drawing the line: same-sex adoption and the jurisprudence of the ecthr on the application of the “european consensus” standard under article 14
Clicks: 169
ID: 224625
2013
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
169 views
50 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #20 of 30 articles by views in Trends in Biotechnology
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
One of the main criteria that the European Court of Human Rights uses in determining the parameters of the margin of appreciation has been to find a consensus among the state parties to the Convention as to the definition or interpretation of a specific right. The way the Court has implemented the methodology of finding a "European consensus" of the discriminatory practice of states under Article 14 has been problematic. Firstly, it is unclear when the Court takes into consideration the practice of member states of the European Council. Secondly, it is unclear how it defines the comparative group and the threshold necessary in defining a consensus. This note looks at the application of the Court of this standard in cases concerning same-sex adoption in light of its most recent decision in X. and Others v. Austria (2013). It is argued that the application of the standard in practice has yielded variable jurisprudence, is inconsistently applied, and risks further fragmenting Contracting States' obligations under the Convention. In using the consensus standard as an interpretive comparative tool, the Court should allow a narrow margin of appreciation only where there is substantial consensus on an issue. It is the author's position that its negative iteration, or the notion that a lack of consensus should yield a wide margin, should not be maintained, as this approach risks further deteriorating the protection of fundamental rights.
| Reference Key |
nozawa2013utrechtdrawing
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Junko Nozawa |
| Journal | Trends in Biotechnology |
| Year | 2013 |
| DOI |
10.5334/ujiel.bx
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.