An Examination of the European Court of Human Rights' Approach to Overruling its Previous Case Law
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 16765054 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Andrew Mowbray (0000-0002-3667-0706, University of Nottingham, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2009 |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 179-201 |
| Publication date | 2009-01-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Human Rights Law Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1461-7781 • E-ISSN: 1744-1021 |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1093/hrlr/ngp006 |
| OpenAlex | W2064735370 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
The article begins with a consideration of the views of commentators, from both inside and outside the Strasbourg system, as to the nature of precedent within the jurisprudence of the Court. The approach of the original Court is then examined. This is compared with the contemporary case law of the full-time Court and three justifications for overruling established rulings are identified in the modern jurisprudence. Institutional features of the overruling process, including the roles of third parties and Court-directed changes, are addressed. Conclusions are drawn as to the present Court's reluctance to expressly acknowledge that it is overruling established case law and its failure to always provide adequate justifications of the social or scientific developments underpinning its revised jurisprudence.
Court of record · Jurisdiction · Jurisprudence · Law of the case · Original jurisdiction · Political science · Sociology · Underpinning · Engineering · European and International Law Studies · International Law and Human Rights · Law
| Citations per year | 0.18 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2015 - 2019 (5) |
| Highly cited | No |