Lisa Conant

Individuals, Courts, and the Development of European Social Rights

This article examines how litigation before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has contributed to the development of social rights. It argues that variations in the nature of supranational rights, powers of supranational courts, and ease of access influence the opportunities individuals have to engage these courts to enforce and expand entitlement to social protection. It demonstrates that individuals have pursued social-rights claims at a much higher rate before the ECJ than the ECHR but have also begun to respond to creative ECHR interpretation that extends social rights in directions not available under European Union law. In weaving together a complementary but not a comprehensive set of social protections, the two supranational courts are constructing a safety net that extends well beyond the original intentions of member countries and empowers some of the most vulnerable members of society.

Mobilizing European law

ABSTRACT The literature on European legal mobilization asks why individuals, groups and companies go to court and explores the impact of litigation on policy, institutions and the balance of power among actors. Surveying the literature we find that legal mobilization efforts vary across policy areas and jurisdictions. This article introduces a three-level theoretical framework that organizes research on the causes of these variations: macro-level systemic factors that originate in Europe; meso-level factors that vary nationally; and micro-level factors that characterize the actors engaged in (or disengaged from) litigation. We argue that until we understand more about how and why different parties mobilize law, it is difficult to respond to normative questions about whether European legal mobilization is a positive or negative development for democracy and rights.

Compelling criteria? Human rights in the European Union

ABSTRACT The European Unions (EU) ‘widening’ to post-communist democracies contributed to the ‘deepening’ of integration to human rights: protection of individual (and minority) rights first emerged as EU requirements of democratic consolidation. Here I explore whether the EU deserves its reputation for promoting democratic consolidation by assessing whether transitional democracies meet the ‘Copenhagen Criteria’ on human rights. I find that transitional democracies currently in or acceding to the EU progressed in respecting human rights, but conclude that EU human rights commitments remain shallow and transitions to rights-respecting democracies are reversible.