Abstract
This paper provides a queer critique of the European Court of Human Rights’ use of ‘European consensus’ as a method of interpretation in cases concerning sexuality rights. It argues that by routinely invoking the notion of ‘consensus’ in such cases, the Court (re)produces discourses and induces performances of sexuality and Europeanness that emphasise sameness and agreement, while simultaneously suppressing expressions of difference and dissent. As a result, this paper contends that the Court’s use of European consensus has ultimately functioned to uphold and sustain the heteronormative order that underpins both the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and European society more generally. This is so, despite the role that European consensus has played in the Court’s recognition of ‘new’ rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual people under the ECHR. Drawing on insights from queer theory, as well as the work of Rancière and Foucault, this discussion is carried out through a close reading of Strasbourg cases relating to sexuality.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Compared to the number of commentaries that appear in response to the Court’s decisions on LGB rights, only a few were generated by its judgment in Stübing (see eg Dyer 2012; Milanovic 2012; Sokol 2012; Spencer 2013; Roffee 2014). While some of these pieces take issue with the Court’s reasoning in Stübing, none of them expressly argue that it came to the wrong decision.
In 2018, for example, Russia used these laws to ban its largest gay website (Russia Bans Popular LGBT Website for ‘Propaganda of Nontraditional Sexual Relations’ 2018).
References
Ammaturo, Francesca Romana. 2014. The right to a privilege? Homonormativity and the recognition of same-sex couples in Europe. Social and Legal Studies 23(2): 175–194.
Ammaturo, Francesca Romana. 2017. European sexual citizenship: Human rights, bodies and identities. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Antonis Paschalides & Co LLC. 2013. ‘New families’? The case of Schalk and Kopf v Austria on same-sex unions and the current legal situation of Cyprus, https://www.paschalides.com/articles/family-law/124-new-families-the-case-of-schalk-and-kopf-v-austria-on-same-sex-unions-and-the-current-legal-situation-of-cyprus. Accessed 10 June 2020.
Benvenisti, Eyal. 1998. Margin of appreciation, consensus, and universal standards. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 31: 843–854.
Brauch, Jeffrey A. 2008. The dangerous search for an elusive consensus: What the Supreme Court should learn from the European Court of Human Rights. Howard Law Journal 52(2): 277–287.
Brems, Eva. 2003. The margin of appreciation doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights: Accommodating diversity within Europe. In Human rights and diversity: Area studies revisited, ed. David P. Forsythe and Patrice C. McMahon, 81. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
Butler, Judith. 1997. Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. New York: Routledge.
Butler, Judith. 2004. Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.
Butler, Judith. 2015. Notes toward a performative theory of assembly. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Chambers, Samuel A. 2009. A queer politics of the democratic miscount. Borderlands 8(2): 1–23.
Dasgupta, Sudeep. 2009. Words, bodies, times: Queer theory before and after itself. Borderlands 8(2): 1–20.
Diekmann, Kai. 2016. Hungary’s Prime Minister says accepting Syrian refugees ‘also means importing terrorism, criminalism anti-Semitism and homophobia’. Business Insider, 25 February. https://www.businessinsider.com/viktor-orban-interview-refugee-migrant-hungary-2016-2?r=US&IR=T. Accessed 19 June 2020.
Doty, Kathleen A. 2009. From Fretté to E.B: The European Court of Human Rights on gay and lesbian adoption. Law & Sexuality 18(1): 121-142.
Douzinas, Costas. 2007. Human rights and empire: The political philosophy of cosmopolitanism. Routledge-Cavendish.
Duggan, Lisa. 2003. The twilight of equality? Neoliberalism, cultural politics, and the attack on democracy. Boston: Beacon Press.
Dyer, Karen Jane. 2012. The need to re-evaluate incest in the age of assisted reproductive techniques: Stübing v Germany. Family Law 42(9): 1144–1146.
Dzehtsiarou, Kanstantsin. 2015. European consensus and the legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights. Cambridge University Press.
European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, opened for signature 4 November 1950, ETS 5 (entered into force 3 September 1953).
Foucault, Michel. 1980. The history of sexuality Vol 1: An introduction. Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Pantheon.
Foucault, Michel. 1991. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Penguin.
Golder, Ben, and Peter Fitzpatrick. 2009. Foucault’s law. Routledge-Cavendish.
Gonzalez-Salzberg, Damian A. 2019. Sexuality and transsexuality under the European Convention on Human Rights: A queer reading of human rights law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Greteman, Adam J. 2014. Dissenting with queer theory: Reading Rancière queerly. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 35(3): 419–432.
Grigolo, Michele. 2003. Sexualities and the ECHR: Introducing the universal sexual legal subject. European Journal of International Law 14(5): 1023–1044.
