You are currently viewing the old version of the website.
From December 5, 2019 the website is available at: http://ilpp.ru and http://academia.ilpp.ru/en
Follow Us
Contact

Institute for Law and Public Policy

Address: 129090, Moscow, Shchepkina str., 8

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 140, Moscow, 129090, Russia

Tel.: +7 (495) 608 6959, 608 6635; Fax: +7 (495) 608 6915

info@mail-ilpp.ru

Our location
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
       
“Meždunarodnoe pravosudie” (International Justice) Journal

№1 (25) 2018

“Principled resistance” against European Court of Human Rights judgments in the light of critical theory

Vladislav Tolstykh - Doctor of Sciences in Law, Head of the International Law Department, Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia.

DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2018-1-79-89

Abstract. In the past few years, the supreme courts of member states of the Council of Europe have repeatedly refused to comply with the European Court of Human Rights judgments with reference to the priority of domestic law or other obstacles existing at the level of internal order. This phenomenon was named “principled resistance.” This article analyzes “principled resistance” in light of the critical approach to international law, voiced by D.Kennedy, J.Boyle, and M.Koskenniemi. This approach suggests several key ideas: the dependence of law on politics, the balance of autonomy and order, and the extension of argumentative possibilities. It considers human rights contextually, i.e. in connection with the environment in which they are discussed and act. It follows that human rights are not a single institution, but two (or more) institutions fixed in different orders. In this regard the phenomenon of “principled resistance” reflects not only the conflict of positions, but also the incompatibility of coordinate systems in which these positions were formed. This incompatibility does not suggest an impossibility of harmony of judicial decisions, which is achieved when the trends of autonomy and order are in balance. The trend of autonomy is realized if there are areas where states operate freely and independently; the trend of order is realized if there are areas where they observe common norms and carry out effective coercion in the common interest. Today these trends look almost exhausted and the opportunity for harmony of judicial decisions disappears: courts do not feel safe and stop making concessions. “Principled resistance” involves two groups of arguments: The first contains a criticism of activist practices of the European Court of Human Rights, while the second represents public policy tools, i.e. concepts that justify the right to refuse to implement disqualified judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. “Principled resistance” performs several useful functions, but undermines the existing balance between orders, devalues the rhetorical arsenal, and challenges human rights. The problem of “principled resistance” does not represent something completely new: any solution of it, however, will not be final, because it is caused by a general crisis of legal doctrine. This crisis can be resolved only through a transition to a fundamentally different legal paradigm.

Keywords: interaction of orders; human rights; European Court of Human Rights; constitutional justice; “principled resistance”.

Citation: Tolstykh V. (2018) “Printsipial’noe soprotivlenie” resheniyam Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka v svete kriticheskoy teorii [“Principled resistance” against European Court of Human rights judgments in the light of critical theory]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.1, pp.79–89.

References

Von Bogdandy A. (2008) Pluralism, Direct Effect, and the Ultimate Say: On the Relationship between International and Domestic Constitutional Law, International Journal of Constitutional Law, vol.6, nos.3–4, pp.397–413.

Boyle J. (1985) Ideals and Things: International Legal Scholarship and the Prison-house of Language, Harvard International Law Journal, vol.26, no.2, pp.327–359.

Fitzmaurice G. (1957) The General Principles Of International Law Considered from the Standpoint of the Rule Of Law, Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, vol.92. pp.1–227.

Jellinek G. (1900) Recht des modernen Staates, Berlin: O.Häring.

Jessup Ph.C. (1948) A Modern Law of Nations, New York: Macmillan.

Kaufmann E. (1911) Das Wesen des Völkerrechts und die Clausula rebus sic stantibus: Rechtsphilosophische Studie zum Rechts-, Staats-, und Vertragsbegriffe, Tübingen: Mohr (In German).

Kelsen H. (1952) Principles of International Law, New York: Rinehart & Co, Inc.

Kennedy D. (1987) International Legal Structures, Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verlagsgesellschaft.

Koskenniemi M. (2006) From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Koskenniemi M. (2011) The Politics of International Law, London: Hart Publishing.

Pomerance M. (1996) The United States and the World Court as a “Supreme Court of the Nations”: Dreams, Illusions, and Disillusion, The Hague; London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Scelle G. (1948) Manuel de droit international public, Paris: Domat-Montchrestien. (In French).

Vattimo Dzh. (2002) Prozrachnoe obshchestvo [Transparent society], Moscow: Logos. (In Russian).

Tolstykh V.L. (2016) Obzor knigi M.Koskenniemi “Ot apologii k utopii: struktura mezhdunarodno-pravovogo argumenta” [Review of the M.Koskenniemi’s book “From apology to utopia: the structure of international legal argument”], Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no.5, pp.61–70; no.6, pp.52–62.

 
Stay in the Loop!
Periodicals
The Moot Court Competition on Constitutional Justice 'Crystal Themis'
The Moot Court Competition on Constitutional Justice
Gallery