The Strasbourg Court and Domestic Judicial Politics

doi:10.1017/9781108590396.005

3 - The Strasbourg Court and Domestic Judicial Politics

from Part I

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 June 2018

David Kosař

Edited by

Marlene Wind

Show author details

Marlene Wind: Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter discusses to what extent and how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has engaged in domestic judicial design. It shows that the judgments of the Strasbourg Court, rather than having effects only with respect to the individual whose rights have been violated, has much deeper structural effects in the design and operation of domestic judicial systems. This chapter argues that this phenomenon goes rather unnoticed, but it has deep implications for both the developing and developed democracies. To demonstrate this phenomenon, the chapter assesses the impact of the ECtHR on three judicial design issues. First, it illustrates how the ECtHR has challenged the role of the advocates general. Second, it explains how the ECtHR has gradually curbed the jurisdiction of military courts over both civilians and military officers, which has brought these courts to the brink of their abolition. Finally, it outlines how the ECtHR in its judgments regarding the disciplining of judges empowers the judiciary at the expense of other political institutions within the State. Based on the analysis of these three judicial design issues, it concludes that the Strasbourg Court is affecting the internal architecture of domestic judiciaries as it gradually endorses the unification of court administration and changes the power structures within the judiciary. Interestingly, neither the established democracies nor the developing countries have shown significant resistance to these far-reaching requirements that impinge upon the cornerstones of domestic judicial systems. This chapter proposes possible explanations of why this is so and identifies avenues for further research.

Type: Chapter
Information: International Courts and Domestic Politics , pp. 71 - 92

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108590396.005 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alter, K. (2014). The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Bell, J. (2008). ‘Interpretative Resistance’ Faced with the Case-law of the Strasbourg Court. European Public Law, 14, 134–42.Google Scholar

Bobek, M. & Kosař, D. (2014). Global Solutions, Local Damages: A Critical Study in Judicial Councils in Central and Eastern Europe. German Law Journal, 15, 1257–92.Google Scholar

Bozhilova, D. (2007). Measuring Success and Failure of EU-Europeanization in the Eastern Enlargement: Judicial Reform in Bulgaria. European Journal of Law Reform, 9, 285–320.Google Scholar

Burdeau, F. (1995). Histoire du droit administratif, Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar

Burrows, N. & Greaves, R. (2007). The Advocate General and EC Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Donald, A. & Leach, P. (2016). Parliaments and the European Court of Human Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gerards, J. & Fleuren, J., eds. (2014). Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the Judgments of the ECtHR in National Case Law, Antwerpen: Intersentia.Google Scholar

Hillebrecht, C. (2014). Domestic Politics and International Human Rights Tribunals: The Problem of Compliance, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hope, D. (2008). The Reform of the House of Lords. Revue International de Droit Comparé, 60, 257–64.Google Scholar

Jahn, J. (2014). Ruling (In)directly through Individual Measures? Effect and Legitimacy of the ECtHR’s New Remedial Power. Heidelberg Journal of International Law, 74, 1–40.Google Scholar

Kosař, D. (2012). Policing Separation of Powers: A New Role for the European Court of Human Rights? European Constitutional Law Review, 8, 33–62.Google Scholar

Kosař, D. (2016). Perils of Judicial Self-Government, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kosař, D. & Lixinski, L. (2015). Domestic Judicial Design by International Human Rights Courts. American Journal of International Law, 105, 713–60.Google Scholar

Krisch, N. (2008). The Open Architecture of European Human Rights Law. Modern Law Review, 71, 183–216.Google Scholar

Kuijer, M. (2004). The Blindfold of Lady Justice: Judicial Independence and Impartiality in Light of the Requirements of Article 6 ECHR, Leiden: E. M. Meijers Instituut.Google Scholar

Lasser, M. (2005). The European Pasteurization of French Law. Cornell Law Review, 90, 995–1083.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (2010). The Making of Law: An Ethnography of the Conseil d’État, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar

Lemmens, K. (2009). But Pasteur Was French: Comments on Mitchel Lasser’s ‘The European Pasteurization of French Law’. In Huls, N., Adams, M. & Bomhoff, J., eds., The Legitimacy of Highest Courts Rulings: Judicial Deliberations and Beyond, Hague: Asser Press, pp. 145–74.Google Scholar

Parau, C. (2011). Piana, Daniela 2010. Judicial Accountabilities in New Europe: From Rule of Law to Quality of Justice (book review). Law & Society Review, 45, 791–3.Google Scholar

Parau, C. (2012). The Drive for Judicial Supremacy. In Seibert-Fohr, A., ed., Judicial Independence in Transition, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 619–65.Google Scholar

Popova, M. (2012a). Politicized Justice in Emerging Democracies: A Study of Courts in Russia and Ukraine, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Popova, M. (2012b). Why Doesn’t the Bulgarian Judiciary Prosecute Corruption? Problems of Post Communism, 59, 35–49.Google Scholar

Popović, D. (2008). European Court of Human Rights and the Concept of Separation of Powers. In Prabhakar, M., ed., Separation of Powers: Global Perspectives, Hyderabad: ICFAI University Press, pp. 194–219.Google Scholar

Rainaud, N. (1996). Le commissaire du gouvernement près le Conseil d’État, Paris: LGDJ.Google Scholar

Slaughter, A. & Burke-White, W. (2006). The Future of International Law Is Domestic (or, the European Way of Law). Harvard International Law Journal, 47, 327–52.Google Scholar

Shany, Y. (2014). Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Solomon, P. H. (2010). Authoritarian Legality and Informal Practices: Judges, Lawyers and the State in Russia and China. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 43, 351–62.Google Scholar

Stone Sweet, A. (2012). A Cosmopolitan Legal Order: Constitutional Pluralism and Rights Adjudication in Europe. Global Constitutionalism, 1, 53–90.Google Scholar

Sudre, F. (2006). Vers la normalisation des relations entre le Conseil d‘Etat et la Cour europeénne des droits de l’homme. Revue française de droit administratif, 286–98.Google Scholar

Trochev, A. (2010). Meddling with Justice: Competitive Politics, Impunity, and Distrusted Courts in Post-Orange Ukraine. Democratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, 18, 122–47.Google Scholar

Van Dijk, P. (1987). The Benthem Case and Its Aftermath in the Netherlands. Netherlands International Law Review, 34, 5–24.Google Scholar

Book contents

3 - The Strasbourg Court and Domestic Judicial Politics

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive