Against settlement before the European Court of Human Rights
Against settlement before the European Court of Human Rights
复制标题
反对欧洲人权法院的和解
DOI：
10.1093/icon/moac087
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Fikfak V
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fikfak V
尽管它们代表了欧洲人权法院(ECtHR)报告的所有案件的近50%，但侵犯人权的和解没有引起学者的注意。虽然越来越多的人预计受害者会友好地解决纠纷，但目前尚不清楚，接受和解方案比提起诉讼是否会更好。该条介绍了从1980年代到今天在法院进行友好和解的做法，描绘了从寻求双边解决办法到书记官处作为调解人的积极作用的转变，鼓励各国和申请人解决案件，以减轻法院的繁重工作量。对10,500个案件的研究揭示了书记官处采取的战略--从程序变化到如何和何时同意和解，到和解提议的制定，以及与被告国代表的密切关系--如何偏袒了最经常违反《欧洲人权公约》的人，而忽视了申请人的利益。分析表明，在ECtHR结算系统中，各方之间的不平衡和缺乏执行的情况非常普遍，书记官处的积极作用加强了而不是纠正了这些关切。调查结果暴露了在人权背景下寻求集体解决的危险，并引起了人们对通过裁决以外的其他手段为侵犯人权行为的受害者实现长期正义的关切。
Even though they represent almost 50% of all reported cases before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), settlements of human rights violations escape scholars’ attention. While victims are increasingly expected to resolve their disputes amicably, it is unclear whether applicants will be better off accepting settlement offers rather than proceeding to litigation. The article charts the practice of friendly settlements before the Court from the 1980s to today, mapping a shift in approach from seeking bilateral solutions to the proactive role of the Registry as mediator encouraging states and applicants to settle their cases to relieve the Court of the heavy workload. The study of 10,500 cases reveals how strategies adopted by the Registry—from procedural changes to how and when consent is given to settlement, to the framing of settlement offers, and a close relationship with representatives of the respondent state—have favored the most frequent violators of the European Convention on Human Rights and sidelined the interests of the applicant. The analysis uncovers that the imbalance between parties and lack of enforcement are very much present in the ECtHR settlement system and that the active role of the Registry has reinforced, rather than redressed these concerns. The findings expose the dangers of pursuing en masse settlement in the human rights context and raise concerns about achieving long-term justice for victims of human rights violations through other means than adjudication.