Exiting Custom: Analogies to Treaty Withdrawals
In: Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, Band 21, S. 65
69 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, Band 21, S. 65
SSRN
In: Perspectives on politics, Band 7, Heft 1, S. 39-44
ISSN: 1541-0986
The international intellectual property system provides an important illustration of how regime complexity shapes domestic and international strategies of states and non-state actors. This article describes and graphically illustrates the multifaceted nature of the international intellectual property system. It then analyzes the consequences of regime complexity for international and domestic politics, emphasizing the strategy of regime shifting and its consequences for chessboard politics and the domestic implementation of international rules.
In: European journal of international law, Band 19, Heft 1, S. 125-159
ISSN: 1464-3596
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 101, Heft 1, S. 257-259
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: Proceedings of the annual meeting / American Society of International Law, Band 101, S. 391-394
ISSN: 2169-1118
In: Conferences on new political economy: CNPE, Band 23, Heft 1, S. 253-276
ISSN: 1861-8340
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 95, Heft 2, S. 422-430
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: Law and Contemporary Problems, Band 71, S. 193
SSRN
In: European Journal of International Law, Band 19, S. 125
SSRN
In: Columbia Law Review, Band 102
SSRN
In: University of Illinois Law Review, p. 71, 2008
SSRN
In: International Sexual and Reproductive Rights Lawfare (Siri Gloppen & Malcolm Langford eds., 2023)
SSRN
In: 85 L. & Contemp. Probs. 59-93 (2021)
SSRN
In: European journal of international law, Band 32, Heft 3, S. 907-914
ISSN: 1464-3596
Abstract
Over the last decade, scholars have debated whether the shifting landscape of individual rights protection in Europe has influenced the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In our article, 'Walking Back Human Rights in Europe?', we analysed every minority opinion of the ECtHR Grand Chamber between 1998 and 2018. We found a substantial increase in what we labelled as 'walking back dissents' – minority opinions asserting that the Grand Chamber has overturned prior case law or settled doctrine in a way that favours the government. In their Reply, Stone Sweet, Sandholtz and Andenas (SSA) offer two principal critiques. First, they assert that they could not 'replicate' our coding. Second, SSA challenge our claim that legal and political developments in Europe have incentivized the ECtHR to move in a rights-restrictive direction. These claims are inaccurate and mischaracterize our article. First, SSA do not 'replicate' our study. Instead, they code a very small subset of judgments using more restrictive, subjective and vague criteria – which, unsurprisingly, yield fewer walking back dissents. Second, SSA narrowly focus on the Brighton and Copenhagen conferences, ignoring numerous other changes at the national and regional level that have created a more constrained environment for the ECtHR.
In: European journal of international law, Band 31, Heft 3, S. 797-827
ISSN: 1464-3596
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 influenced 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 asserting 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.