National Implementation of ECHR Rights: Kant’s Categorical Imperative and the Convention
University of Oxford - Corpus Christi College; University of Oslo
University of Oslo - Faculty of Law; Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London
July 11, 2011
Oxford Student Legal Studies Paper No. 3/2011
The effectiveness of the European Convention of Human Rights and of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights depends on national implementation. This article looks at the implementation of the Convention in Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Norway, Russia, and the United Kingdom. In all of these jurisdictions there has been fundamental change over the last 10–15 years. For the ECHR system to work, the national courts must interact with Strasbourg only in ways which are capable of being universalised and applied also by other European courts. This article inquires into whether national courts have taken on board the imperative of their role and responsibility in a wider European context: UK exceptionalism may breed a Russian; exceptionalism in Germany will provide courts in other states with arguments as to why they too need not follow the ECHR. The inquiry concludes that the national jurisprudence implementing the Convention into national law generally has taken this imperative on board.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 59
Keywords: ECHR, national courts, human rights, Horncastle, Pinnock, Ullah, Yemshaw, Goodwin, Lautsi, Schalk & Kopf, Gäfgen, Planchenault, Boussouar, Görgülü, Sicherungsverwahrung, preventive detention, Bundesverfassungsgericht, EGMR, Vosskuhle, judicial dialogue, dynamic or evolutive interpretationworking papers series
Date posted: July 23, 2011
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.531 seconds