The Challenging Authority of the European Court of Human Rights: From Cold War Legal Diplomacy to the Brighton Declaration and Backlash

摘要: I INTRODUCTION History is a key context for understanding the authority of European Court Human Rights (ECtHR or Court). (1) This half-century old international court (IC) has operated in contexts as different Cold War and decolonization, emergence political economic process integration, post-Cold period and, most recently, geopolitical power shift that prompted new transnational projects alliances beyond Europe. The ECtHR's long operation socioeconomic conditions under which it evolved are also reflected institutional evolution from traditional, nonpermanent IC met occasionally smaller premises to permanent proudly perched on River III Strasbourg, France. Moreover, ECtHR changed being product compromise high-profile influential with de facto supreme jurisdiction over human rights. (2) Court's transformation contributed an explosive growth its caseload, notably since 2000. In first decade operation, 1959 1969, delivered ten judgments; 2008, ten-thousandth judgment. (3) Its current docket includes some 70,000 pending applications 891 judgments 2014 alone. (4) Thus, when examined solely at level legal development, undergone wholesale metamorphosis--a development advocates architects could hardly have anticipated. article uses theoretical framework laid out by Alter, Heifer, Madsen analyze genesis. (5) Their lays set types fact: narrow, intermediate, extensive authority. (6) extent court's constituencies recognize decisions binding take consequential steps implement those reflects type wields. (7) Narrow concerns immediate parties given case. (8) Intermediate larger group actors similarly situated case, such potential litigants government officials charged implementing decisions. (9) Extensive broadest range engage IC--including NGOs, professionals, academics, business actors. (10) An will typically be institution developing law politics within area There no teleology implied this theory can coexist. Also, vary across member states. From inception until mid-to-late 1970s, struggled maintain narrow influenced involved these disputes but did not cast broader normative shadow target state specific (11) limited influence was artifact very small caseload during fifteen years reality states Convention (the ECHR)--notably France United Kingdom--were unwilling accept fear would meddle decolonization struggles period. (12) responded deploying relatively restrictive often state-friendly interpretation facilitate states' acceptance system. diplomatic approach had, however, negative consequence civil society groups, litigation-oriented found little use. (13) Both engagement throughout late 1980s 1990s gained intermediate …