Abstract
Transgender rights are a highly contested issue, upsetting the ‘normal’ ordering of society. In Europe, transgender persons continue to suffer discrimination and harassment, and their rights are contested time and again. Eventually they can turn to the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) in Strasbourg. In such politically sensitive matters, how do judges in Strasbourg decide? Do they set European norms bolstering transgender rights, or do they refrain from interference in state affairs? Testing expectations based on rational and sociological institutionalism, this article analyses all 33 Court cases on transgender issues since 1980. As a judge’s low score on trans rights in their home country does not mean that they vote against trans rights, and as judges do no defend their home country but vote with the ‘pro-state’ or ‘pro-trans’ majority, rationalist expectations were not confirmed. Sociological institutionalist processes of widening and narrowing tell us more about the hesitant and uneven strengthening of transgender rights, if within the limits of binary thinking as regards the transgender body, marriage and family.
Subject
Public Administration,Sociology and Political Science
Reference50 articles.
1. Amos, M. (2017). The value of the European Court of Human Rights to the United Kingdom. The European Journal of International Law, 28(3), 763–785.
2. A. P., Garcon & Nicot v. France, Reports 2017 (ECHR, 6 April 2017).
3. Arold, N. (2007a). The European Court of Human Rights as an example of convergence. Nordic Journal of International Law, 76(2-3), 305–322.
4. Arold, N. (2007b). The legal culture of the European Court of Human Rights. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
5. B v. France, Reports A232-C (ECHR, 25 March 1992).
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献