Talk:European Court of Human Rights

Effectiveness of the ECHR

• "The European Convention on Human Rights is the most effective human rights regime in the world."
• "The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is the crown jewel of the world’s most advanced international system for protecting civil and political liberties. In recent years, however, the ECtHR has become a victim of its own success. ... It is no exaggeration to state that the Convention and its growing and diverse body of case law have transformed Europe’s legal and political landscape, qualifying the ECtHR as the world’s most effective international human rights tribunal."
• "Even though the European system of protection of human rights is considered by many to be the most effective, still some doubts remain."
• "The European Convention on Human Rights, for the most part, guarantees civil and political rights. It is a unique international instrument that provides what is widely regarded as the most effective trans-national judicial process for complaints brought by citizens and organizations against their respective governments."
• "It is this system that has led to some of the most important human rights decisions of our time, and has provided a regional conscience that protects over 820 million people, warranting its description as “the most effective human rights regime in the world.”"
• "The 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is, within its scope, by far the most effective international instrument with respect to the implementation of human rights"
• "the most successful international human rights adjudication and enforcement regime in the world today"
• "'Scholars invariably describe it with superlatives' and with good reason, as the Court has undoubtedly reached a status of standard-setter for human rights protection globally"
• "Scholars invariably describe it with superlatives. Among the world’s systems of human rights, it has been dubbed “the most advanced and effective”; “pre-eminent”; the “most successful”; certainly the most fully developed and the best-observed”; “no doubt the most developed and successful.” The diplomat and scholar Antonio Cassese proclaims, “[N]o other human rights treaty can claim the level of influence of the European Convention.” Another professor calls the Strasbourg tribunal “a sort of world court of human rights.”" Quoted in
• "The European human rights system is the oldest and most effective in existence." John Marshall Law School [1]
• "During the last two decades, the system of human rights protection set up under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, or the “Convention”), with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, or the “Court”)—frequently heralded as being one of the most effective international courts in existence—at its center, has come under stress."
• "It has long been argued that the Convention remains by far the most successful manifestation of the aspiration of the UDHR and that it has created the most effective system of international protection of human rights in existence. ... From one angle, this book is therefore concerned with the story of the development of the ECHR as an instrument of international human rights law and the most effective system of human rights protection devised."

References

@Srt2: It's not complicated: in order to remove or qualify this information this information you must cite multiple reliables sources which explicitly state that the ECHR is not the most effective international human rights court, or that some other court is more effective. (t · c) buidhe 22:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that some of your edits are placing a high weight on recent events in terms of the caseload and how the ECtHR handles cases. This article covers all 70 years of its history, so it's important to avoid WP:RECENTISM. (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Srt2: If you continue to revert to your preferred version and insert original research without engaging on the talk page, I will report you for the edit warring. It is not acceptable to repeatedly revert another editor's edits without attempting to communicate on the talk page. (t · c) buidhe 17:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Here I am at the talk page (I didn´t find it previously). Thank you for inviting me to this page. To put it briefly: I wanted to add literature pointing out that the ECHR is in a problematic situation as only a tiny number of complaints are effectively treated by this Court. Of course, there are many reasons for this deplorable situation but it would be wrong - and dangerous - to ignore this problem. To state that the ECHR is the most effective human rights courts is a highly problematic affirmation. How do you measure effectiveness? This is a totally subjective statement and it is by no means corroborated by statistics as more than 95% of the complaints are declared inadmissible already at the first filtering stage. And we should also be aware of the fact that such statements may be understood as carrying a message of Western, European arrogance if not imperialism. So let´s remain down to earth and portray the ECHR with all its merits but also with all its deficiencies. Only so it will be possible to improve the functionality of this institutions which,as a whole, surely merits praise (but without idolatry).Srt2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srt2 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

The article presently contains no information about controversial ECHR cases and presents the view that their opinions are universally agreed upon as the correct ones. It lacks information on criticism of the ECHR by both politicans and important legal figures like Marc Bossuyt. Eldomtom2 (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

1. Most ECHR cases are not mentioned here at all. Most individual cases are definitely UNDUE for this article.
2. presents the view that their opinions are universally agreed upon as the correct ones?? no, it just accurately states how the court has ruled
3. You seem to be suggesting creating a criticism section, but that is discouraged and it's unclear whether the opinions of "politicians" (which?) or Bossuyt are WP:DUE. There is already external opinions covered throughout the article.

