TY - JOUR A1 - De Coninck, Joyce A1 - Vander Maelen, Carl A1 - Bex, Fauve A1 - Dua, Odile A1 - Finnerty, Joseph A1 - Inghelbrecht, Febe T1 - Actualités/News JF - Journal européen des droits de l'homme - European Journal of Human Rights (JEDH) Y1 - 2021 UR - https://www.jurisquare.be/en/journal/jedh/index.html VL - 2021 IS - 4-5 SP - 424 EP - 424 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - De Coninck, Joyce A1 - Vander Maelen, Carl A1 - Bex, Fauve A1 - Dua, Odile A1 - Finnerty, Joseph T1 - Actualités/News JF - Journal européen des droits de l'homme - European Journal of Human Rights (JEDH) Y1 - 2021 UR - https://www.jurisquare.be/en/journal/jedh/index.html VL - 2021 IS - 3 SP - 308 EP - 308 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - De Coninck, Joyce A1 - Vander Maelen, Carl A1 - Bex, Fauve A1 - Van De Velde-van Rumst, Paulien A1 - Dua, Odile A1 - Finnerty, Joseph A1 - Inghelbrecht, Febe T1 - Actualités/News JF - Journal européen des droits de l'homme - European Journal of Human Rights (JEDH) Y1 - 2021 UR - https://www.jurisquare.be/en/journal/jedh/index.html VL - 2021 IS - 2 SP - 206 EP - 206 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - De Coninck, Joyce A1 - Vander Maelen, Carl A1 - Bex, Fauve A1 - Van De Velde-van Rumst, Paulien A1 - Dua, Odile A1 - Finnerty, Joseph A1 - Inghelbrecht, Febe T1 - Actualités/News JF - Journal européen des droits de l'homme - European Journal of Human Rights (JEDH) Y1 - 2021 UR - https://www.jurisquare.be/en/journal/jedh/index.html VL - 2021 IS - 1 SP - 129 EP - 129 ER - TY - THES A1 - Finnerty, Joseph T1 - Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Conservative Contribution to Responding to Authoritarian Practices through International Human Rights Law N2 - Combining dogmatic legal doctrinal and quasi-critical approaches, this dissertation investigates the role that Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights has played in the European Court of Human Rights’ response to authoritarian practices across the Member States of the Council of Europe. Through its examination of 121 Article 18 judgments, the dissertation maintains that the provision has an important role to play in the Court’s response to authoritarian practices. It employs a three-dimensional analytical framework to constructively critique the Article 18 case law in the context of autocratisation across three papers. This framework encompasses the following dimensions of the doctrine: (1) substantive interpretation of Article 18 by the Court (interpretation); (2) the evidentiary approach employed by the Court to determine the existence of ulterior authoritarian purposes under Article 18 (evidence and proof); and (3) the remedies that flow from the identification of ulterior authoritarian purposes under Article 18 (remedies). Each dimension of analysis enables the dissertation to delineate a limiting force, restricting the potential of Article 18 as an effective response mechanism to authoritarian practices. The dissertation further articulates normative recommendations to mitigate or remove these limitations and unlock the full potential of Article 18 in the context of autocratisation. T3 - Dissertations submitted to the Hertie School - 07/2025 Y1 - 2025 UR - https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-59092 U6 - https://doi.org/10.48462/opus4-5909 N1 - Parts of this dissertation have been published: Ch. 2 Finnerty, J., & Çalı, B. (2025). The Travaux Préparatoires and Progressive Treaty Interpretation: Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights. European Journal of International Law, chaf029. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chaf029 Ch. 3 Finnerty, J. (2023). When is a State’s ‘Hidden Agenda’ Proven? The Role of the Merabishvili’s Three-Legged Evidentiary Test in the Article 18 Strasbourg Case Law. European Convention on Human Rights Law Review, 4(4), 447-472. https://doi.org/10.1163/26663236-bja10077 Ch. 4 Finnerty, J. (2024). How Should the European Court of Human Rights Remedy Violations of Article 18 echr? The Case for Remedial Realignment. European Convention on Human Rights Law Review, 5(3), 380-399. https://doi.org/10.1163/26663236-bja10100 N1 - Shelf mark: 2025D007; 2025D007+1 ER - TY - RPRT A1 - Finnerty, Joseph T1 - Juszczyszyn v. Poland: Article 18 ECHR’s conservative contribution to the Polish rule of law crisis T2 - Strasbourg Observer Y1 - 2022 UR - https://strasbourgobservers.com/2022/11/23/juszczyszyn-v-poland-article-18-echrs-conservative-contribution-to-the-polish-rule-of-law-crisis/ ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Finnerty, Joseph T1 - When is a State’s ‘Hidden Agenda’ Proven? The Role of the Merabishvili’s Three-Legged Evidentiary Test in the Article 18 Strasbourg Case Law JF - European Convention on Human Rights Law Review N2 - The increasingly litigated Article 18 ECHR aims at unmasking the ‘hidden agenda’ pursued by states that proclaim to be restricting human rights for legitimate reasons, but in fact do so for an ‘ulterior purpose’. These complaints generate complex evidentiary challenges. This article investigates the evidentiary regime of Article 18 since the delivery of the Grand Chamber Merabishvili v Georgia judgment in 2017. It shows that this regime is composed of a three-legged evidentiary test requiring: (1) that the Article 18 complaint is a fundamental aspect of the case, (2) the identification of an ‘ulterior purpose’, and (3) the predominance of this purpose in the state’s overall motivation. The article argues that this three-stage test is sui generis, despite borrowing elements from evidentiary regimes, both from other Convention provisions and externally, and that it lacks clarity and coherency: facilitating a higher standard of proof for the provision, which largely burdens applicants. Y1 - 2023 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1163/26663236-bja10077 SN - 2666-3228 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Finnerty, Joseph A1 - Çalı, Başak T1 - The Travaux Préparatoires and Progressive Treaty Interpretation: Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights JF - European Journal of International Law N2 - Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has become a central provision employed by the European Court of Human Rights in response to authoritarian practices in Europe over the last decade. Notwithstanding its increased use, important disagreements persist regarding the interpretation of the provision. Analysing the provision’s ordinary meaning, the convention’s travaux préparatoires as a whole and the interpretation of the provision by majority and minority judges of the Court, this article identifies three competing normative models for specifying Article 18’s purpose. Whilst the text is open for Article 18 to address all forms of abuse of power – authoritarian or democratic – the travaux suggest a purpose of detecting emerging authoritarian practices. The majority on the Court’s bench, on the other hand, view Article 18 as a narrow tool to respond to predominant and pronounced authoritarian practices. These normative disagreements are also reflected in concurring and dissenting opinions annexed to Article 18 judgments, with some minority judges defending the narrow normative model and others advocating for a more progressive interpretation, not only on familiar grounds of evolutive interpretation but also because the convention’s history calls for progressive interpretation of this particular provision. Our findings complicate the well-established presumption that progressive interpretation of the convention comes about by treating it as a ‘living instrument’ at the expense of the drafters’ intent, highlighting the turn to ‘progressive originalism’ in the interpretation of Article 18 of the ECHR. Y1 - 2025 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chaf029 VL - 36 IS - 2 SP - 475 EP - 499 PB - Oxford University Press (OUP) ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Finnerty, Joseph T1 - Confronting Authoritarian Practices through Procedural-Based Review: The Case of the Polish Rule of Law Crisis JF - The European Convention on Human Rights Law Review N2 - This article examines how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or Court) has responded to authoritarian practices that seek to undermine judicial independence, particularly in the context of the Polish rule of law crisis. In contrast to the existing scholarly attention to and emphasis on the subjective right to judicial independence and ulterior purpose doctrines as response mechanisms to these particular authoritarian practices, this article finds that the principle of legality, understood as a ‘procedural’ as well as a ‘substantive’ notion under the European Convention on Human Rights, has done most of the heavy lifting in this context. The article argues that the procedural side of this bifurcated approach to legality may be conceptualised as a new form of procedural-based review in the Court’s broader case law, coining the term ‘procedural legality’, and further notes the unexpected role for procedural-based review in the context of autocratisation. Y1 - 2026 UR - https://brill.com/view/journals/eclr/aop/article-10.1163-26663236-bja10150/article-10.1163-26663236-bja10150.xml?language=en&srsltid=AfmBOorTKr_SBuSb4cv2DHk8H41kDM70DWl-sSAJx7BoiQ5oDwxhQd67&ebody=Abstract%2FExcerpt U6 - https://doi.org/10.1163/26663236-bja10150 SP - 1 EP - 25 PB - Brill | Nijhoff ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Finnerty, Joseph T1 - How Should the European Court of Human Rights Remedy Violations of Article 18 ECHR? The Case for Remedial Realignment JF - European Convention on Human Rights Law Review N2 - This article assesses whether the European Court of Human Right’s (Court) remedial reasoning in Article 18 European Convention on Human Rights (Convention) judgments coheres with the Court’s merits-based reasoning finding a violation of this particular provision. Article 18 violations have come to highlight structural problems in state parties, most notably complicity from domestic judiciaries and/or state prosecutors in state efforts to restrict Convention rights for anti-democratic ulterior purposes. The article finds that this substantive feature of Article 18 violations does not generally extend to the Court’s approach to formulating remedies and that the Article 18 violation judgments evidence the same remedial oversight generally present in the Court’s broader case law. The article argues, however, that the Court’s remedial approach in Article 18 violation judgments should be highly prescriptive and specific in respect of both individual and general measures on account of the reality that Article 18 serves both individual and constitutional justice and engages the positive dimension of subsidiarity. Y1 - 2024 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1163/26663236-bja10100 VL - 5 IS - 3 SP - 380 EP - 399 PB - Brill | Nijhoff ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Çalı, Başak A1 - Finnerty, Joseph ED - Istrefi, Kushtrim ED - Ratniece, Zane ED - Kamber, Krešimir T1 - Accessibility of law T2 - The Companion to the European Convention on Human Rights Y1 - 2026 SN - 9789004541559 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004541559 PB - Brill | Nijhoff ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Çalı, Başak A1 - Finnerty, Joseph ED - Istrefi, Kushtrim ED - Ratniece, Zane ED - Kamber, Krešimir T1 - Foreseeability of law T2 - The Companion to the European Convention on Human Rights Y1 - 2026 SN - 9789004541559 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004541559 PB - Brill | Nijhoff ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Çalı, Başak A1 - Finnerty, Joseph ED - Istrefi, Kushtrim ED - Ratniece, Zane ED - Kamber, Krešimir T1 - Quality of law T2 - The Companion to the European Convention on Human Rights Y1 - 2026 SN - 9789004541559 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004541559 PB - Brill | Nijhoff ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Çalı, Başak A1 - Finnerty, Joseph ED - Istrefi, Kushtrim ED - Ratniece, Zane ED - Kamber, Krešimir T1 - Legitimate aim T2 - The Companion to the European Convention on Human Rights Y1 - 2026 SN - 9789004541559 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004541559 PB - Brill | Nijhoff ER -