Abstract
Abstract In the 2010–2018 period, certain Member States of the Council of Europe engaged in an unprecedented attempt to undermine the authority of the European Court of Human Rights. The United Kingdom and Denmark, supported by critics in academia, notably sought to institutionalise the principles of “subsidiarity” and “the margin of appreciation” as formal deference doctrines. In a series of High Level Conferences, a large majority of Member States repudiated these efforts, leaving the basics of the Court’s powers intact. Despite scholarly efforts to demonstrate the contrary, our analysis does not confirm that the Court has “walked-back” rights, or retreated from its basic jurisprudential orientations. Rather, the Court has sought to address its “dilemma of effectiveness” through inter-judicial dialogue and complex forms of proceduralization.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
