Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. International & Comparative Law Quarterly
  4. Volume 62
Journal Home
Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Publication date:

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×
< Back to all issues

Volume 62 - January 2013

Contents

Page 3 of 3

Books Received

Current Developments: Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals

  • II. GRAND CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, A, B & C v IRELAND, DECISION OF 17 DECEMBER 2010

  • Fiona de Londras, Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    30 January 2013, pp. 250-262

  • The use of ‘European consensus’ as a decision-making mechanism of the European Court of Human Rights has been condemned and praised in almost equal measure.1 On the one hand, some scholars argue that the way in which so-called ‘consensus’ is identified is generally unsound and lacking in rigour.2 It is also claimed that European consensus is overly subjective in its nature3 and, in any case, that it undermines the principle that the Convention has an autonomous meaning determined by the Court and separate to what member States do or interpret it as meaning.4 On the other hand there are scholars who, while often concerned with the suboptimal methodology adopted in identifying and using European consensus in the decisions of the Court, recognize the method's potential to increase the legitimacy of the Court and its function as a mechanism for the progressive liberalization of the European public order.5 This reflects the fact that, generally speaking, European consensus has been applied in order to establish an expanded scope of protection for the Convention in areas not expressly mentioned within it or contemplated at the time of its drafting, on the basis that there is an identifiable trend (although, in strict linguistic terms, not an actual ‘consensus’) among other European States to protect the alleged right.6

Book Reviews

Front Cover (OFC, IFC) and matter

  • ILQ volume 62 issue 3 Cover and Front matter

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    09 July 2013, pp. f1-f6
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Books Received

Book Reviews

Books Received

Front Cover (OFC, IFC) and matter

  • ILQ volume 62 issue 4 Cover and Front matter

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    31 October 2013, pp. f1-f6
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Back Cover (IBC, OBC) and matter

  • ILQ volume 62 issue 3 Cover and Back matter

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    09 July 2013, pp. b1-b8
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Book Reviews

Back Cover (IBC, OBC) and matter

  • ILQ volume 62 issue 4 Cover and Back matter

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    31 October 2013, pp. b1-b10
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Books Received

Front Cover (OFC, IFC) and matter

  • ILQ volume 62 issue 2 Cover and Front matter

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    09 April 2013, pp. f1-f6
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Back Cover (IBC, OBC) and matter

  • ILQ volume 62 issue 2 Cover and Back matter

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    09 April 2013, pp. b1-b10
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Front Cover (OFC, IFC) and matter

  • ILQ volume 62 issue 1 Cover and Front matter

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    30 January 2013, pp. f1-f6
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Back Cover (IBC, OBC) and matter

  • ILQ volume 62 issue 1 Cover and Back matter

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    30 January 2013, pp. b1-b8
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Page 3 of 3