This paper provides a queer critique of the European Court of Human Rights’ use of ‘European consensus’ as a method of interpretation in cases concerning sexuality rights. It argues that by routinely invoking the notion of ‘consensus’ in such cases, the Court (re)produces discourses and induces performances of sexuality and Europeanness that emphasise sameness and agreement, while simultaneously suppressing expressions of difference and dissent. As a result, this paper contends that the Court’s use of European consensus has ultimately functioned to uphold and sustain the heteronormative order that underpins both the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and European society more generally. This is so, despite the role that European consensus has played in the Court’s recognition of ‘new’ rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual people under the ECHR. Drawing on insights from queer theory, as well as the work of Ranciere and Foucault, this discussion is carried out through a close reading of Strasbourg cases relating to sexuality.

中文翻译：

---

共识、差异与性：质疑欧洲人权法院的“欧洲共识”概念

本文对欧洲人权法院使用“欧洲共识”作为有关性权利案件的解释方法进行了奇怪的批评。它争辩说，通过在此类案件中例行地援引“共识”的概念，法院（重新）产生了话语并诱导了强调相同和一致的性和欧洲性的表现，同时抑制了差异和异议的表达。因此，本文认为法院对欧洲共识的使用最终起到了维护和维持异族规范秩序的作用，这种秩序支撑着欧洲人权公约 (ECHR) 和更普遍的欧洲社会。尽管欧洲共识在法院承认女同性恋的“新”权利方面发挥了作用，但事实确实如此，ECHR 下的同性恋和双性恋者。借鉴酷儿理论的见解以及朗西埃和福柯的工作，本讨论是通过仔细阅读斯特拉斯堡与性有关的案例来进行的。