(t · c) buidhe 17:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:CRIT is not policy. Secondly, the article does present the view that there's little dissent with the ECHR by calling it "the most effective international human rights court in the world" and only bringing up issues with implementing its judgments. Thirdly, I would say that when the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom criticises the ECHR, that's relevant. That most ECHR cases are not mentioned here is irrelevant.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The bit about "the most effective international human rights court in the world" is something highlighted prominently in several scholarly sources and not contradicted by any, so it would be incorrect to remove it. The UK prime minister's comments are less significant because this opinion is not shared by all politicians in the UK, let alone the other 45 member states. They are not covered prominently in scholarly sources about the ECHR. If this type of information is to be included, it needs to be covered in a general section that includes positive attitudes and is balanced between all the member states. (t · c) buidhe 15:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, it is already covered to some extent: "A 2016 book characterizes Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Sweden to be mostly friendly to ECtHR judgements; France, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, and Turkey to be moderately critical; the United Kingdom to be strongly critical; and Russia to be openly hostile" Expanding on this somewhat based on reliable sources covering the ECtHR's reception would be the approach to take, rather than inserting critical comments. (t · c) buidhe 16:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I would say that the opinions of such a powerful and important figure as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom are extremely important to include! In addition, your contention that scholarly sources do not criticise the ECHR is completely baseless; indeed a quick Google Scholar search shows multiple papers and at least one book (The European Court of Human Rights and its Discontents that criticise the ECHR to varying extents.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the coverage of any criticism needs to be integrated with positive reception about the same features and covered according to due weight. Are you actually interested in improving the article, or just complaining about it? (t · c) buidhe 20:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

That's such a blatantly obvious statement it makes me wonder about what your motive is in saying it.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

If you were actually trying to fix the article, I would expect you to be diving into sources and making mainspace edits. Vague complaints on the talk page unsupported by sources are not going to improve the article. (t · c) buidhe 17:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I am sick to death of the idea that just because someone hasn't got the time to make large edits, they're not allowed to suggest they should be made.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

You appear to have plenty of time to talk in here. Selfstudier (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure the opinions of a politician about any topic, no matter how powerful and important they may be, automatically warrant their inclusion into any article, unless that politician is directly contributing to a larger debate, or is a scholar in a relevant field voicing a widely-held majority opinion.

That being said, I found this in Reference [3] by Ľalik, in the Abstract section:

“Even though the European system of protection of human rights is considered by many to be the most effective, still some doubts remain.”

Maybe the perceived lack of NPOV (which in my opinion is a very harsh judgement about this generally neutral-seeming article) could be remedied by addressing which doubts the author refers to? -Konanen (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, since this is an unpublished conference paper by a non-notable author, it would not be my first choice for determining WP:DUE criticisms. I think the article already covers most of the biggest criticisms, including perceived overreach/ judicial activism on one side and ineffectiveness of human rights protection on the other. (t · c) buidhe 14:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that's right, the overreach is pushed by (usually) governments of the right that object to the "loss of sovereignty" and the ineffectiveness usually from the left. Not even sure they qualify as doubts as much as political belief. Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I object strongly to the idea that the only opinions worth noting in articles about courts, laws, etc. are those of legal scholars. If, for instance, a law had been shown by opinion polls to be unpopular with the general public that would be worth noting in its article. Similarily, opinions from major politicans are worth noting in an article about a fundamentally politically subject like the ECHR. In addition, there are many academic criticisms of the ECHR as well.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The two above are the principal ones and they are covered. Is there some other major issue that is not covered? Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The issue with opinion polls is that the answers can vary a lot based on how questions are phrased, only capture the public opinion at best at one moment in time, and also I'm not aware of any that cover the entire Council of Europe area. I'm not opposed to including politicians' opinions, but it does have to be sufficiently covered in scholarly sources to be considered WP:DUE. Recentism is also an issue considering that the article is covering more than 50 years of history. (t · c) buidhe 18:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

With regards to your point on opinion polls, I was not saying that there are opinion polls that should be included, but that opinion polls are an example of non-scholarly opinion that is generally considered worthwhile to include in articles on political matters, at least if there are enough of them to reliably show a trend. With regards to your other point, WP:DUE does not say that we should only use scholarly sources. We should use reliable sources, including non-scholarly sources that are deemed reliable. See Supreme Court of the United States for an example of an article that uses non-scholarly sources quite heavily when discussing criticism of the court.

