In Pilav, the Strasbourg Court ruled that constitutional provisions relating to Bosnia’s presidency violate the European Convention on Human Rights, because they combine a territorial mode of election with an ethnic component. On a broader level, the case concerns “the minimum requirements of a democratic system of political law-making at the level of domestic government and the scope and content of fundamental rights”. Pilav maps into the relationship between national political accommodations in divided polities and non-discrimination and democratic principles at the core of the Convention system and beyond. The article discusses the implications of the ruling within the consociational context and offers guidance about its implementation. The key argument to be made is, rather than referring to the universality of human rights and applying those rights to consociations, courts should ground their legal arguments on a broader political theory about national democracy, while taking into consideration local conditions and problems.

中文翻译：

---

斯特拉斯堡法院和对波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那及其他地区冲突后联邦制宪法架构的挑战

在皮拉夫案中，斯特拉斯堡法院裁定，有关波斯尼亚总统任期的宪法条款违反了《欧洲人权公约》，因为它们将领土选举模式与种族成分结合在一起。在更广泛的层面上，该案涉及“国内政府层面政治立法民主制度的最低要求以及基本权利的范围和内容”。皮拉夫描绘了分裂政体中的国家政治适应与公约体系及其他核心的非歧视和民主原则之间的关系。本文讨论了该裁决在协会背景下的影响，并为其实施提供了指导。要提出的关键论点是，