Skip to main content
Log in

Consensus, Difference and Sexuality: Que(e)rying the European Court of Human Rights’ Concept of‘ European Consensus’

  • Published:
Law and Critique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ammaturo, Francesca Romana. 2017. European sexual citizenship: Human rights, bodies and identities. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, Judith. 1997. Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, Judith. 2004. Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, Judith. 2015. Notes toward a performative theory of assembly. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, Samuel A. 2009. A queer politics of the democratic miscount. Borderlands 8(2): 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, Sudeep. 2009. Words, bodies, times: Queer theory before and after itself. Borderlands 8(2): 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halperin, David M. 1995. Saint Foucault: Towards a gay hagiography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfer, Laurence R. 1993. Consensus, coherence and the European Convention on Human Rights. Cornell International Law Journal 26(1): 133–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, Loveday. 2011. A marriage by any other name? Schalk and Kopf v Austria. Human Rights Law Review 11(1): 170–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, Alan, and Gary Wickham. 1994. Foucault and law: Towards a sociology of law as governance. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Paul. 2013. Homosexuality and the European Court of Human Rights. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, Ratna. 2001. Post-colonial economies of desire: Legal representations of the sexual subaltern. Denver University Law Review 78(4): 855–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Letsas, George. 2000. The truth in autonomous concepts: How to interpret the ECHR. European Journal of International Law 15(2): 279–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Letsas, George. 2007. A theory of interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puar, Jasbir K. 2013. Rethinking homonationalism. International Journal of Middle East Studies 45: 336–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puar, Jasbir K. 2017. Terrorist assemblages: Homonationalism in queer times, 2nd ed. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spijkerboer, Thomas. 2018. Gender, sexuality, asylum and European human rights. Law and Critique 29(2): 221–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamp, Richard. 2009. The torsion of politics and friendship in Derrida. Foucault and Rancière. Borderlands 8(2): 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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.

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claerwen O’Hara.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-020-09270-y

Keywords

Navigation