Under what conditions does a post-conflict government have authority? What challenges to its legitimacy does it face? To what standards can it be held accountable? Via case studies of Sierra Leone and Afghanistan and detailed accounts of extant international law, Matthew Saul explores the international legal framework which regulates popular governance of post-conflict reconstruction
Verfügbarkeit an Ihrem Standort wird überprüft
Dieses Buch ist auch in Ihrer Bibliothek verfügbar:
Abstract The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) can review the quality of a legislative process. This article calls such review 'active subsidiarity' and investigates empirically when and how such subsidiarity shapes legislative processes by tracing implementation of the Court's decision in one case: Lindheim and Others v. Norway. How did the ECtHR's criticism of the absence of a balancing exercise shape the corrective legislative process? The article shows that the ECtHR's reasoning caused the legislative process to include a visible balancing exercise, but that this did not enhance the democratic quality of the parliament's work on the rights issues. The article analyses these findings from the perspective of the variety of legislative circumstances that come before the ECtHR. It is difficult to anticipate how active subsidiarity will affect legislative processes as a general matter but certain contexts, such as those of minority governments, may be more conducive to democracy enhancing effects. This has implications for how the ECtHR should formulate active subsidiarity.
In: M. Saul, A. Follesdal, and G. Ulfstein (eds.) The International Human Rights Judiciary and National Parliaments: Europe and Beyond (Cambridge University Press, 2017)
In: M. Saul, A. Follesdal, and G. Ulfstein (eds.) The International Human Rights Judiciary and National Parliaments: Europe and Beyond (Cambridge University Press, 2017)