Dear readers, first of all my very best wishes for the new year 2014! My home base, the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM) has started 2014 with a new online look by launching its new website which will keep you posted on all our research, teaching and other activities! Back to the ECHR now, with a range of recent publications:
* An impressive electronic volume has been compiled by Tarlach McGonagle, based on the work of Dirk Voorhoof, entitled ‘Freedom of Expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights’. It offers – open access – a structured and extensive overview of virtually all the relevant case-law on the issue.
Normal
0
21
false
false
false
NL
X-NONE
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
* My colleague here at SIM, Alexandra Timmer, who is a postdoctoral researcher and fellow ECHR specialist, has published: “A Quiet Revolution: Vulnerability in
the European Court of Human Rights”,
in: Martha Fineman & Anna Grear (eds.), Vulnerability: Reflectionson a New Ethical Foundation for Law and Politics (Ashgate), p. 147-170. This is the abstract:
Without occasioning much comment, the European
Court of Human Rights is increasingly relying on vulnerability reasoning. This
chapter analyses that development. First it discusses the concept of
vulnerability and its relationship to human rights on a theoretical level,
particularly drawing on the work of Martha Fineman. Through an emphasis on
universal vulnerability, Fineman’s work invites a reimagining of the human of
human rights law. This chapter then examines and critiques how the Court
conceives of vulnerability: it charts who are vulnerable according to the
Court, and why. The ability of vulnerability, the
chapter argues, is that it allows the Court to prioritize between different
claims. Vulnerability reasoning likewise enables the Court to extend certain
positive obligations. Vulnerability considerations are thus at the frontlines
of the Strasbourg case law. However, as a social institution the Court is also
vulnerable in and of itself. This is a reality that the ECtHR will have to take
seriously in order to endure as a supranational human rights court. The Court’s
legal reasoning about vulnerability, and the revolutionary potential of that
reasoning, is therefore ultimately limited by the Court’s own vulnerability.
The newest issue of the
Human Rights Law Review has been published
(vol. 13, no. 4, December 2013) and it includes:
* Anthony Cullen & Steven Wheatley, ‘The Human Rights of
Individuals in De Facto Regimes under the European Convention on Human Rights’.
* John Ip, ‘The Reform of Counterterrorism Stop and Search
after Gillan v United Kingdom’.
* Martin Kuijer, ‘The Right to a Fair Trial and the Council of Europe’s Efforts to Ensure Effective Remedies on a Domestic Level for Excessively Lengthy Proceedings ‘.
The latest issue of the European Journal of International Law (vol. 24, no. 4, 2013) includes an EJIL Debate on the ECHR with the following contributions:
* Andrew Williams, ‘The European Convention on Human Rights, the EU and the UK: Confronting a Heresy’.
* Stelios Andreadakis, ‘The European Convention on Human Rights, the EU and the UK: Confronting a Heresy: A Reply to Andrew Williams’.
The most recent issue of the
International Journal of Human Rights (vol. 17,
nos. 7-8, 2013) features:
* Dragan Gulobovic, ‘Freedom of
association in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights’.
Finally, the European Journal of Human Rights (no. 4, 2013) is dedicated to the topic of the EU’s accession to the ECHR and it includes the following articles:
* Vasiliki
Kosta, Nikos Skoutaris & Vassilis P. Tzevelekos, ‘Introduction : the
Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights
Introduction : l’adhésion de l’Union européenne à la Convention européenne
des droits de l’homme’.
* Aida Torres Pérez, ‘Too many
voices ? The prior involvement of the Court of Justice of the European
Union / Trop de voix ? L’intervention préliminaire de la Cour de justice
de l’Union européenne’.
* Olivier De Schutter, ‘The
Two Lives of Bosphorus : Redefining the Relationships between the European
Court of Human Rights and the Parties to the Convention / Les deux vies de
Bosphorus : la redéfinition des rapports entre la Cour européenne des
droits de l’homme et les Parties à la Convention’.
* Monica Claes & Šejla
Imamović, ‘Caught in the Middle or Leading the Way ? National
Courts in the New European Fundamental Rights Landscape / Entre deux feux
ou ouvrant la voie ? Les juridictions nationales dans le nouveau paysage
européen des droits fondamentaux’.
* Arman
Sarvarian, ‘The Attribution of Conduct in the Law of International
Reponsibility, the European Union and the Jurisprudence of the European
Court of Human Rights / L’attribution de comportement dans le droit de la
responsabilité internationale, l’Union européenne et la jurisprudence de
la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme’.
