* By Matthias Hermes, Reza Khabook, Frederic Kupsch, Angelika Nußberger and Nikos Vogiatzis
In February 2024, the Academy for European Human Rights Protection, University of Cologne and Essex Law School, University of Essex jointly organised and funded a workshop titled “Writing and Publishing in the Law of the ECHR: A Workshop for Early Career Researchers”. More than one year has elapsed since this inaugural workshop, and plans are underway to prepare the second edition in 2026. The purpose of this post is to reflect on the discussions in Cologne and invite comments and suggestions about ways in which the ECHR legal community – and especially early career scholars – can contribute to the development of that field.
Background
Our starting point was that Early Career Researchers (broadly understood) play (or should play) a crucial role in researching the Convention system and participating in discussions on its future development. If that is so, how should this be made possible? What are the challenges that one might face along the way? Is there any scope for such research to be impactful – either before the European Court of Human Rights or other organs within the Council of Europe system?
Our main purpose was to initiate a conversation and exchange ideas around issues related to writing and publishing in the Law of the ECHR. To that end, the workshop included four panels composed of experienced researchers and practitioners working at the European Court of Human Rights. The panels were followed by a hands-on roundtable session where participants and speakers discussed current projects and developed ideas in small groups.
A brief overview of the sessions
In their opening remarks, Professor Angelika Nußberger and Dr Nikos Vogiatzis outlined the broader aims of the workshop. The starting point was the ever-increasing research in the field of the ECHR, and the ever-increasing debates or contestation regarding the role of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In parallel to this, we witness significant developments in the Council of Europe (most notably Russia’s expulsion from the organisation and the Reykjavik Declaration that followed). While stressing the valuable contributions of Early Career Researchers (broadly understood) in that field, Nußberger and Vogiatzis pointed out that the aim was to initiate a conversation and exchange of ideas around writing and publishing in this field. This was also meant as a network opportunity so that scholars have an opportunity to meet with each other, identify common interests or challenges, and keep in touch (also with the organisers of this workshop). The importance of connecting theory and practice in the field of the ECHR was also underlined.
With these thoughts in mind, the workshop was organised around 4 key panels and an optional session in smaller groups.
The first panel, titled ‘How to write articles in the Law of the ECHR’ and moderated by Dr Júlia Miklasová, included presentations by Professor Natasa Mavronicola and Dr Cathérine Van de Graaf. Mavronicola presented and explored various topics that a researcher can investigate regarding the ECHR. In this regard, she distinguished between "unaddressed" and "under-addressed" issues. Mavronicola argued that while only a few issues can be categorised as unaddressed, a large number of issues fall within the second category. As an example, she mentioned absolute rights which are not fully discussed in the literature. She also drew participants’ attention to the significance of applying new theories and methodologies to re-study and interpret ECHR topics.
Van de Graaf explained how early-career researchers can publish their PhD thesis, with a particular focus on the advantages and disadvantages of the article-based format. She then mentioned three stages in the process of obtaining feedback: internal feedback (from co-supervisor, peers and members of an advisory committee or equivalent); external feedback (including from scholarly networks); and, as a last step before publication, peer review reports. She emphasised the significance of considering the intended audience of the research (and the dissemination of results), which will undeniably impact on the publication format.
The chair of the second panel, Dr Sabina Garahan, introduced the next broader topic: different methodologies in the Law of the ECHR. Professor Veronika Fikfak drew on ongoing research projects concerning compliance with judgements of the ECtHR and discussed the use of empirical methods when researching the ECHR. By referring to the significance of research questions as the main factor in deciding on the methodology to be adopted, she underlined that researchers should not view the empirical method as a trend when the research question does not call for its use.
Professor Giuseppe Martinico underlined the importance of comparative research in the field of the ECHR. He described comparative research as a tool to understand the genesis of many of the Convention's provisions, and to analyse and understand pluralism and consensus. Moreover, it enables the researcher to identify whether the ECHR is accepted or challenged at the national level.
Professor Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou, co-editor in chief of European Convention on Human Rights Law Review, and Professor Katharine Fortin, editor in chief of the Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, added valuable insights from the editors’ perspective in Panel 3, which was chaired by Dr Nikos Vogiatzis. Although a seemingly obvious point, both emphasised the importance of reading carefully the author and submission guidelines prior to submission.
However, formal requirements are only the starting point: in the words of Dzehtsiarou “what matters is the research done!” Fortin provided insightful indications about elements of a good article. The scope of the article needs to be clear and realistic; it should focus on a central research question backed up with a methodological approach and a clear structure. Both speakers agreed that robust research and a profound engagement with existing literature matter considerably. On the value of peer review, both speakers pointed out the importance of constructive feedback, but also that this can sometimes manifest itself as a dialogue between the author and the reviewer (e.g., in cases where clarifications might be needed).
In the last panel, titled “What do Judges or Members of Other Organs of the Council of Europe Read? How to Bring Legal Research to the Attention of the European Court of Human Rights?”, chaired by Frederic Kupsch, former judge and vice-president of the ECtHR, Professor Angelika Nußberger and Ana Vilfan Vospernik, lawyer at the Directorate of the Jurisconsult (ECtHR), provided insights from the perspective of the Court.
Vilfan Vospernik presented the work of the Directorate, including the work of the Research Unit, and introduced the Knowledge-Sharing process within the Court, facilitated by the Jurisconsult. It is, in Nußberger’s words, “the backbone of the Court” as it provides valuable input and feedback to the drafters of judgements and decisions. Vilfan Vospernik shed light on the ECHR Knowledge Sharing platform (ECHR-KS) (launched externally in 2022), in which the ECtHR’s case-law and the case-law analytical material is grouped under different themes.
