2 ms·
As of a few months ago, the UK was still discussing separating from the ECHR [1], so they may yet snatch their success from the jaws of failure either way. Rea
by theodric 3y ago
As of a few months ago, the UK was still discussing separating from the ECHR [1], so they may yet snatch their success from the jaws of failure either way.
Reading between the lines of their Q&A [2], it seems largely de facto and functionally voluntary for the participating nations to comply, perhaps straying into strongly-worded letter of disappointment territory in the case of a failure to comply. And they can apparently just leave. How do you push around a sovereign entity with a military? Sanctions, I guess.
[1] https://www.ibanet.org/UK-ministers-continue-to-discuss-drastic-step-of-leaving-ECHR https://www.ibanet.org/UK-ministers-continue-to-discuss-dras...
[2] https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/50questions_eng https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/50questions_eng
- intunderflow 3y agoThe level of protection you get from the ECHR is very dependent on what country you are in and how they interpret the convention. In some countries such as Denmark the ECHR and its rulings are considered to be absolutely binding and self executing by the national courts: > The European Convention on Human Rights is implemented in Danish law. This means that the convention is directly applicable in Denmark. Danish law must therefore be interpreted in accordance with the convention. In other countries rulings are routinely fully or partially ignored (for example the UK entirely ignored an ECHR ruling on prisoners voting).
- tonfa 3y ago> voluntary for the participating nations to comply Most of those nations judiciary systems will enforce the ruling (eventually triggering legislative changes to reconcile things).
- lazide 3y agoIs there any precedent of that actually happening, in say the UK?
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago[flagged]