Origins, Margins, Ruptures & Continuity
Edited By Victor A Friedman, Goran Janev and George Vlahov
Macedonia and its Questions: Origins, Margins, Ruptures and Continuity is a multi-disciplinary book of 11 chapters, containing contributions that span the fields of linguistics, political science, sociology, history and law. The title of the book purposefully references but simultaneously interrogates and challenges the idea that certain nation-states and certain ethnicities can in some way constitute a "question" while others do not. The "Macedonian Question" generally has the status of a problem that involves questioning the very existence of Macedonians and one of the aims of this volume is to reframe the nature of the discussion.
10. Europe's Margin of Appreciation for Greece: Is it Time for a New Approach?
10.Europe's Margin of Appreciation for Greece: Is it Time for a New Approach?
University of Melbourne
International human rights law has flourished since the end of the Second World War, reaching a notable point in its development with States assigning jurisdiction over the interpretation and application of human rights law to various international, supra-national and regional courts and tribunals. In practice, there exists a form of complementarity between State institutions and international human rights courts. That is, States have primary responsibility for the application of human rights law, whilst the international courts operate as a form of review when domestic efforts have been exhausted and have failed to adequately address the concerns of individuals.
This paper will deal primarily with this second part. In particular, the paper will provide a brief comparative analysis between the judicial methodology employed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR). This analysis will centre on those human rights that provide for certain personal freedoms, such as the right to freedom of assembly, conscience and expression.
Whilst an immense library of scholarly work comparing the two jurisdictional human rights courts exists, in particular addressing their differences and similarities, this paper will devote attention to the main jurisprudential features that distinguishes their respective work. This is a reference to Europe’s doctrine on the ‘margin of appreciation’ and the American Court’s doctrine of ‘control of conventionality’. The explanatory power of these two judicial methodological doctrines, in the human...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.