0

Whereas the EU requires that member states surrender some degree of their sovereignty to Brussels as a condition of membership, the European Convention On Human Rights (ECHR) requires states to adopt in some way the articles of the convention into their law as fundamental rights.

But what extent does it require a state to embrace in its legal system a deference to the convention rights? The U.K. adopts them in a way which is not strictly axiomatic and absolute: the paradigm by which the U.K. adopted them seems to have been devised so as to accommodate the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy.

But what level of deference in member statesm’ legal systems is required by their signing the European convention on human rights?

Improve this question
1
  • 1
    Have you read the Convention? Within it is the answer to your question.
    – Lag
    Commented Jan 28 at 10:32

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

According to Wikipedia:

The convention established the European Court of Human Rights (generally referred to by the initials ECtHR). Any person who feels their rights have been violated under the convention by a state party can take a case to the court. Judgments finding violations are binding on the states concerned and they are obliged to execute them. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe monitors the execution of judgments, particularly to ensure payments awarded by the court appropriately compensate applicants for the damage they have sustained.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .