The UK's engagement with the legal protection of human rights at a European level has been, at varying stages, pioneering, sceptical and antagonistic. The UK government, media and public opinion have all at times expressed concerns about the growing influence of European human rights law, particularly in the controversial contexts of prisoner voting and deportation of suspected terrorists as well as in the context of British military action abroad. British politicians and judges have also, however, played important roles in drafting, implementing and interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights. Its incorporation into domestic law in the Human Rights Act 1998 intensified the ongoing debate about the UK's international and regional human rights commitments. Furthermore, the increasing importance of the European Union in the human rights sphere has added another layer to the relationship and highlights the complex relationship(s) between the UK government, the Westminster Parliament and judges in the UK, Strasbourg and Luxembourg. The book analyses the topical and contentious issue of the relationship between the UK and the European systems for the protection of human rights (ECHR and EU) from doctrinal, contextual and comparative perspectives and explores factors that influence the relationship of the UK and European human rights.

This publication provides a fresh perspective on the litigation of the European Court of Human Rights by focusing upon the role that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play in it. The inspiration for this work was the growing literature that points to human rights as the outcome of political and social struggles. The role that NGOs play in these struggles is well-documented in the context of other international and regional human rights tribunals, but has been less widely written about in the context of the European Court of Human Rights. The Court is typically subject to legalistic, as opposed to socio-political, scrutiny. In this book, the Court's litigation is re-cast as a site where politically motivated actors attempt to affect the meaning that is given to the language of the European Convention on Human Rights and to use the Convention as a mechanism that can contribute to social change. For the purposes of this research, a mixture of quantitative and qualitative research techniques is adopted. These methods facilitate the author's desire to obtain both a de-centered perspective of the Court's functions and a systematic picture of the scale of NGO involvement in the Court's litigation. The core of this work is primarily based on data obtained from a sample of cases in which the Court had delivered judgment, and a plethora of associated materials, including extensive interviews with NGOs that were involved in those cases. Ultimately, this book challenges the idea that the litigation of the Court is bound to the idea of achieving individual justice and highlights the meaningful impact that NGOs have on certain important sections of the Court's litigation.

The study and teaching of international human rights law is dominated by the doctrinal method. A wealth of alternative approaches exists, but they tend to be discussed in isolation from one another. This collection focuses on cross-theoretical discussion that brings together an array of different analytical methods and theoretical lenses that can be used for conducting research within the field. As such, it provides a coherent, accessible and diverse account of key theories and methods. A distinctive feature of this collection is that it adopts a grounded approach to international human rights law, through demonstrating the application of specific research methods to individual case studies. By applying the approach under discussion to a concrete case it is possible to better appreciate the multiple understandings of international human rights law that are missed when the field is only comprehended though the doctrinal method. Furthermore, since every contribution follows the same uniform structure, this allows for fruitful comparison between different approaches to the study of our discipline.

The emergence of feminist rewriting of key judgments has been one of the most interesting recent developments in legal methodology. This unique enterprise has seen scholars collaborate in the 'real world' task of reassessing jurisprudence in light of feminist perspectives. This important new volume makes a significant contribution to the endeavour, exploring how key judgments in international law might have differed if feminist judges had sat on the bench. This collection asks whether feminist perspectives can offer meaningful and viable alternatives to international law norms; and if so, whether that application results in distinguishable differences in outcomes. It answers these questions with particular reference to sources of international law, the public and private divide, State responsibility, State immunities, treaty law, State sovereignty, human rights protection, global governance, and the concept of violence in international law. This landmark publication offers a truly innovative reassessment of international law. Winner of the 2020 ASIL Certificate of Merit for a Preeminent Contribution to Creative Scholarship.

The study and teaching of international human rights law is dominated by the doctrinal method. A wealth of alternative approaches exists, but they tend to be discussed in isolation from one another. This collection focuses on cross-theoretical discussion that brings together an array of different analytical methods and theoretical lenses that can be used for conducting research within the field. As such, it provides a coherent, accessible and diverse account of key theories and methods. A distinctive feature of this collection is that it adopts a grounded approach to international human rights law, through demonstrating the application of specific research methods to individual case studies. By applying the approach under discussion to a concrete case it is possible to better appreciate the multiple understandings of international human rights law that are missed when the field is only comprehended though the doctrinal method. Furthermore, since every contribution follows the same uniform structure, this allows for fruitful comparison between different approaches to the study of our discipline.

The UK's engagement with the legal protection of human rights at a European level has been, at varying stages, pioneering, sceptical and antagonistic. The UK government, media and public opinion have all at times expressed concerns about the growing influence of European human rights law, particularly in the controversial contexts of prisoner voting and deportation of suspected terrorists as well as in the context of British military action abroad. British politicians and judges have also, however, played important roles in drafting, implementing and interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights. Its incorporation into domestic law in the Human Rights Act 1998 intensified the ongoing debate about the UK's international and regional human rights commitments. Furthermore, the increasing importance of the European Union in the human rights sphere has added another layer to the relationship and highlights the complex relationship(s) between the UK government, the Westminster Parliament and judges in the UK, Strasbourg and Luxembourg. The book analyses the topical and contentious issue of the relationship between the UK and the European systems for the protection of human rights (ECHR and EU) from doctrinal, contextual and comparative perspectives and explores factors that influence the relationship of the UK and European human rights.

The emergence of feminist rewriting of key judgments has been one of the most interesting recent developments in legal methodology. This unique enterprise has seen scholars collaborate in the 'real world' task of reassessing jurisprudence in light of feminist perspectives. This important new volume makes a significant contribution to the endeavour, exploring how key judgments in international law might have differed if feminist judges had sat on the bench. This collection asks whether feminist perspectives can offer meaningful and viable alternatives to international law norms; and if so, whether that application results in distinguishable differences in outcomes. It answers these questions with particular reference to sources of international law, the public and private divide, State responsibility, State immunities, treaty law, State sovereignty, human rights protection, global governance, and the concept of violence in international law. This landmark publication offers a truly innovative reassessment of international law. Winner of the 2020 ASIL Certificate of Merit for a Preeminent Contribution to Creative Scholarship.