Publikation: The Concept of 'Principled Resistance' to ECtHR Judgments : A Useful Tool to Analyse Implementation Deficits?
Dateien
Datum
Autor:innen
Herausgeber:innen
ISSN der Zeitschrift
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliografische Daten
Verlag
Schriftenreihe
Auflagebezeichnung
URI (zitierfähiger Link)
DOI (zitierfähiger Link)
Internationale Patentnummer
Link zur Lizenz
Angaben zur Forschungsförderung
Projekt
Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Sammlungen
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz
Titel in einer weiteren Sprache
Publikationstyp
Publikationsstatus
Erschienen in
Zusammenfassung
Recent years have seen a marked increase in ‘clashes’ between national courts on the one hand and international courts and tribunals on the other hand. This article introduces a new analytical pattern, called ‘principled resistance’, in order to analyse deficits occurring during the implementation phase of a Strasbourg judgment. This analytical concept is contrasted with other most recently developed scholarly concepts (‘reasonable resistance’: Palombino; ‘pushback’ and ‘backlash’: Madsen; ‘principled’ and ‘dilatory non-execution’: de Londras and Dzehtsiarou) in order to show differences and commonalities. Furthermore, the limits of (permissible) ‘disagreement’, as opposed to (impermissible) ‘principled resistance’, are explored from an international law point of view. It will be argued that although cases of principled resistance are extremely rare, the concept has an analytical value in that it prevents us from overestimating divergences between national and international courts and tribunals. At the same time, it will be shown that even where courts and other national actors employ legal arguments for their resistance to the ECtHR, those conflicts should be conceptualized as struggles over the proper allocation of powers between the national level and Strasbourg.
Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache
Fachgebiet (DDC)
Schlagwörter
Konferenz
Rezension
Zitieren
ISO 690
BREUER, Marten, 2021. The Concept of 'Principled Resistance' to ECtHR Judgments : A Useful Tool to Analyse Implementation Deficits?. In: Journal of International Dispute Settlement. Oxford University Press (OUP). 2021, 12(2), pp. 250-270. ISSN 2040-3585. eISSN 2040-3593. Available under: doi: 10.1093/jnlids/idaa028BibTex
@article{Breuer2021Conce-53634, year={2021}, doi={10.1093/jnlids/idaa028}, title={The Concept of 'Principled Resistance' to ECtHR Judgments : A Useful Tool to Analyse Implementation Deficits?}, number={2}, volume={12}, issn={2040-3585}, journal={Journal of International Dispute Settlement}, pages={250--270}, author={Breuer, Marten} }
RDF
<rdf:RDF xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/" xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/53634"> <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/> <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/53634/1/Breuer_2-1nqggycd99wav9.pdf"/> <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2021-05-10T12:03:50Z</dc:date> <dc:contributor>Breuer, Marten</dc:contributor> <dcterms:issued>2021</dcterms:issued> <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/44"/> <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/44"/> <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights> <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2021-05-10T12:03:50Z</dcterms:available> <dc:creator>Breuer, Marten</dc:creator> <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/53634/1/Breuer_2-1nqggycd99wav9.pdf"/> <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/> <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/53634"/> <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/> <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">Recent years have seen a marked increase in ‘clashes’ between national courts on the one hand and international courts and tribunals on the other hand. This article introduces a new analytical pattern, called ‘principled resistance’, in order to analyse deficits occurring during the implementation phase of a Strasbourg judgment. This analytical concept is contrasted with other most recently developed scholarly concepts (‘reasonable resistance’: Palombino; ‘pushback’ and ‘backlash’: Madsen; ‘principled’ and ‘dilatory non-execution’: de Londras and Dzehtsiarou) in order to show differences and commonalities. Furthermore, the limits of (permissible) ‘disagreement’, as opposed to (impermissible) ‘principled resistance’, are explored from an international law point of view. It will be argued that although cases of principled resistance are extremely rare, the concept has an analytical value in that it prevents us from overestimating divergences between national and international courts and tribunals. At the same time, it will be shown that even where courts and other national actors employ legal arguments for their resistance to the ECtHR, those conflicts should be conceptualized as struggles over the proper allocation of powers between the national level and Strasbourg.</dcterms:abstract> <dc:language>eng</dc:language> <dcterms:title>The Concept of 'Principled Resistance' to ECtHR Judgments : A Useful Tool to Analyse Implementation Deficits?</dcterms:title> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>