Chapter 6
In: The Asian Yearbook of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law
Search for other papers by Ignatius Yordan Nugraha in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to explore how the European Court of Human Rights has tackled majoritarian will when dealing with ‘hard cases’ of human rights. Under its jurisprudence, the Court has long relied on the existence of a ‘European consensus’ to interpret the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Court has inconsistently shifted between deference to and rejection of internal consensus, which refers to the prevailing view held by the majority in a particular state. On the one hand, the Court has deferred to an internal consensus that favours restrictions on abortion, but on the other hand, in cases concerning sexual minorities, it has rejected the use of internal consensus to restrict rights. At the same time, with the Court undergoing a procedural turn where the assessment of proportionality is focused on the quality of domestic decision-making rather than a substantive analysis, today the Court is more likely to defer to reasoned and thoughtful internal consensus, which indicates a new Strasbourg-style majoritarian approach to human rights.