|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 24, 2010 13:22:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 24, 2010 13:26:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Dec 16, 2010 16:07:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 20, 2010 12:43:52 GMT
I think the first is a bit over-sanguine. My own view is that the ECHR's majority decision represents a salami-slicing tactic (not necessarily consciously seen as such by all those involved); without directly overruling the law it will be redefined in such a way that it is impossible to enforce. I wonder how many countries sided with the dissenting judgement, discussed by Newswhip below. This is a genuinely worrying development; the argument that because very few Council of Europe member states now have a complete ban on abortion this represents a "consensus" which justifies the striking down of the restrictive laws of the minority has been used by the US Supreme Court on a variety of issues in the past. It only really makes sense on he following two assumptions: (a) the member states are subordinate units in a federation rather than truly sovereign (b) the relevant document should be seen in terms of a "living constitution" which automatically changes its meaning in response to shifts in public opinion as discerned by the court. newswhip.ie/national-2/politics/the-echrs-dissenting-judgement-shows-us-how-they-think-and-it-is-strange One other thought; could this decision have been produced if the 1992 or 2002 referenda restricting the scope of the X Case had been carried?
|
|