Negating pluralist democracy: the European Court of Human Rights forgets the rights of the...
BIROn
- Birkbeck Institutional Research Online
<!-- -->
Negating pluralist democracy: the European Court of Human
Rights forgets the rights of the electors.
(Pozitsiya Yevropeiskovo Suda po Pravam Cheloveka v Voprose ob Izbiratelnikh Pravakh Grazhdan v Kontekste Latviiskoi Praktiki: Kriticheskii Vzglyad).
Bowring, Bill
(2008)
Negating pluralist democracy: the European Court of Human
Rights forgets the rights of the electors.
(Pozitsiya Yevropeiskovo Suda po Pravam Cheloveka v Voprose ob Izbiratelnikh Pravakh Grazhdan v Kontekste Latviiskoi Praktiki: Kriticheskii Vzglyad).
Prava Cheloveka: Praktika Yevropeiskovo Suda po pravam cheloveka (Human Rights: Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights) 6
(27),
pp. 28-80.
| Text (English and Russian) Binder1.pdf Download (491kB) | Preview |
Official URL: http://www.jpr-pechr.ru/ENG/index.html
Abstract
This article reviews some recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in relation to Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It first explores the provenance of this rather oddly worded provision, starting with Article 21 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights of 1948 (UDHR), and the rather fraught negotiations which took place in the first years of the Council of Europe. This is then set against some of the arguments as to the meaning and content of the concept of "democracy". Following an analysis of the case-law as it has developed over the years, the article looks in more detail at two recent cases of the ECtHR. In Ždanoka v. Latvia (Grand Chamber judgment of 16 March 2006), the Court, in a judgment described by the leading dissent (Judge Rozakis) as "dubious" and "obscure", has allowed the State a practically unlimited margin of appreciation. A similar trend can be observed in Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey (judgment of 30 January 2007). This article argues that, in these judgments, the ECtHR appears to be forgetting a fundamental principle underlying the right to pluralistic democracy, which is that the "passive" right to stand as a candidate in elections is not the right of the candidate, but of the electors. Unless there is a very good reason indeed, the electors should be able to elect the candidate of their choice. Otherwise, how can there be free elections?
Metadata
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Additional Information: | This article was published in Prava Cheloveka in Russian and English (the English translation appears below the Russian on page numbered 71). The Russian translation was made by журнал «Права человека. Практика Европейского Суда по правам человека» <http://www.jpr-pechr.ru/art/podp.html> and was published in its 6th issue, 2008. The translation is reposted with the consent of the Editorial Office. (перевод статьи воспроизводится c согласия редколлегии журнала). Prava Cheloveka is published by The iRGa 5 Publishing House, Ltd. The English version is an edited version of the English original published as 'Negating pluralist democracy: the Strasbourg Court forgets the rights of the electors'(2007) in KHRP Legal Review 11 pp.67-96. Published by the Kurdish Human Rights Project (ISSN 1748-0639). |
| School: | Birkbeck Schools and Departments > School of Law |
| Depositing User: | Sandra Plummer |
| Date Deposited: | 07 Oct 2008 15:47 |
| Last Modified: | 17 Apr 2013 12:33 |
| URI: | http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/717 |
Statistics
//
// 678Downloads
// 485Hits
Additional statistics are available via
IRStats2.
Archive Staff Only (login required)
 | Edit/View Item |
