Suchergebnisse

Abstract
The European Convention of Human Rights system was originally created to sound the alarm if democracy was threatened in the member states. Yet, it eventually developed into a very different system with a focus on providing individual justice in an ever growing number of member states. This transformation has raised fundamental questions as to the level of difference and diversity allowed within the common European human rights space. Was the system to rest on minimum standards with room for domestic differences, or was it to create uniform standards? These questions have come up as increasingly contentious issues over the past years and have triggered a number of reforms seeking to introduce more subsidiarity in the system, striking a different balance between the European and national oversight of human rights. The article analyses this turn to subsidiarity by exploring whether the reform process has introduced new forms of difference and diversity within the common space of European human rights. Covering the period from 2000 to the end of 2019 and using a dataset of all judgments of the period, the article provides a structural analysis of developments in reference to the margin of appreciation which is the European Court of Human Rights' long-standing tool for balancing the common standards, yet leaving space for individual member states to find local solutions to implementing those standards. It concludes that recent developments have contributed to a more federal-style construction of European human rights with more space for differences within the common general standards.

Are international institutions more prone to face backlash politics than domestic ones? Are international institutions easy targets for satisfying domestic political interests? Using the case of the recent criticism of the European Court of Human Rights, the article explores whether international institutions are more susceptible to face backlash politics than domestic ones due to the dual nature of international politics. The empirical study, focusing on the reform of the European Court of Human Rights through the 2018 Copenhagen Declaration, suggests that pre-existing commitments to international institutions might be given up rapidly when significant domestic interests collide with international institutions and their practices. The analysis, however, also shows that backlash politics against international institutions is transformed when seeking institutional reform. Entering a collective bargaining process, backlash objectives are changed by the logic of diplomatic negotiation, academic scrutiny and the interests of the other member states and civil society. This suggests that the two-level logic of ordinary international politics has a mediating effect on domestically fuelled backlash campaigns.

A product of cold war strategies as much as post-war legal & political universalist ideologies, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights & Fundamental Freedoms (EHRC) & its institutions have gradually taken on a paramount position in European human rights law. Through the accounts given by key actors responsible for the institutionalization of the Convention & its accession to autonomy, this article shows how the rise in power of the institution can be seen as an example of the process of post-war Europeanization. Adapted from the source document.

From militant to entrepreneu-rial environmental practice:
on the construction and trans-formation of a Danish field of environmental expertise

By tracing the trajectories of holders of environmental expertise, this article attempts to understand the social construction of environmental protection measures in Denmark. The focus is not on these measures, per se, but rather on them as the product of inter-professional battles in, out and around that state. With an analytical starting point in the reflexive sociology developed by Pierre Bourdieu, the social space in which these struggles are taking place is seen as an open fluid field constituted by a mixture of loosely connected symbolic practices occupying different (and changing) positions within the field of state power. The article argues that the environmental space was initially dominated by a group of older lawyers and social scientists and was reconstructed by the arrival of young engineers and biologists, who came from the radicalized parts of the university milieu and similar social networks. The environmental field has recently developed in several directions. The original experts are still involved in the mainstream technical way of dealing with the environment. At the same time they are links to a new generation of environmental experts engaged in market-oriented symbolic investments in eco-management and accountancy. The success of the environmental movement has caused both renewed interest and a diffusion of the groups of agents at the same time.

AbstractThe article analyses the interface of Denmark and internationalisation of human rights with the goal of examining the transformation of the place and perception of international law in Scandinavia over the last decades. More precisely, the article contrasts two fundamentally different moments of the interface of international human rights and Denmark: first a period of external engagement in which Denmark – and the other Scandinavian countries – developed their position as virtuous defenders of international law and human rights and, secondly, the eventual national implications of international human rights law. This approach allows us to more generally analyse the interrelationship between the internationalisation of human rights and its eventual effect on Danish legal and political practices. We generally argue that the original politics of virtue in the area of international law and particularly international human rights law declined when international human rights started having national implications, that is, it no longer was simply a good of export. We, moreover, argue that the realistic approach developed in the national context now is having significant spill-over effects on Denmark's international policies in the area.

Is the public backlash against human rights rulings from European courts driven by substantive concerns over case outcomes, procedural concerns over sovereignty, or combinations thereof? We conducted preregistered survey experiments in Denmark, France, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom using three vignettes: a foreigner who faces extradition, a person fighting a fine for burning Qurans, and a home owner contesting eviction. Each vignette varies with respect to whether a European court disagrees with a national court (deference treatment) and whether an applicant wins a case (outcome treatment). We find little evidence that deference moves willingness to implement judgments or acceptance of court authority but ample evidence that case outcomes matter. Even nationalists and authoritarians are unmoved by European court decisions as long as they agree with the case outcome. These findings imply that nationalist opposition to European courts is more about content than the location of authority and that backlash to domestic and international courts may be driven by similar forces.