European Consensus between Strategy and Principle

This study offers a critical account of the reasoning employed by the European Court of Human Rights, particularly its references to European consensus. Based on an in-depth analysis of the Court’s case-law against the backdrop of human rights theory, it will be of interest to both practitioners and...

Полное описание

Сохранить в:
Библиографические подробности
Главный автор: Theilen, Jens T.
Формат: Online
Язык:английский
Опубликовано: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG 2021
Предметы:
Online-ссылка:https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/64536
Метки: Добавить метку
Нет меток, Требуется 1-ая метка записи!
_version_ 1869527710675501056
author Theilen, Jens T.
author_browse Theilen, Jens T.
author_facet Theilen, Jens T.
author_sort Theilen, Jens T.
collection Directory of Open Access Books
description This study offers a critical account of the reasoning employed by the European Court of Human Rights, particularly its references to European consensus. Based on an in-depth analysis of the Court’s case-law against the backdrop of human rights theory, it will be of interest to both practitioners and theorists. While European consensus is often understood as providing an objective benchmark within the Court’s reasoning, this study argues to the contrary that it forms part of the very structures of argument that render human rights law indeterminate. It suggests that foregrounding consensus and the Court’s legitimacy serves to entrench the status quo and puts forward novel ways of approaching human rights to enable social transformation.
format Online
id doab-20.500.12854ir-64536
institution Directory of Open Access Books
language eng
publishDate 2021
publishDateRange 2021
publishDateSort 2021
publisher Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG
publisherStr Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG
record_format ojs
spelling doab-20.500.12854ir-645362022-01-31T10:52:46Z European Consensus between Strategy and Principle Theilen, Jens T. critical international legal theory legitimacy margin of appreciation European consensus European Court of Human Rights comparative legal reasoning LBBR 1QFE This study offers a critical account of the reasoning employed by the European Court of Human Rights, particularly its references to European consensus. Based on an in-depth analysis of the Court’s case-law against the backdrop of human rights theory, it will be of interest to both practitioners and theorists. While European consensus is often understood as providing an objective benchmark within the Court’s reasoning, this study argues to the contrary that it forms part of the very structures of argument that render human rights law indeterminate. It suggests that foregrounding consensus and the Court’s legitimacy serves to entrench the status quo and puts forward novel ways of approaching human rights to enable social transformation. Published Dieses Werk analysiert die Argumentationsstrukturen des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte, insbesondere dessen Verweise auf einen Europäischen Konsensus. Es verbindet kritische Menschenrechtstheorie mit einer eingehenden Analyse der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs. Während der Europäische Konsensus oft als objektives Element innerhalb der Argumentation des Gerichtshofs angesehen wird, legt diese Studie dar, dass er Teil der argumentativer Strukturen bildet, die zur Unbestimmtheit von Menschenrechten führen. Konsensus und die Legitimität des Gerichtshofs zu betonen, dient der Verankerung des Status Quo. Der Autor schlägt alternative Ansätze vor, um Menschenrechte als Instrument sozialer Transformation denken zu können. 2021-04-09T09:52:20Z 2021-04-09T09:52:20Z 2021-04-01 book 978-3-8487-8091-4 978-3-7489-2509-5 https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/64536 eng Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, image/jpeg Attribution 4.0 International https://www.nomos-shop.de/nomos/titel/european-consensus-between-strategy-and-principle-id-98979/ https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748925095 Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG 10.5771/9783748925095 Dieses Werk analysiert die Argumentationsstrukturen des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte, insbesondere dessen Verweise auf einen Europäischen Konsensus. Es verbindet kritische Menschenrechtstheorie mit einer eingehenden Analyse der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs. Während der Europäische Konsensus oft als objektives Element innerhalb der Argumentation des Gerichtshofs angesehen wird, legt diese Studie dar, dass er Teil der argumentativer Strukturen bildet, die zur Unbestimmtheit von Menschenrechten führen. Konsensus und die Legitimität des Gerichtshofs zu betonen, dient der Verankerung des Status Quo. Der Autor schlägt alternative Ansätze vor, um Menschenrechte als Instrument sozialer Transformation denken zu können. 10.5771/9783748925095 20c8b06d-3b2b-4af2-acda-fbcfdfea5744 7d48738a-6759-43c9-974a-c93e736baeb1 978-3-8487-8091-4 978-3-7489-2509-5 Max Planck Society (MPG) 497 Baden-Baden Max Planck Society (MPG) MPG 04a0tr310 open access
spellingShingle critical international legal theory
legitimacy
margin of appreciation
European consensus
European Court of Human Rights
comparative legal reasoning
LBBR
1QFE
Theilen, Jens T.
European Consensus between Strategy and Principle
title European Consensus between Strategy and Principle
title_full European Consensus between Strategy and Principle
title_fullStr European Consensus between Strategy and Principle
title_full_unstemmed European Consensus between Strategy and Principle
title_short European Consensus between Strategy and Principle
title_sort european consensus between strategy and principle
topic critical international legal theory
legitimacy
margin of appreciation
European consensus
European Court of Human Rights
comparative legal reasoning
LBBR
1QFE
topic_facet critical international legal theory
legitimacy
margin of appreciation
European consensus
European Court of Human Rights
comparative legal reasoning
LBBR
1QFE
url https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/64536
work_keys_str_mv AT theilenjenst europeanconsensusbetweenstrategyandprinciple