| authors | Buyse, A.C.; Hamilton, M. |
| source | Transitional Jurisprudence and the ECHR. Justice, Politics, and Rights, (2011), pp. 286-300 |
| full text | The full text of this item is not available due to the copyrights policy of the publisher.
|
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| URL publisher | [Website publisher]
|
| document type | Part of book or chapter of book |
| version | Final Author version |
| disciplines | Rechtsgeleerdheid |
| abstract | In traumatic revolutionary events, it is not for the Court to establish, by a
process of divination, when the transitional period is over, or when a state of
national emergency is past and everything is now business as usual.1
This assertion from the dissenting opinion of judge Bonello in the Sejdic and Finci
case of 2009 illustrates that there is discussion within the European Court of Human
Rights on the Court’s role in transitions. Obviously, the situation at hand – the
continuously tense aftermath of the bloody and traumatic war in Bosnia and
Herzegovina – might be a very extreme example, but the wider salience of judge
Bonello’s remark should not be ignored. This book set out to question and analyse to
what extent the European Court has developed a specific transitional jurisprudence.
By looking at a broad range of issues – from freedom of religion to property rights
and from the right to free elections to freedom of expression – a diversified picture
emerges. This chapter draws together common threads from the preceding
contributions and overviews the different settings in which arguments from transition
have been permitted or denied. |
| ISBN | 978-1-10-700301-9 |