Halperin, David M. 1995. Saint Foucault: Towards a gay hagiography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haritaworn, Jin. 2010. Wounded subjects: Sexual exceptionalism and the moral panic on ‘migrant homophobia’ in Germany. In Decolonizing European sociology: Transdisciplinary approaches, ed. Encarnacion Gutierrez Rodriguez and Manuela Boatcă Costa Sérgio, 135. London: Routledge.
Helfer, Laurence R. 1990. Finding a consensus on equality: The homosexual age of consent and the European Convention on Human Rights. New York University Law Review 65(4): 1044–1100.
Helfer, Laurence R. 1993. Consensus, coherence and the European Convention on Human Rights. Cornell International Law Journal 26(1): 133–165.
Hodson, Loveday. 2011. A marriage by any other name? Schalk and Kopf v Austria. Human Rights Law Review 11(1): 170–179.
Hunt, Alan, and Gary Wickham. 1994. Foucault and law: Towards a sociology of law as governance. London: Pluto Press.
Johnson, Paul. 2013. Homosexuality and the European Court of Human Rights. London: Routledge.
Kapur, Ratna. 2001. Post-colonial economies of desire: Legal representations of the sexual subaltern. Denver University Law Review 78(4): 855–886.
Letsas, George. 2000. The truth in autonomous concepts: How to interpret the ECHR. European Journal of International Law 15(2): 279–305.
Letsas, George. 2007. A theory of interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McSweeney, John. 2010. Culture and/or politics? Rancière, Foucault and the problem of biopower. In Representation and contestation: Cultural politics in a political century, ed. Ching-Yu Lin and John McSweeney, 181. Leiden: Brill.
Milanovic, Marko. 2012. Incest in the European Court. EJIL: Talk!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/incest-in-the-european-court/. Accessed 10 June 2020.
Nozawa, Junko. 2013. Drawing the line: Same-sex adoption and the jurisprudence of the ECtHR on the application of the European Consensus Standard under Article 14. Merkourios Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 29(77): 66–75.
Oswald, Ramona, Libby Blume, and Stephen Marks. 2005. Decentering heteronormativity: A proposal for family studies. In Sourcebook of family theories and methods: An interactive approach, ed. V. Bengtson, A. Acock, P. Dilworth-Anderson, and D. Klein, 143. California: Thousand Oaks, Sage.
Polgari, Eszter. 2018. European consensus: A conservative and a dynamic force in European human rights jurisprudence. Vienna Journal on International Constitutional Law 12(1): 59–84.
Puar, Jasbir K. 2013. Rethinking homonationalism. International Journal of Middle East Studies 45: 336–339.
Puar, Jasbir K. 2017. Terrorist assemblages: Homonationalism in queer times, 2nd ed. Durham: Duke University Press.
Rancière, Jacques. 1999. Disagreement: Politics and philosophy. Trans. Julie Rose. University of Minnesota Press
Rancière, Jacques. 2004. Who is the subject of the rights of man? South Atlantic Quarterly 103(2–3): 297–310.
Rancière, Jacques. 2010a. Dissensus: On politics and aesthetics. Trans. Steven Concoran. London and New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Rancière, Jacques. 2010b. Chronicles of consensual times. Trans. Steven Corcoran. London and New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Rancière, Jacques. 2011. The thinking of dissensus: Politics and aesthetics. In Paul Bowman and Richard Stamp, 1, ed. Reading Rancière. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Reyes-Torres, Amaury A. 2015. Oliari v. Italy: The first step to equal marriage in Europe? Jurist. https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2015/08/Amaury-Reyes-Torres-Equal-Marriage/. Accessed 10 June 2020.
Roffee, James A. 2014. No consensus on incest? Criminalisation and compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review 14(3): 541–572.
Rubin, Gayle. 1999. Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In Culture, society and sexuality: A reader, ed. Guy Parker and Peter Aggleton, 143. University College London Press.
Ruitenberg, Claudia W. 2010. Queer politics in schools: A Rancièrean reading. Educational Philosophy and Theory 42(5–6): 618–634.
Russia Bans Popular LGBT Website for ‘Propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations’. 2018. The Moscow Times, 30 March, https://themoscowtimes.com/news/russia-bans-popular-lgbt-website-propaganda-nontraditional-sexual-relations-61007. Accessed 10 June 2020.
Scherpe, Jens M. 2010. Same-sex couples have family life. Cambridge Law Journal 69(3): 463-465.
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. 2008. Epistemology of the closet. 1st edn. University of California Press.
Shahid, Masuma. 2017. The right to same-sex marriage: Assessing the European Court of Human Rights’ consensus-based analysis in recent judgments concerning equal marriage rights. Erasmus Law Review 10(3): 184–198.
