Advertisement

Human Rights Review

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 279–301 | Cite as

Implementing International Human Rights Law at Home: Domestic Politics and the European Court of Human Rights

  • Courtney HillebrechtEmail author
Article

Abstract

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) boasts one of the strongest oversight systems in international human rights law, but implementing the ECtHR’s rulings is an inherently domestic and political process. This article begins to bridge the gap between the Court in Strasbourg and the domestic process of implementing the Court’s rulings by looking at the domestic institutions and politics that surround the execution of the ECtHR’s judgments. Using case studies from the UK and Russia, this article identifies two factors that are critical for the domestic implementation of the Court’s rulings: strong domestic, democratic institutions dedicated to implementing the ECtHR’s judgments and an overarching sense of responsibility to set a good example at home and abroad for respecting human rights and the rule of law. This article concludes with a discussion of the steps necessary to facilitate better implementation of the ECtHR’s rulings.

Keywords

European Court of Human Rights Domestic politics Implementation/execution UK Russia 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The first version of this paper was presented at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association in New Orleans, Louisiana, and I thank the participants of that panel for their comments and suggestions. I owe a great deal of gratitude to the ECtHR for opening their doors to me. I also am grateful to the Division of International Studies, the Department of Political Science and the Graduate Student Collaborative, all of the University of Wisconsin-Madison; the School of Human Rights Research at Utrecht University; the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; and the Department of Political Science at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln for their financial and academic assistance in researching this article. I am very grateful for Margo Berend’s excellent research assistance. Any errors are mine alone.