With regard to the idea that the two principal objections to the Court are well covered, I'm afraid I disagree. While the issue of enforcement of rulings is covered a fair bit (though in a rather surface-level manner - surely there must be some sources discussing how enforcement could be improved, or indeed if it should be improved we could include?) the "sovereignty" issue is not covered at all. Furthermore, the actual rulings of the ECHR are by no means always uncontroversial. In particular the Court's rulings on free speech, hate speech, etc., which generally have come down in favour of restrictions on speech, have been controversial - here is an example of a recent critical article in the Human Rights Law Review.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure how to evaluate reliability in papers about law, though considering the source claims to be a review, I think it passes WP:NOR requirements? This would be an interesting point to add, and I am happy to collab if you should want/need another set of eyes! –Konanen (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that the expected state is that no court judgement is controversial. Literally no court in the world operates that way. And while you can find a lot of criticism of ECHR judgements, there is a lack of evidence that it is criticized more than other courts with a similar public profile. Controversies about the interpretation of specific articles probably belong on a more specific article (such as Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights). While recentism and excessive use of news sources in place of scholarly research are common issues on Wikipedia, there is no reason to export the problem to more articles. (t · c) buidhe 23:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what your point is. I am very against your apparent viewpoint that the only views worth considering are those of scholars.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

That is not what I said at any point nor what I think. (t · c) buidhe 16:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

That is the impression I have gotten from your emphasis on "scholarly sources".--Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not like going back to this point, because I really do believe the article is well-written overall, but I will say, looking at the article again, the introductory sentence in the Effectiveness section seems somewhat contradictory, or at least confusing to me personally. How can a court be the most effective international human rights court in the world (how was this measured?), if it is subsequently established that [t]he court lacks enforcement powers. Some states have ignored ECtHR verdicts and continued practices judged to be human rights violations. [...]?

This does not violate WP:NPOV per se, as steps were taken to not use wikivoice, but if judgements cannot actually be enforced, and a court thus depends on parties to a case doing the decent thing and adhering to its rulings because they have no de facto jurisdiction over a territory, then a reasonable reader might ask themselves: Well, how come the ECtHR is still considered to be the most effective given this significant limitation? (Though, rising debt thanks to accumulating interest on unpaid damages causing an ever-lower credit rating of a country is probably a good incentive to pay up.)

I think a good compromise might be to soften the sentence about effectiveness by adding something like Notwithstanding a lack of consistent enforceability, .... The rest of the article seems very WP:BALANCED and, imho, really showcases a near-impeccable balance between positive and critical views, but that part about the effectiveness seemed a bit weird to me. -Konanen (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess it could be more clear to the casual reader that international courts (although really most courts depend on the executive / police to enforce their verdicts) don't have direct enforcement mechanisms. As for the most effective statement, see above for the sources. I would say this is more expert opinion than something that is objectively measured, as I have not seen any stats on eg. what is the rate of disregarded judgements. (t · c) buidhe 20:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I think pointing out that, in most countries with intact democratic separation of powers, the executive of a territory carries out their courts’ orders may go overboard, because it is a very involved topic to begin with. But some nod to the fact that all courts who are charged with multinational oversight have problems with enforceability might be WP:DUE, followed by the much-contested statement about the effectivity according to scholars.

And, ideally, that statement would be followed by an explanation as to why it is considered to be so effective, because that will go towards balancing out the enforceability restrictions of the court. But please do not make me do all of that, because I cannot get started on yet another hyperfixation, my brain is busy enough as it is trying to learn the various policies, procedures, gears and cogs of Wikipedia. :D

Opinions as to that suggestion? Konanen (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with most of this except that the statement is "much-contested". It's not contested at all in scholarly sources, just by Wikipedia editors, which should not matter. (t · c) buidhe 13:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Legal Europe

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2024 and 15 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KaiserAI (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by KaiserAI (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)