Sokol, Daniel. 2012. What’s so wrong with incest? The case of Stübing v Germany. UK Human Rights Blog, https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/04/15/whats-so-wrong-with-incest-the-case-of-stubing-v-germany/. Accessed 20 June 2020.
Spencer, J.R. 2013. Incest and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Cambridge Law Journal 72(1): 5–7.
Spijkerboer, Thomas. 2018. Gender, sexuality, asylum and European human rights. Law and Critique 29(2): 221–239.
Stamp, Richard. 2009. The torsion of politics and friendship in Derrida. Foucault and Rancière. Borderlands 8(2): 1–27.
Stone, Thomas Willoughby. 2003. Margin of appreciation gone awry: The European Court of Human Rights’ implicit use of the precautionary principle in Frette v. France to backtrack on protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal 3(1): 218-236.
Stübing, Patrick. 2011. ‘Application No. 43547/08: Stübing vs Federal Republic of Germany’, Submission in Stübing v. Germany, 14 January.
Sullivan, Nikki. 2003. A critical introduction to queer theory. New York University Press.
Trott, Ben. 2016. Same-sex marriage and the queer politics of dissensus. The South Atlantic Quarterly 115(2): 411–423.
Warner, Michael. 1993. Introduction. In Fear of a queer planet: Queer politics and social theory, ed. Michael Warner, vii. University of Minnesota Press.
Yourow, Howard Charles. 1996. Margin of appreciation doctrine in the dynamics of European human rights. Leiden: Brill.
Zago, Giuseppe. 2015. Oliari and Others v. Italy: A stepping stone towards full legal recognition of same-sex relationships in Europe. Strasbourg Observers. 16 September. https://strasbourgobservers.com/2015/09/16/oliari-and-others-v-italy-a-stepping-stone-towards-full-legal-recognition-of-same-sex-relationships-in-europe/. Accessed on 19 June 2020.
Zieck, Marjoleine. 2016. The European refugee crisis from a vantage point of view. Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy 45: 3–9.
Cases
Alekseyev v. Russia. 2010. App Nos. 4916/07, 25924/08 and 14599/09, Eur. Ct. H.R. 21 October.
Bayev and Others v. Russia. 2017. App Nos. 67667/09 et. al., Eur. Ct. H.R. 20 June.
Chapin and Charpentier v. France. 2016. App No. 40183/07, Eur. Ct. H.R. 9 June.
Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom. 1981. App. No. 7525/76, 25 Eur. Ct. H.R. 22 October.
E.B. v France. 2008. App No. 43546/02, Eur. Ct. H.R. 22 January.
Fretté v. France. 2002. App. No. 36515/97, Eur. Ct. H.R. 26 February.
Handyside v. the United Kingdom. 1976. App No. 5493/72 Eur Ct H.R 7 December.
Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v. the United Kingdom. 1997. App. Nos. 21627/93, 21628/93 and 21974/93, Eur. Ct. H.R. 19 February.
Mata Estevez v. Spain. 2001. App. No. 56501/00, Eur. Ct. H.R. 10 May.
Norris v. Ireland. 1988. App. No 10581/83, Eur. Ct. H.R. 26 October.
Oliari and Others v. Italy. 2015. App. Nos. 18766/11 and 36030/11 31 July.
Schalk and Kopf v. Austria. 2010. App. No. 30141/04, Eur. Ct. H.R., 24 June.
Stübing v Germany. 2012. App. No. 43547/08, Eur. Ct. H.R. 12 April.
Sutherland v the United Kingdom. 1997. App. No. 25186/94, Eur. Comm’n. H.R. 1 July.
Tyrer v. the United Kingdom. 1978. App. No. 5856/72, 26 Eur. Ct. H.R. 25 April.
Valliantos v. Greece. 2013. App. Nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, Eur. Ct. H.R. 7 November.
X v. Federal Republic of Germany. 1975. App No. 5935/72, Eur. Comm’n H.R. 30 September.
X v. the United Kingdom. 1978. App No. 7215/75, Eur. Comm’n. H.R. 12 October.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and detailed suggestions. I am indebted to Hilary Charlesworth, Sundhya Pahuja, Matthew Nicholson and Valeria Vázquez Guevara for their time and feedback on this paper at its different stages. An earlier version of this article was presented at the Postgraduate Colloquium in Critical International Law held at SOAS University of London in September 2018. I thank the organisers and participants for their helpful questions and comments. Conducting this research was made possible by the funding of the University of Melbourne Research Scholarship.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
O’Hara, C. Consensus, Difference and Sexuality: Que(e)rying the European Court of Human Rights’ Concept of‘ European Consensus’. Law Critique 32, 91–114 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-020-09270-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-020-09270-y