References

  1. Abdullaev N (2002) 12,887 Strasbourg Suits, only 2 rulings. The Moscow Times.Google Scholar
  2. Badkhen A (2000) Say what? Hey Europe: we need no pesky rights! Moscow Times.Google Scholar
  3. Barkhuysen T, van Emmerik ML (2005) A comparative view on the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. In: Christou T, Raymond JP (eds) European Court of Human Rights: remedies and execution of judgments. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, pp 1–24.Google Scholar
  4. Bates E (2005) Supervising the Execution of Judgments Delivered by the European Court of Human Rights: The Challenges Facing the Committee of Ministers. In: Christou T, Raymond JP (eds) European Court of Human Rights: remedies and execution of judgments. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, pp 49–106.Google Scholar
  5. BBC (2011) May wants Human Rights Act axedGoogle Scholar
  6. Belton C, Gorst, I (2010) US attacks Khodorkovsky guilty verdict. Financial Times.Google Scholar
  7. Besson S (2008) The Reception Process in Ireland and the United Kingdom. In: Stone Sweet A, Keller H (eds) A Europe of Rights: the impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 32–106.Google Scholar
  8. Buyse A (2009) The pilot judgment procedure at the European Court of Human Rights: possibilities and challenges. Nomiko Vima (The Greek Law Journal) 57:1890–1902.Google Scholar
  9. Cardenas S (2007) Conflict and compliance: State responses to International Human Rights pressure. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Carozza P (2003) Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law. American Journal of International Law 97:38–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2004) About the Committee of Ministers.Google Scholar
  12. Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2008) Supervision of the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France.Google Scholar
  13. Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2009) Supervision of the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France.Google Scholar
  14. Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2010) High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights: Interlaken Declaration.Google Scholar
  15. Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2011a) High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights: Izmir Declaration.Google Scholar
  16. Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2011b) Supervision of the Execution of Judgments and Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: Annual Report 2011. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, FranceGoogle Scholar
  17. Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2012) Execution of Strasbourg Court Judgments: Considerable Progress but Concern about Major Structural Problems. Press Release DC042.Google Scholar
  18. Conant LJ (2002) Justice Contained: Law and Politics in the European Union. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Council of Europe (2004) Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Amending the Control System of the Convention.Google Scholar
  20. Council of Europe (2009a) State of Execution. Available at: http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/execution/03_cases/.
  21. Council of Europe (2009b) Pending cases: current state of execution: cases or group of cases against the United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  22. Council of Europe (n.d.) A unique and effective mechanism.Google Scholar
  23. Dai X (2005) Why Comply? The Domestic Constituency Mechanism. International Organization 59:363–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. European Court of Human Rights (2008) Aleksanyan v. Russia Application No. 46468/06.Google Scholar
  25. European Court of Human Rights (2009) A. and Others v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 3455/05.Google Scholar
  26. European Court of Human Rights (2011a) OAO Neftyanaya kompaniya YUKOS v. Russia Application No: 14902/04.Google Scholar
  27. European Court of Human Rights (2011b) Khodorkovsky v. Russia Application No. 5829/04.Google Scholar
  28. European Court of Human Rights (2012) European Court of Human Rights Analysis of Statistics 2011. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France.Google Scholar
  29. Farer T (1997) The rise of the inter-American Human Rights regime: no longer a unicorn, not yet an ox. Human Rights Quarterly 19:510–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Finn P (2005) Russians’ Appeals to Court bring intimidation, death; relatives of missing and dead told not to go to rights body. Washington Post A15.Google Scholar
  31. Finn P (2006) European Court Rules Against Russia. Washington Post A25.Google Scholar
  32. Finn P (2007a) Moscow Panel Backs Rights Lawyer. Washington Post A14.Google Scholar
  33. Finn P (2007b) Russia’s Champoin of Hopeless Cases is Targeted for Disbarment. Washington Post A16.Google Scholar
  34. Finn P (2008) Russia to Move Ailing Yukos Defendant to Clinic. Washington Post A16.Google Scholar
  35. Ford R (2010) European Court Rules Stop and Search Illegal. The Times.Google Scholar
  36. Fresco A, Hamilton F (2010) Unlawful anti-terror powers planned for use during 2012 Olympics. The Times.Google Scholar
  37. Griffith J (2001) The Open Conspiracy. Times Online.Google Scholar
  38. Halpin T (2008) Judge halts trial of sick Yukos lawyer. The Times 42.Google Scholar
  39. Harding L (2007) Supreme Court Ban on Liberal Party Wipes Out Opposition to Putin: Republican Accused of Violating Electoral Law, Protest Rally Planned amid Fears of a Police State. The Guardian 26.Google Scholar
  40. Hathaway O (2002) Do human rights treaties make a difference. Yale Law Journal 111:1935–2041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hathaway O (2007) Why do countries commit to human rights treaties? Journal of Conflict Resolution 51:588–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hawkins D, Jacoby W (2010) Partial compliance: a comparison of the European and Inter-American Courts for Human Rights. Journal of International Law and International Relations 6:35–85.Google Scholar
  43. Hierbert J (2006) Parliament and the Human Rights Act: can the JCHR Help Facilitate a Culture of Rights? International Journal of Constitutional Law 4:1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hillebrecht C (2009) Rethinking compliance: the challenges and prospects of measuring compliance with International Human Rights Tribunals, Journal of Human Rights Practice 1(3):362–379. doi: 10.1093/jhuman/hup018 Google Scholar
  45. Home Secretary (2011) Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism, Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011.Google Scholar
  46. Human Rights Watch (2000) Inside the “Hell” of Chernokozovo. The Moscow Times.Google Scholar
  47. Human Rights Watch (2009) Russia: prosecute rights violations in North Caucasus, European Court Has Issued 104 Rulings Against Moscow Over Killings, Other Attacks. Available at: http://www.hrw.org/de/news/2009/06/04/russia-prosecute-rights-violations-north-caucasus. Accessed 9 Jun 2009.
  48. Human Rights Watch (2012) World Report 2012, Russia.Google Scholar
  49. Hunt M (1997) Using Human Rights Law in English Courts. Hart, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  50. Hunt M (2005) State obligations following from a Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. In: Christou T, Raymond JP (eds) European Court of Human Rights: remedies and execution of judgments. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, pp 26–47.Google Scholar
