From Free Trade to Supranational Polity: The European Court and Integration
In: European Integration and Supranational Governance, S. 92-133
94 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: European Integration and Supranational Governance, S. 92-133
Two leading political scientists present the best of their research, focusing on how to build and test a social science of law and courts. Written for a broad, scholarly audience, the book is also recommended for use in graduate and advanced undergraduate courses in law and the social sciences
In: New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, Band 46, Heft 3, S. 2014
SSRN
In: Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 295
SSRN
Working paper
In: American political science review, Band 106, Heft 1, S. 204-214
ISSN: 0003-0554
In: Journal of Law and Courts, Band 1, Heft 1, S. 61-88
SSRN
In: American Political Science Review, 106 (1), February 2012, pp. 204-13
SSRN
SSRN
Working paper
SSRN
Working paper
In: American political science review, Band 92, Heft 1, S. 63
ISSN: 0003-0554
In: University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2022/59
SSRN
In: University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2022/12
SSRN
In: European journal of international law, Band 32, Heft 3, S. 897-906
ISSN: 1464-3596
Abstract
In their article 'Walking Back Human Rights in Europe?', Helfer and Voeten (hereinafter 'H-V') argue that a series of High Level Conferences (2012–2018), specifically Brighton (2012), dramatically altered the style of the European Court of Human Rights' (ECtHR) decision-making. The Grand Chamber began to adopt judgments which, in turn, provoked an unprecedented wave of 'Walking-Back Dissents'. Such dissents are separate opinions that, in effect, accuse the majority of a Grand Chamber of 'tacitly overturn[ing] prior rulings or settled doctrine in favour of national governments' (H-V, p. 823). In an expansive conclusion, H-V suggest that the ECtHR has also generated a rising number of 'Walking-Back Judgments', which lower standards of rights protection. We reject H-V's major claims on the empirical evidence. The outcomes of Brighton and subsequent conferences did not pose a credible threat to the Court, and could not have induced it to 'walk back' rights protection. We also closely examined two sets of Walking-Back Dissents identified by H-V, focusing on judgments that would be 'most likely to fit' H-V's 'expectations'. We found that fewer than one in four judgments analysed actually contained a Walking-Back Dissent. And we identified only one plausible Walking-Back Judgment. We are confident that H-V's results are inaccurate and cannot be reproduced by external analysts. We conclude by noting factors that H-V do not consider, but that are crucial to understanding the ECtHR's decision-making. In appendices, posted online, we summarize and give reasons for our coding decisions.
SSRN
In: Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 2017
SSRN