Monday 11 April 2016

New ECHR Readings

Please find below a number of new readings on the European Convention of Human Rights, the Court, and its case-law:

* B.M. Oomen, 'A serious case of Strasbourg-bashing? An evaluation of the debates on the legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights in the Netherlands',  International Journal of Human Rights (Vol. 20, no. 3, 2016) .

The newest issue of our own Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, vol. 34, no. (2016), includes:

* S. Langlaude Doné, 'Religious Organisations, Internal Autonomy and Other Religious Rights before the European Court of Human Rights and the OSCE'.

* R.L. Glas, 'The Functioning of the Pilot-Judgment Procedure of the European Court of Human Rights in Practice'.

Marko Milanovic has posted on SSRN an a chapter of a foryhcoming book: 'Jurisdiction and Responsibility: Trends in the Jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court', to be published in The ECHR and General International Law, Anne van Aaken & Iulia Motoc eds., forthcoming. This is the abstract:

This paper examines the overarching trends in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on questions of state jurisdiction in the sense of Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and state responsibility, after its seminal judgment in the Al-Skeini case. While the chapter makes no claim to comprehensiveness of coverage, it first discusses the threshold question of the extraterritorial applicability of human rights treaties, and analyses the relationship between the notions of jurisdiction and responsibility, specifically looking at the recent Jaloud v. Netherlands case. It then examines the issue of the relationship between human rights and international humanitarian law and the European Court’s judgment in Hassan v. UK. This chapter’s main thesis is that the Court is growing increasingly comfortable with applying the Convention extraterritorially and in armed conflict, as well as in directly invoking rules of international humanitarian law. However, a number of important caveats and uncertainties remain in the Court’s jurisprudence, which will inevitably be at issue in important cases currently pending or soon to be pending before it, e.g. the many interstate and individual applications dealing with the conflict in Ukraine.