<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<export-example>
  <doc>
    <id>2251</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2014</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>301</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>325</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <volume>14</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>Oxford Academic</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2017-04-19</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Foxes Guarding the Foxes? The Peer Review of Human Rights Judgments by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe</title>
    <abstract language="eng">This article investigates the reliability of the peer review of human rights judgments by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It argues that, even if composed of politically motivated actors, the Committee is not to be dismissed too cursorily as a deficient and unreliable system of compliance monitoring. Evidence shows that formal and informal institutional constraints, in particular the presence of a strong Secretariat, constrain the propensity to bargain amongst Council of Europe diplomats acting as peers when monitoring the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Our finding runs contrary to the proposition that Europe constitutes a special case of cultural convergence around respect for international human rights law. The article further argues that hybrid models of compliance monitoring which combine political as well as judicial and technocratic elements may be more effective in facilitating human rights compliance than direct international court orders or expert recommendations.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Human Rights Law Review</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="issn">1744-1021</identifier>
    <identifier type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngu007</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Amanda Slater</submitter>
    <author>Anne Koch</author>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>state peer review</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>monitoring compliance with judgments</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>European Convention on Human Rights</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>European Court of Human Rights</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2253</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2013</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>955</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>984</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>3</issue>
    <volume>35</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>The Johns Hopkins University Press</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2017-04-20</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">The social legitimacy of Human Rights Courts: a grounded interpretivist analysis of the European Court of Human Rights</title>
    <abstract language="eng">This article offers an empirically grounded interpretivist theory of the social legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights based on domestic judicial and political elite accounts of the legitimacy of the Court in Turkey, Bulgaria, United Kingdom, Ireland and Germany. The central argument of the article is that the social legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights is based on a constant comparison between the values and goals of domestic institutions and the values and goals of the European Court of Human Rights. More specifically, the social legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights is grounded in the logic of a fair compromise: What actors think they lose by according legitimacy to the European Court of Human Rights must be balanced by what they perceive to gain in return. Three factors organise how actors in different domestic settings struck a fair compromise in their domestic contexts: a) perception of domestic human rights conditions, b) commitment to cosmopolitan ideals of human rights and international law and c) commitment to domestic institutions.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Human Rights Quarterly</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1353/hrq.2013.0057</identifier>
    <identifier type="issn">1085-794X</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Amanda Slater</submitter>
    <author>Anne Koch</author>
    <author>Nicola Bruch</author>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>European Court of Human Rights</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>legitimacy</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>elite opinion</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>interpretivism</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2255</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2010</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>311</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>337</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <volume>35</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2017-04-20</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">The Logics of Supranational Human Rights Litigation, Official Acknowledgment, and Human Rights Reform: The Southeast Turkey Cases before the European Court of Human Rights, 1996-2006</title>
    <abstract language="deu">This article examines the domestic impact of supranational human rights litigation on acknowledgment of state violence in the context of macroprocesses of global governance. The article's argument is that the impact of supranational human rights litigation on the process of acknowledgment must be seen through counternarratives on state violence. The article undertakes a detailed textual analysis of the truth claims and denial strategies that emerged from the European Court of Human Rights proceedings on state violence during Turkey's struggle against the armed group the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). It assesses these in the context of the human rights reforms that were created following pressure from European-level governance processes. The article argues that attention must be paid to agency in acknowledgment and truth-telling processes, and points to the limits of technical-bureaucratic forms of human rights reform interventions in the context of state violence.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Law and Social Inquiry</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="issn">1747-4469</identifier>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1111/j.1747-4469.2010.01187.x</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Amanda Slater</submitter>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Human rights</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>European Court of Human Rights</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Terrorism</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Law reform</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Litigation</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Government reform</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Social law</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>European Council</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Torture</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>4257</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2021</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>895</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>916</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>4</issue>
    <volume>81</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2022-02-04</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">‘To me, fair friend, you can never be old´, William Shakespeare, ´Sonnet 104´: ECHR at 70. Rudolf Bernhardt Lecture, 2020</title>
    <abstract language="eng">This article undertakes a survey of the changes in the structure of the interpretive doctrines of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) over time in an exploration of the aging of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or the Convention) on its 70th anniversary. It argues that the Court’s interpretive doctrines that seek to give due defer ence to national rights traditions, canons and institutions have become increasingly pervasive in the Court’s procedural and substantive case law in the last two decades. This, in particular, has come at a loss for interpretative doctrines that interpret the Convention as a practical and effective living pan-European instrument. This argument is built in four parts. First it offers a defence of why a study of the interpretive doctrines of the Court over time is a good proxy for studying the ECHR’s ageing process. In the second part, it discusses the rich doctrinal forms of due deference and effective interpretation in the case law of the Court – both young and mature. Part three explains how the judicialisation and expansion of the European human rights system in late 1990 s transitioned to a more height ened and sophisticated focus on due deference doctrines in the Court’s case law. Finally, part four examines whether the recent judicial innovations under the Court’s Article 18 case law and the widely celebrated success of increased ownership of the Convention by domestic courts can act as counter points to the argument that the effective interpretation principle has suffered a loss as the Convention has aged, concluding that none of this may offset the fact that the Convention at 70 is more conservative in spirit than its younger self.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="mul">Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht / Heidelberg Journal of International Law</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="url">https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.17104/0044-2348-2021-4/zeitschrift-fuer-auslaendisches-oeffentliches-recht-und-voelkerrecht-heidelberg-journal-of-international-law-volume-81-2021-issue-4</identifier>
    <identifier type="doi">10.17104/0044-2348-2021-4-895</identifier>
    <identifier type="issn">0044-2348</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">publish</enrichment>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Terri Sullivan</submitter>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>European Convention on Human Rights</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>European Court of Human Rights</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>effective interpretation</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>due deference</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="AY" number=""/>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>4258</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2021</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>165</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>179</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <volume>2</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2022-02-04</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">The Council of Europe’s Responses to the Decay of the Rule of Law and Human Rights Protections: A Comparative Appraisal</title>
    <abstract language="eng">This article introduces the Special Issue on ‘The Responses of the Council of Europe to the Decay of the Rule of Law and Human Rights Protections’. The Council of Europe (CoE), a unique international organisation with its commitment to protect and promote human rights, the rule of law, and democracy, has been severely tested by the spread and consolidation of trends posing systemic threats to its foundational goals. The authors of this Special Issue assess how the European Court of Human Rights, the Venice Commission, the Parliamentary Assembly, the Committee of Ministers, and the office of the Secretary General have addressed systemic threats to the foundational principles of the organisation in the last decade. The Special Issue finds that the respective legal-institutional features and capacities of the CoE organs as well as the constraining influence of the broader political context in Europe on them vary significantly, hampering the CoE’s ability to produce timely, consistent, and co-ordinated responses against systemic threats.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">European Convention on Human Rights Law Review</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1163/26663236-bja10027</identifier>
    <identifier type="issn">2666-3236</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">publish</enrichment>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Terri Sullivan</submitter>
    <author>Esra Demir-Gürsel</author>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>democratic backsliding</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Council of Europe</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>European Court of Human Rights</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Venice Commission</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="AY" number=""/>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
</export-example>