There are many other ways to bring legal academic literature to the attention of the Court. According to Nußberger, a judge reads very selectively as it is already extremely time-consuming to read all the material of the case files so that little time remains for additional reading. However, she suggested that there might be a more indirect way in which academia and practitioners can influence the Court, namely via the submissions of the parties. Innovative ideas may stem from counsel appearing before the Strasbourg Court: if well-argued, the Court might be convinced to rely upon them.
Ideas were offered during the workshop on how authors may send references of their publications with a view to bringing such work to the Court’s attention. Academic authors who so wish may send such references via the ECHR Library (see under the rubric ‘Donations’).
Reflections on the issues raised in the workshop
The workshop sought to initiate a conversation on how early career researchers can contribute to the development of the Law of the ECHR. Important questions emerged not only regarding writing and publishing in the field, but also access to the Court, readability, impact, comparisons with other regional systems of human rights protection – among others.
We have been able to start a conversation around these crucial issues, but it would have been too ambitious to anticipate having all the answers at the conclusion of the workshop. We now have further questions that merit discussion, or issues to be explored further, hopefully in a subsequent edition of this workshop.
To begin with, we could have gone further in unpacking the challenges related to writing and publishing specifically in the Law of the ECHR – as opposed to writing and publishing academic research, in general. Certainly, some challenges are common to academic research regardless of the specific field. A good article will have similar qualities regardless of the topic. The process of converting a doctoral thesis in criminal law into a monograph cannot be too dissimilar from a thesis in human rights law, including in the Law of the ECHR. And yet, we believe that there are specific challenges of that field, both ongoing and emerging in recent years. Some may be based on an overview of the field (Is the field crowded? Are there significant gaps? Can we anticipate key areas in future?); others on specific approaches by the Strasbourg Court (including its approach to absolute rights, as underlined by Mavronicola).
Conversely, we could have looked beyond the ECHR for fruitful comparisons. It is crucial to draw on the international and/or other regional human rights system(s), with a view to understanding (or criticising) the approach of the Strasbourg Court, and vice versa. As the readers of this blog will know, signs of cooperation have been identified in recent years: for example, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights in addition to holding meetings at regular intervals, in the context of the Permanent Forum of Institutional Dialogue, jointly produce a report on recent developments. Starting from the premise that there is no regional system of human rights protection without challenges, we intend to explore further these dimensions of cooperation (and avenues for comparison) in the next edition of the workshop.
Regarding impact, while judges may differ on the volume of academic research that can be taken into account, or indeed cited in judgments or decisions (as a rule, the Court will not cite academic literature, but such literature is often cited in concurring or dissenting opinions of the individual judges), the workshop underlined the significance not only of the submissions of the parties, but also of third-party interventions. We are aware (and readers of the blog are aware, too) that a number of leading research Centres and Institutes are regularly engaging with the Strasbourg Court via third-party interventions. This is certainly an area that can be explored further in a workshop of this nature.
A view held among many participants was that early career researchers should be actively encouraged to publish their work (in blogs, journals or edited volumes) before the completion of the thesis. This is already happening – often, some of the most insightful contributions stem from doctoral candidates. Journals are much more open these days to evaluating the quality of the work as such, regardless of career stage. This, in turn, has a number of obvious benefits, such as engaging with external audiences, building on networks, contributing to the ongoing discussions on challenges that the Court and the Convention system are facing. It would appear that individual careers also benefit from such practice. But one of the questions the workshop did not address is whether, in fact, demands and pressures on early career researchers have substantially increased in recent years and, if so, what could or should the broader academic community do to address this, especially in such a crowded field like the Law of the ECHR.
Even though the workshop was mainly addressed to early career researchers, many of the challenges noted above should be common to anyone working in this field. The aim is to create and maintain an ongoing conversation (and, possibly, an academic network) in that field, and exchange ideas and good practice in areas of common concern, and, last but not least, encourage young researchers in their endeavours.
Lastly, building on the various contributions of our participants and speakers in the inaugural workshop, as well as some further reflections of the team now that some time has elapsed, we very much welcome comments and suggestions on areas that could be covered in a possible second edition. In our earlier remarks, we have touched upon some of the issues that we think merit further exploration. First, questions about the field as such: are there specific challenges when researching or publishing in the Law of the ECHR? Next, there is the comparative dimension: is there scope to increase the comparative research into regional systems of human rights protection and if so, what would be the challenges, in this respect? Then, there are questions of methodology and interdisciplinarity. In addition, we invite reflections on the community of scholars working in this field, and early career researchers in particular: given the undeniable pressures in an ever-competitive academic environment, how can we ensure that contributions by colleagues earlier in their careers are given due space and attention, without unduly impacting on their career prospects? We recognise that these are difficult questions, but we very much welcome comments and suggestions (readers should feel free to contact the authors of this post directly with their suggestions).
Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank both the Academy for European Human Rights Protection, University of Cologne and Essex Law School, University of Essex, for organising and funding the workshop. In addition, this workshop largely materialised due to the support of the Humboldt Foundation as well. Indeed, a Senior Humboldt Fellowship enabled Nikos Vogiatzis to present the idea of the workshop to the Director of the Academy, Angelika Nußberger, and other colleagues in Cologne – and it was wholeheartedly endorsed and taken forward.
