3 ms·

Reminder that the European Court of Human Rights, although very powerful and influential, does not have the authority to force anyone to abide by their rulings.

Reminder that the European Court of Human Rights, although very powerful and influential, does not have the authority to force anyone to abide by their rulings. Also, here's a better article: https://fortune.com/2024/02/13/end-to-end-encryption-russia-telegram-european-court-of-human-rights/ https://fortune.com/2024/02/13/end-to-end-encryption-russia-...

Georgelemental 3y ago
For example, Azerbaijan (a brutal and militarily aggressive dictatorship) is a member
sampo 3y ago
Also, despite its name and despite its location in Strasbourg, European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights#Relationship_with_other_courts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Quanttek 3y ago
Slightly misleading: The Court's judgments are legally binding upon the State members of the Council of Europe. However, it is true that there is no armed enforcement mechanism – something that most domestic courts lack too – and instead decisions are enforced and monitored by the Council of Ministers (the equivalent of the UN General Assembly). However, most of its decisions are complied with most of the time by most nations (safe for Russia and Turkey), frequently because domestic courts will abide by the Court's rulings to overturn laws through its own decisions.
hkt 3y ago
Not so. The UK, for instance, appears to treat these rulings as binding. This is why the UK conservatives want to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a supposedly identical Bill of Rights, the key difference being a presumption that the UK's supreme court would cease to defer to the convention court. A couple of examples relating to this that come to mind: * Deporting refugees to Rwanda was stopped by an injunction from the ECHR * Depriving prisoners of votes was ruled illegal in 2005 or so There are a few others but these two come to mind. My understanding is that although the treaties (plural?) of the CoE and ECHR don't assume judgements are binding, a number of countries made them binding in their legal systems via domestic legal instruments.
- shaoonb 3y ago
  I believe both your examples are ones where the UK did not follow the decision of the ECHR.
  - blackshaw 3y ago
    The Rwanda ECHR injunction was followed, which is one reason why no migrants have yet been sent to Rwanda despite nearly two years of harsh rhetoric.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

Georgelemental 3y ago

For example, Azerbaijan (a brutal and militarily aggressive dictatorship) is a member

sampo 3y ago

Also, despite its name and despite its location in Strasbourg, European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights#Relationship_with_other_courts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Quanttek 3y ago

Slightly misleading: The Court's judgments are legally binding upon the State members of the Council of Europe. However, it is true that there is no armed enforcement mechanism – something that most domestic courts lack too – and instead decisions are enforced and monitored by the Council of Ministers (the equivalent of the UN General Assembly). However, most of its decisions are complied with most of the time by most nations (safe for Russia and Turkey), frequently because domestic courts will abide by the Court's rulings to overturn laws through its own decisions.

hkt 3y ago

Not so. The UK, for instance, appears to treat these rulings as binding. This is why the UK conservatives want to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a supposedly identical Bill of Rights, the key difference being a presumption that the UK's supreme court would cease to defer to the convention court. A couple of examples relating to this that come to mind: * Deporting refugees to Rwanda was stopped by an injunction from the ECHR * Depriving prisoners of votes was ruled illegal in 2005 or so There are a few others but these two come to mind. My understanding is that although the treaties (plural?) of the CoE and ECHR don't assume judgements are binding, a number of countries made them binding in their legal systems via domestic legal instruments.

shaoonb 3y ago
I believe both your examples are ones where the UK did not follow the decision of the ECHR.
- blackshaw 3y ago
  The Rwanda ECHR injunction was followed, which is one reason why no migrants have yet been sent to Rwanda despite nearly two years of harsh rhetoric.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]