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.