Consensus and Contestability: The ECtHR and the Combined Potential of European Consensus and Procedural Rationality Control
Consensus and Contestability: The ECtHR and the Combined Potential of European Consensus and Procedural Rationality Control
复制标题
共识与可争议性：ECtHR 以及欧洲共识与程序合理性控制的综合潜力
DOI：
10.1093/ejil/chx055
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
Thomas Kleinlein
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Thomas Kleinlein
本文探讨了欧洲共识的可争议性及其对欧洲人权法院（ECtHR）合法性的意义。欧洲人权法院的综合合法化战略，包括欧洲共识和在若干判决中看到的关于增值幅度的新程序方法，为民主辩论和审议开辟了空间。进步的、对人权友好的判断，将“先锋”国家的趋势视为欧洲共识，可能会在“落后”国家引发国内争论。这种潜在的反弹可能是有益的，因为它可以随后赋予欧洲人权法院判决更多的合法性。程序合理性控制确保这一民主合法化途径保持开放，并确保有体制结构和进程在国内辩论中充分平衡人权。将基于共识的论证与程序性的升值幅度方法相结合，可以调和欧洲共识的影响与民主审议的必要性。国内程序的高标准可能会反驳支持多数《公约》缔约国所采取的解决办法的假设。这种方法还可能允许民主的国内立法机构对欧洲人权法院基于欧洲共识的判决作出反应。
This article explores the contestability of European consensus and its significance for the legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The ECtHR’s combined legitimation strategy, comprising European consensus and the new procedural approach to the margin of appreciation, which has been seen in several judgments, opens up space for democratic contestation and deliberation. Progressive, rights-friendly judgments that consider a mere trend in ‘vanguard’ state parties as European consensus will probably provoke domestic contestation in ‘laggard’ states. This potential backlash can be productive because it can subsequently impart additional legitimation on the ECtHR’s judgments. Procedural rationality control ensures that this avenue of democratic legitimation is kept open and that there are institutional structures and processes to balance human rights adequately in domestic debates. Combining consensus-based arguments with a procedural approach to the margin of appreciation reconciles the impact of a European consensus and the need for democratic deliberation. High standards in domestic procedures can possibly rebut the presumption in favour of the solution adopted by the majority of Convention states. Potentially, this approach also allows democratic domestic law-making institutions to react to judgments of the ECtHR based on European consensus.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2005
期刊：
Philosophy, Politics, Democracy
影响因子：
--
作者：
Joshua Cohen
通讯作者：
Joshua Cohen
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
Daryl J. Levinson
通讯作者：
Daryl J. Levinson
哈佛民权：公民自由法评论
影响因子：
0.3
作者：
R. Alday
通讯作者：
R. Alday
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2007
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
P. Harvey
通讯作者：
P. Harvey
司法审查和议会辩论：丰富应有尊重的原则
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
L. Lazarus;Natasha Simonsen
通讯作者：
Natasha Simonsen