or trustees? International courts in their political context. Eur J Int Rel 14(1):33–63

2. Bellamy R (2014) The democratic legitimacy of international human rights conventions: political constitutionalism and the Hirt case. In: Føllesdal A, Schaffer JK, Ulfstein G (eds) The Legitimacy of International Human Rights Regimes. Legal, Political and Philosophical Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 243–271

3. Benvenisti E (1998) Margin of appreciation, consensus, and universal standards symposium issue: the proliferation of international tribunals: piecing together the puzzle. New York University J Int Law and Politics 31(4):843–854

4. Bork RH (2003) Coercing virtue: the worldwide rule of judges. AEI Press

5. Brems E (2017) The ‘logics’ of procedural-type review by the European court of human rights. In: Gerards J, Brems E (eds) Procedural Review in European Fundamental Rights Cases. Cambridge University Press, pp 17–39

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3