The European Court of Human Rights has recognised the right to strike as falling within the ambit of Article 11 ECHR. The Strasbourg Court has expanded the scope of the provision by applying the so-called integrated approach, integrating materials of other international bodies into the interpretation of the Convention. Recently, the protection of the right to strike under Article 11 (1) ECHR has been threatened by the expansion of Article 11 (2). The concurrent expansion of the two provisions has created a rift in the jurisprudence of the Court. The inconsistent application of the integrated approach poses a further threat to the protection of the right to strike. This article focuses on a recent verdict of the Strasbourg Court, Association of Academics v Iceland. The decision raises questions about the interpretative approach of the Court. It has been criticised for neglecting the integrated approach. It is argued that the integrated approach was not completely abandoned in Association of Academics. Instead, the Court granted discretion to the national courts once it had established that the integrated approach was applied at a national level. The ‘outsourcing’ of the integrated approach in the case led to unfortunate results for the right to strike, as the Court permitted extensive restrictions to the right on weak substantial grounds. The essay concludes with discussing the possible implications of the decision.

中文翻译：

---

“外包”综合的解释方法：学术协会诉冰岛的影响

欧洲人权法院已经确认罢工权属于《欧洲人权公约》第11条的范围。斯特拉斯堡法院通过采用所谓的综合办法，将其他国际机构的材料纳入《公约》的解释，扩大了该条款的范围。最近，由于《欧洲人权公约》第11条第1款对罢工权的保护受到第11条第2款扩大的威胁。同时扩大这两项规定已经在法院的判例中造成了裂痕。综合办法的不一致使用对保护罢工权构成了进一步的威胁。本文着重于斯特拉斯堡法院最近的一次裁决，即“学术协会诉冰岛”。该决定对法院的解释方法提出了质疑。有人批评它忽略了集成方法。有人认为，综合方法并未在学术协会中被完全放弃。取而代之的是，一旦法院确定综合方法已在国家一级适用，法院便赋予国家法院酌处权。由于法院允许以薄弱的实质理由对该权利进行广泛的限制，因此该案中综合方法的“外包”导致了罢工权的不幸结果。本文最后讨论了该决定的可能含义。一旦确定综合方法在国家一级适用，法院便赋予国家法院酌处权。由于法院允许以薄弱的实质理由对该权利进行广泛的限制，因此该案中综合方法的“外包”导致了罢工权的不幸结果。本文最后讨论了该决定的可能含义。一旦确定综合方法已在国家一级应用，法院便授予国家法院酌处权。由于法院允许以薄弱的实质理由对该权利进行广泛的限制，因此该案中综合方法的“外包”导致了罢工权的不幸结果。本文最后讨论了该决定的可能含义。