Heteronormativity and the European Court of Human Rights

This article examines a recent judgment by the European Court of Human Rights (E.B. v France) that upheld the complaint of a homosexual woman who alleged that her application for authorization to adopt a child had been refused by domestic French authorities on the grounds of her sexual orientation. I argue that the judgment constitutes an innovative and atypical legal consideration of, and challenge to, the heteronormative social relations of contemporary European societies. After exploring the evidence presented by the applicant, and the Court’s interpretation of it, I argue that in order to reach its judgment it was necessary for the Court to make a significant departure from its established jurisprudence in relation to sexual orientation. An essential element of this involved the adoption of a distinctive critical approach, strongly resonant with aspects of ‘queer theory’, which focused attention on the social, cultural and political construction of normative heterosexuality. Whilst a number of commentators have assessed the importance of the judgment in terms of its evolution of ‘gay rights’ in the area of family life, I argue that the Court’s reconceptualized ‘theoretical’ understanding of, and critical approach to, heteronormativity offers the potential to expand the scope of the European Convention on Human Rights across a number of areas of social life—in marriage, public assembly, freedom of expression, as well as family life—where non-heterosexuals continue to face discrimination in contemporary Europe.     

The Creativity of the European Court of Human Rights

This article discusses the creative role adopted by the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights in the face of situations not envisagedby the drafters of the European Convention in the late 1940s,resulting from the inevitable evolution of societies and theirchanging ethical standards. Although the Vienna Convention onthe Law of Treaties 1969 is a constant source of inspirationto the Court for the interpretation of the Convention, the articlepoints to two new techniques of interpretation adopted by theCourt, namely the ‘living instrument’ doctrine andthe ‘practical and effective’ doctrine. An attemptis made to highlight the advantages and the weaknesses of bothof these innovative interpretational approaches. Additionally,an assessment is made of how the Court has responded to present-daydemands and maintained a balance between judicial creativityand respect for the role of member States as the key policy-makersin determining the scope of rights guaranteed by the Convention.     

Separate opinions in the European Court of Human Rights

Separate opinions, both concurring and dissenting, have beena feature of judgments of the European Court of Human Rightssince its earliest days, but detailed studies of their incidenceand impact have until recently been sparse. This article, basedon an AHRC-funded research study, offers a survey of the researchliterature and describes the outcome of its own considerationof such opinions. The use of separate opinions in the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights is significant, but the incidence of soledissents by national judges is very low. It would appear thatthe main determining factor in the writing of a separate opinionis judicial temperament. There is some evidence that the backgroundof judges prior to their election to the Court has some influenceon their approach to writing separate opinions. The Court, however,demonstrates high levels of collegiality and the use of separateopinions contributes to the transparency of its decision-making.     

Mentally disordered offenders and the European Court of Human Rights

Mentally disordered offenders find themselves at the intersection of the healthcare system and the criminal justice system in most European countries. Decisions on their care often involve lengthy discussions in relation to care versus control in society. In this article, the focus is on one aspect of this debate — that of human rights. An analysis of cases, taken to the European Court of Human Rights by mentally disordered offenders, demonstrates the difficulties inherent in ensuring appropriate care to individuals and safeguards to the public at the same time. The issues raised include the problems raised by indeterminate sentences, the use of detention for preventive purposes, and debates about treatment.The countries represented in this selection of cases are Belgium, Norway, Poland, the Netherlands, Russia and the United Kingdom.     

A Human Rights Law of Internal Armed Conflict: The European Court of Human Rights in Chechnya

The cases on Chechnya recently decided by the European Courtof Human Rights force us to re-evaluate the relationship betweenhuman rights law and humanitarian law. Since the InternationalCourt of Justice held that humanitarian law is lex specialisto human rights law in 1996 – if not since the TehranConference of 1968 – it has been widely accepted that‘human rights in armed conflict’ refers to humanitarianlaw. The ECtHR has directly applied human rights law to theconduct of hostilities in internal armed conflicts. The rulesit has applied may prove controversial, but humanitarian law’slimited substantive scope and poor record of achieving compliancein internal armed conflicts suggest the importance of this newapproach.     

Coming to Terms with the Supranational: Translating for the European Court of Human Rights

Translators at the European Court of Human Rights, as at other international courts, have to deal with two different types of legal terminology in judgments and decisions: on the one hand, terms that would be used by a national practitioner in the relevant language, and on the other, the supranational language that has evolved in general international law or that is specific to the Court itself, being enshrined in its basic texts or case-law. The choice of translation will often be imposed by the source text, which may be a constraint; extensive knowledge of the Court’s autonomous terms and other “linguistic precedent” is vital if they are to be used accurately and consistently. The task of devising and using supranational terms to encompass domestic realities in as many as 47 States is not only that of the drafter; the linguist also has a crucial role to play in conveying the Court’s message in a culture-neutral manner.     

欧洲人权法院——超国家的人权保护法律机构

欧洲国家对公民基本权利的保护不仅体现在国内立法、执法、司法等环节,而且,还通过创设国家间的法律文件和机构来促进和监督各国人权保护状况。欧洲人权法院就是致力于保护人权的一个超国家的法律机构。本文从欧洲人权法院设立的历史背景、运行机制、对成员国的影响等方面,对欧洲人权法院作一概要介绍,以飨读者。一、历史背景欧洲人权法院与欧洲司法法院是两个完全不同的机构。后者位于卢森堡,是欧洲联盟的一个法律机构。前者位于法国斯特拉斯堡市,是欧洲理事会的一个专门法律机构。欧洲人权法院设立于1959年,设立根据是《保护人权及基本自…     

论欧洲人权法院的非法证据排除

欧洲人权法院对于非法证据的处理有其特色,与英美法国家迥然不同.欧洲人权法院并没有就如何排除非法证据制定系列指导性的纲要,而是采取个案中具体考量,重点考察的是公权力人员的非法取证行为是否给整个诉讼程序造成不公以及所获证据与案件的关联性,并在此基础上决定证据排除与否,这一点值得关注.