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.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter provides an introduction to investigating supranational aspects of the ECHR. It examines how the ECtHR gradually transformed from an international into a supranational court. A legal-historical perspective is adopted to analyze the (institutional) developments and reforms of the Convention system and re-visit some of the well-known classics of (early) Strasbourg case-law. While tracing the transformation from international to supranational adjudication overlaps with and confirms existing narratives of incremental de-politization, judicialization and individualization of the ECHR system, this chapter connects existing accounts on the institutional evolution of the Convention system to an overall narrative and a broader conceptual framework. It submits that, although supranational adjudication is primarily the result of Protocol 11 and thus rests on a formal choice and commitment of contracting states, the special nature of the Convention as a human rights treaty exercised a particular pull towards supranational adjudication. As a result, the Court and the Commission early on distinguished the collective protection system under the Convention from interstate and state-controlled adjudication by conceiving of themselves as adjudicators of a community.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.