  51. Joint Committee on Human Rights (2011a) Seventeenth report. The Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011: stop and search without reasonable suspicion (second report).Google Scholar
  52. Joint Committee on Human Rights (2011b) Twentieth report. Legislative Scrutiny: Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill (second Report).Google Scholar
  53. Kaboglu IÖ, Koutnatzis S-I (2008) The reception process in Greece and Turkey. In: Stone Sweet A, Keller H (eds) A Europe of rights: the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 451–522.Google Scholar
  54. Kramer A (2008) Criticized, Putin Says Europe Has Rights Abuses of Its Own. The New York Times.Google Scholar
  55. Krsticevic V (2007) Implementación de las Decisiones del Sistema Interamerico de Derechos Humanos: Jurisprudencia, Normativa y Experiencias Nacionales. In: Krsticevic V, Tojo L (eds) CEJIL, pp 15–113.Google Scholar
  56. Krug P (2006) Internalizing European Court of Human Rights Interpretations: Russia’s Courts of General Jurisdiction and New Directions in Civil Defamation Law. Brookings Journal of International Law 23:1–65.Google Scholar
  57. Lambert Abdelgawad E (2008) The Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, 2nd ed. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France.Google Scholar
  58. Leach P (2005) Beyond the Bug River: new approaches to redress by the ECHR. European Human Rights Law Review 148.Google Scholar
  59. Leach P, Hardman H, Stephenson S (2010) Can the European Court’s pilot judgment procedure help resolve systemic Human Rights violations? Burdov and the failure to implement domestic court decisions in Russia. Human Rights Law Review 10:346–359. doi: 10.1093/hrlr/ngq011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Levey C (2009) European Court rulings seem to rankle Kremlin. The New York Times.Google Scholar
  61. Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (2009) Responding to Human Rights judgments: Government response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ thirty-first report of session 2007–08). London.Google Scholar
  62. Loucaides LG (2008) Reparation for violations of Human Rights under the European Convention and Restitutio in Integrum. European Human Rights Law Review 182–192.Google Scholar
  63. Lyon J, Green D (2010) Should prisoners have the right to vote? The Times.Google Scholar
  64. Meek J (2006) Review: the best memorial. The Guardian 5.Google Scholar
  65. Moscow Times (2006a) Killings in Chechnya Fall by 1/3Google Scholar
  66. Moscow Times (2006b) Russia appeals ruling of European CourtGoogle Scholar
  67. Moscow Times (2007) Putin pledges to help NGOsGoogle Scholar
  68. Neumayer E (2005) Do International Human Rights Treaties improve respect for Human Rights? Journal of Conflict Resolution 49:925–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Office for Criminal Justice Reform (2007) FAQs, Current Human Rights Act Issues in the CJS & Human Rights Act. The Criminal Justice System of England and Wales.Google Scholar
  70. Pannick D (2009) European Court Backs Judge’s Right to Freedom of Expression. The Times 59.Google Scholar
  71. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (2005) The circumstances surrounding the arrest and prosecution of leading Yukos executives. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France.Google Scholar
  72. Pasqualucci JM (2003) The practice and procedure of the inter-American court of Human Rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ria Novosti (2004a) Rights, lawsuits to be considered within country: Russian OmbudsmanGoogle Scholar
  74. Ria Novosti (2004b) State Duma does not recognize the European Court of Human Rights’ ruling on Ilashku CaseGoogle Scholar
  75. Ria Novosti (2004c) Yukos Case has no political undertonesGoogle Scholar
  76. Ria Novosti (2005) Court Rejects Appeal of Chechen Who Won Case in StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  77. Ria Novosti (2010a) Moscow urges Strasbourg to drop Yukos’ $100 Bln claim against itGoogle Scholar
  78. Ria Novosti (2010b) Russia reaffirms commitment to Strasbourg CourtGoogle Scholar
  79. Ria Novosti (2011b) European Court straddles the fence on YukosGoogle Scholar
  80. Rozenberg J (2005) Clark Raises Issue of Quitting Rights Convention. Telegraph.Google Scholar
  81. Rozenberg J (2006) Changes to the Legislation are unlikely and unecessary. Telegraph.Google Scholar
  82. Ryssdal R, Martens SK (1996) European Court of Human Rights: the enforcement system set up under the European convention on Human Rights; commentary. In: Bulterman MK, Kuijer M (eds) Compliance with judgments of international courts: proceedings of the symposium organized in Honour of Professor Henry G. Schermers By Mordenate College and the Department of International Public Law of Leiden University. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, pp 47–79.Google Scholar
  83. Salinas Alcega S (2009) El Sistema Europeo de Protección de los Derechos Humanos En El Siglo XXI: El Proceso de Reforma para Asegurar Su Eficacia a Largo Plazo, Madrid, Madrid.Google Scholar
  84. Simmons BA (2009) Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in domestic politics. Cambridge University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sitaropoulos N (2008) Supervising Execution of the European Court of Human Rights’ Judgments Concerning Minorities: The Committee of Ministers’ Potentials and Constraints. Annuaire International des Droits de L’Homme 3:523–550.Google Scholar
  86. Slynn of Hadley, Rt. Hon. the Lord (2005) The development of human rights in the United Kingdom. Fordham International Law Journal 28:477–499.Google Scholar
  87. Stone Sweet A, Keller H (2008) The reception of the ECHR in National Legal Orders. A Europe of rights: the impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–26.Google Scholar
  88. Telegraph (2007) Cameron’s Bill of RightsGoogle Scholar
  89. The National Archives (2006) Foreign and Commonwealth Office International Priorities: Human Rights. Available at: http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20080205132101/www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front%3Fpagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029393564. Accessed 8 Sep 2009.
  90. The Times (2007) Kremlin targets champion of hopeless causesGoogle Scholar
  91. The Times (2010) Stop and search powers violate human rightsGoogle Scholar
  92. von Staden A (2007) Assessing the Impact of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on Domestic Human Rights Policies.Google Scholar
  93. Vreeland J (2008) Political institutions and human rights: why dictatorships enter into the United Nations Convention Against Torture. International Organization 62:65–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wadham J, Mountfield H (2001) Human Rights Act 1998. Second. Blackstone, London.Google Scholar
  95. Washington Post (2000) World in briefGoogle Scholar
  96. White GL (2011) European Rights Court Delivers Split Yukos Ruling. Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar
  97. Whitehead T (2005) Europe Attacks Blair’s Plan to Expel Fanatics. The Express 2.Google Scholar
  98. Whitell G, Fletcher M (2000) Human Rights Council may Suspend Russia. The Times.Google Scholar
  99. Wildhaber L (2006) The Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: recent developments. In: Pierre-Marie Dupuy, et al. (ed) Völkrrecht als Wertordnung: Common Values in International Law. Essays in Honour of Christian Tomuschat. Engel, Kehl, pp 671–680.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations