当前位置: X-MOL 学术Journal of International Dispute Settlement › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
The Concept of ‘Principled Resistance’ to ECtHR Judgments: A Useful Tool to Analyse Implementation Deficits?
Journal of International Dispute Settlement ( IF 0.982 ) Pub Date : 2021-02-14 , DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idaa028
Marten Breuer 1
Affiliation  

Abstract
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.


中文翻译:

对 ECtHR 判决的“原则性抵制”概念:分析实施缺陷的有用工具?

摘要
近年来,一方面是国内法院,另一方面是国际法院和法庭之间的“冲突”显着增加。本文介绍了一种新的分析模式,称为“有原则的抵抗”,以分析斯特拉斯堡判决执行阶段出现的缺陷。这一分析概念与其他最近发展的学术概念(“合理抵抗”:Palombino;“推回”和“反弹”:Madsen;“有原则”和“拖延不执行”:de Londras 和 Dzehtsiarou)进行对比,以表明差异和共性。此外,从国际法的角度探讨了(允许的)“分歧”相对于(不允许的)“有原则的抵抗”的限制。有人会争辩说,尽管原则性抵抗的案例极为罕见,但该概念具有分析价值,因为它可以防止我们高估国家和国际法院和法庭之间的分歧。同时,将表明,即使法院和其他国家行为体采用法律论据来抵制欧洲人权法院,这些冲突也应被概念化为国家层面与斯特拉斯堡之间权力适当分配的斗争。
更新日期:2021-02-14
down
wechat
bug