Philip Leach

Parliaments and the European Court of Human Rights

The European system of human rights protection faces institutional and political pressures which threaten its very survival. These institutional pressures stem from the backlog of applications before the European Court of Human Rights, the large number of its judgments that remain unimplemented, and the political pressures that arise from sustained attacks on the Courts legitimacy and authority, notably from politicians and jurists in the United Kingdom. This book addresses the theme which lies at the heart of these pressures: the role of national parliaments in the implementation of judgments of the Court. It combines theoretical and empirical insights into the role of parliaments in securing domestic compliance with the Courts decisions, and provides detailed investigation of five European states with differing records of human rights compliance and parliamentary mobilisation: Ukraine, Romania, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands. How far are parliaments engaged in implementation, and how far should they be? Do parliaments advance or hinder human rights compliance? Is it ever justifiable for parliaments to defy judgments of the Court? And how significant is the role played by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe? Drawing on the fields of international law, international relations, political science, and political philosophy, the book argues that adverse human rights judgments not only confer obligations on parliamentarians but also create opportunities for them to develop influential interpretations of human rights and enhance their own democratic legitimacy.

Human Rights Fact-Finding. The European Court of Human Rights at a Crossroads

This article seeks to examine the effectiveness of the fact-finding activities undertaken by the European Court of Human Rights (and the former Commission). It argues that while some fact-finding missions have revealed certain weaknesses in the past, the very conduct of such missions remains indispensable – in the interests both of litigants and the credibility of the Strasbourg system itself. Therefore, some greater thought needs to be given to practical ways and means to fully tap the Courts fact-finding potential.

The duty to investigate right to life violations across three regional systems: Harmonisation or fragmentation of international human rights law?

All three of the main regional human rights treaties, the European Convention on Human Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, have been interpreted to include a specific, positive duty to investigate violations of the right to life. This chapter provides a comparative analysis of the jurisprudence on point of the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission and Court of Human Rights and the African Commission and Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. It will consider whether there is harmonization or fragmentation of international human rights law in this area; what the consequences are for human rights protection and whether harmonization is desirable in those areas related to the duty to investigate, such as reparations, where strong divergence is found across the regional systems.