On 18-20 April, European leaders will come together in Brighton, United Kingdom, to decide the future of the European Court of Human Rights. The importance of this meeting - and the potential for damage - cannot be overstated. For over 50 years, the European Court on Human Rights has helped define state obligations and individuals rights in jurisprudence that is readily cited in national and regional courts worldwide.
Over the years, the Court has clarified that states cannot criminalise same-sex relations, must provide pre-emptive protection to prevent domestic violence from happening in the first place, and has to make access to legal abortion effective, including by providing services. That's in addition to the many cases dealing with the absolute prohibition of torture, equal access to justice, and compensation for discrimination and abuse.
Of course, the court has not been perfect. A key reason for this has been its unequal application of the so-called 'margin of appreciation', a legal concept that is meant to allow governments some room to determine how they plan to fulfil a specific human right within their territory, while not relinquishing the most basic concept behind human rights: that they are universal and apply equally to everyone.
The court has used this concept, among other things, to abdicate responsibility on sex education and broadening access to necessary health care. And while it is absolutely true that human rights are not implemented in a cultural and historical vacuum, it is also true that if the main adjudicator of what is right and what is wrong adopts a relativist and overly subjective approach to making that determination, the very idea that human dignity can be protected is at stake.
In Brighton this week, the UK and some other governments will actively seek to broaden the application of the 'margin of appreciation'. In fact, these governments are so hell-bent on hampering the European Court of Human Rights' ability to determine when they have violated the dignity and livelihood of those living in their territory that they hope to prevent cases from reaching the court in the first place, by giving "margin of appreciation" a meaning it never had.
So far, the court has deferred to governments through the 'margin of appreciation' only when a case has reached the level of substantive discussion, and not in its determination of whether an individual is allowed to bring a case or whether the subject matter is within the court's jurisdiction.
In other words, even where the court has given states wider wiggle-room to limit human rights than one might desire, the individual whose rights were at stake had her or his day in court.
In advance of the Brighton meeting, the UK government has circulated a proposal that would require the court to defer overly to national courts, even before it looks at a case at all. The proposal urges the court to refuse to hear most cases in which the national court has already applied the European Convention of Human Rights in its deliberations.
It is easy to imagine a situation where a national court is unaware of the proper application, status, and scope of legislation and precedents its judges have limited experience with. But more damningly, the proposal undermines the very objective of the European Court of Human Rights: as an additional forum of appeal for human rights issues that may not have been adequately considered at home.
If this proposal is adopted, the UK would have succeeded in limiting oversight of its own human rights practices (and there are any number of issues that merit review). The UK would, however, also have succeeded in significantly weakening an institution that helps--even if at times imperfectly--to uphold standards celebrated worldwide as necessary and just.
All eyes should be on Brighton this week to ensure that the European Court of Human Rights is allowed to do its job: hold governments to their promise to protect the human rights of all.
Follow Marianne Mollmann on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cluelesscamper
Abu Qatada Can't Be Deported Before Rights Court Review
Ken Clarke in bid to reduce European Court of Human Rights' influence on UK ...
The Appeal system must be simplified. it appears endless.
It should be a Court of Last Resort for vital reasons only.
Justice is not only an ideal. It is also a functional process with costs attached. These costs are financial and social. The Court is held in increasing contempt by large sections of the citizenry of Europe because it is failing to function.
If you are not wiling to negotiate a higher level of functionality, you will endanger the existence of the institution itself. Be pragmatic or face failure. These are not prosperous, liberal multicultural times.
Keep in mind that it is your job to deal with current social realities as they are - not as Amnesty circles think they should be.
The Bill of Rights, states quite clearly: "And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate,
state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God."
Our 35 times ratified British Constitution is far more democratic than the ECRH and makes our government accountable to the people. It is the British democratic safeguard that we have the Constitutional right, if accused of a crime, civil or criminal to a trial by jury, that guards us against tyranny by Government.
The twelve people, selected at random from the population, to make up the jury, ensure that the majority shared views of 'the country' are represented.
It is the Jury that are paramount and who possess the authority to order the removal of laws they consider unfair, or unjust from the statute books.
It is the Jury who can decide to deliver a Verdict of Not Guilty, should they consider the defendant acted reasonably, or with justification under the circumstances, even though the law had been broken.
It is the Jury that are the true guardians of freedom and democracy, they protect us from tyranny by government.
Politicians hate the British Constitution, because it restricts their power, and like the judiciary, they'll grab as much power over us as they can.
We're headed for a very difficult period in the next twenty years. A burgeoning population crisis, water crisis, peak oil and a fuel crisis, are all on the horizon. There's no where to run, no country to escape to this will be everywhere. This is nothing more than our governments tightening their grip in preparation. Really quite sensible from a nepotist's perspective.