Advertisement

Some Reflections on the Legitimacy of the Strasbourg Judge

  • Georges Ravarani
Chapter

Abstract

Judges may spend their professional lives conscientiously, haunted by doubt about their decisions, without being led to wonder why litigants would come to somebody they do not know but are willing to trust and whose decisions they are prepared to accept. This question appears both fundamental and unsettling.

References

  1. Amos M (2017) The value of the European court of human rights to the United Kingdom. Eur J Int Law 28(3):763–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnardottir OM (2017) The “procedural turn” under the European convention on human rights and presumptions of convention compliance. Int J Constit Law 15(1):9–35. Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbiéri J-J (2004) Autour de la Cour de cassation. In: La Légitimité des Juges, Actes du colloque des 29-30 octobre 2003 organisé par l’Université de Toulouse I. Presses de l’Université des sciences sociales de Toulouse, Toulouse, p 82Google Scholar
  4. Bellamy R (2014) The democratic legitimacy of international human rights conventions: political constitutionalism and the European convention on human rights. Eur J Int Law 25(4):1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentham J (1948) An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Hafner Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Çalı B, Koch A, Bruch N (2011) The legitimacy of the European court of human rights: the view from the ground. UCL, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  7. Commaret D (1998) Une juste distance ou réflexions sur l’impartialité du magistrat, Recueil de jurisprudence Dalloz, Paris, chron. p 262Google Scholar
  8. Cornu G (2016) Vocabulaire juridique, Presses Universitaires de France - P.U.F., Association Henri Capitant, ParisGoogle Scholar
  9. Council of Europe (2015) Report of the Steering Committee for Human Rights adopted on 11 December 2015, The longer-term future of the system of the European Convention on Human Rights. Online available at: https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/cddh/reformechr/GT-GDR-F/Patrick.pdf
  10. Donald A, Leach P (2016) Parliaments and the European court of human rights. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Einstein A, Freud S (1996) Warum Krieg? – Ein Briefwechsel, correspondence, 1933. Diogenes, ZürichGoogle Scholar
  12. European Court of Human Rights (2018) Analysis of statistics 2017. Online available at: http://echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_analysis_2017_ENG.pdf
  13. Fontaneau C (2004) La légitimité du juge prudhomal. In: Raibaut J, Krynen J (eds) La Légitimité des Juges, Actes du colloque des 29-30 octobre 2003 organisé par l’Université de Toulouse I. Presses de l’Université des sciences sociales de Toulouse, Toulouse, p 205Google Scholar
  14. Fyrnys M (2012) Expanding competences by judicial lawmaking: the pilot judgment procedure of ECHR. In: Von Bogdandy A, Venzke I (eds) International judicial lawmaking: on public authority and democratic legitimation in global governance. Springer, Berlin, p 329 (331, 332)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garapon A (1997) Bien juger: Essai sur le rituel judiciaire. Editions Odile Jacob, ParisGoogle Scholar
  16. Garapon A, Allard J, Gros F (2008) Les vertus du juge. Dalloz, ParisGoogle Scholar
  17. Glazer GS (2003) L'élection des juges américains et les problèmes d'éthique. In: L'éthique du juge: une approche européenne et internationale. Dalloz, ParisGoogle Scholar
  18. Gomułowicz A (2014) The judge and “correcting” the law: fundamental dilemmas, scientific bulletin of the administrative courts, special issue, The Polish administrative judiciary as a guarantor of freedoms and rights of the individual. NSA, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  19. Harmsen R (2007) The European court of human rights as a ‘Constitutional Court’: definitional debates and the dynamics of reform. In: Morison J, McEvoy K, Anthony G (eds) Judges, transition, and human rights. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Madsen MR (2016) The challenging authority of the European Court of human rights: from Cold War legal diplomacy to the Brighton declaration and Backlash. Law Contemp Probl 79:141–178. Online available at: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol79/iss1/6/ Google Scholar
  21. Mahoney P (1999) Judicial activism and judicial self-restraint in the European Court of human rights: two sides of the same coin. Eur Hum Rights Law J 11:78Google Scholar
  22. Malcolm N (2017) Human rights and political wrongs, a new approach to human rights law. Policy Exchange, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Montesquieu (1777) L’esprit des lois, GarnierGoogle Scholar
  24. Nussberger A (2017) Procedural review by the ECHR: view from the court. In: Gerards J, Brems E (eds) Procedural review in European fundamental rights cases. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Nussberger A (2018) Schmelztiegel Europa, Wie europäische Richter mit einer Stimme sprechen (oder auch nicht). In: Baer S, Lepsius O, Schönberger C, Waldhoff C, Walter C (eds) 66 Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart (JöR), Neue Folge. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  26. Ory P (2017) Peuple souverain, De la révolution populaire à la radicalité populiste. Gallimard, ParisGoogle Scholar
  27. Pescatore P (2000) La légitimité du juge en régime démocratique. Revue Commentaire 90:345Google Scholar
  28. Ravarani G (2010) Interrogations autour d’un droit fondamental: l’appel. In: Justices et droit du procès, Du légalisme procédural à l’humanisme processuel, Mélanges en l’honneur de Serge Guinchard. Dalloz, ParisGoogle Scholar
  29. Rosanvallon P (2008) La légitimité démocratique, Impartialité, réflexivité, proximité. Seuil, ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. Shany Y, Noam G (2014) The European court of human rights. In: Shany Y (ed) Assessing the effectiveness of international courts. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Spano R (2014a) The European court of human rights: anti-democratic or guardian of fundamental values, UK Human Rights blog, 19 November 2014. Online available at: https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2014/11/19/the-european-court-of-human-rights-anti-democratic-or-guardian-of-fundamental-values-judge-robert-spano/
  32. Spano R (2014b) Universality or diversity of human rights? Strasbourg in the age of subsidiarity. Hum Rights Law Rev 14(3):487–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Spano R (2017) The future of the European Court of human rights – towards process-based review? Middlesex University School of Law, 6 October 2017Google Scholar
  34. Théron J-P (2004) A propos de la légitimité du juge administratif. In: La Légitimité des Juges, Actes du colloque des 29-30 octobre 2003 organisé par l'Université de Toulouse I. Presses de l’Université des sciences sociales de Toulouse, Toulouse, p 100Google Scholar
  35. Thuière J-F (2004) De la légitimité du juge administratif. In: Raibaut J, Krynen J (eds) La Légitimité des Juges, Actes du colloque des 29–30 octobre 2003 organisé par l'Université de Toulouse I. Presses de l’Université des sciences sociales de Toulouse, Toulouse, p 116Google Scholar
  36. Villiger ME (2007) The principle of subsidiarity in the European convention on human rights. In: Kohen MG (ed) Promoting justice, human rights and conflict resolution through international law, Liber amicorum for Lucius Caflisch. Brill, Leiden, p 623, 632Google Scholar
  37. von Bogdandy A, Venzke I (2012) Beyond dispute: international judicial institutions as lawmakers. In: von Bogdandy A, Venzke I (eds) International judicial lawmaking: on public authority and democratic legitimation in global governance. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–33 (21, 22)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wildhaber L (2002) A constitutional future for the European court of human rights? Hum Rights Law J 23:161, 162Google Scholar
  39. Wiśniewski A (2016) The European court of human rights: between judicial activism and passivism. Gdańsk University Press, Gdańsk, pp 103–110Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georges Ravarani
    • 1
  1. 1.European Court of Human RightsStrasbourgFrance

Personalised recommendations