Postcolonial denial : why the European Court of Human Rights finds it so difficult to acknowledge racism
- Author
- Marie-Benedicte Dembour (UGent)
- Organization
- Abstract
- The European Convention on Human Rights (hereafter, Convention) was signed in 1950 by Western European governments committed to prevent the repetition of the horrors and atrocities of World War II – not to mention the erection of a bulwark against communist Eastern Europe. Admittedly, justice was not originally at the forefront, and has indeed very much remained in the background, of discussions about the Convention system. Nonetheless an implicit narrative has always suggested that the protection of human rights is conducive to the realization of justice. This is clear, for example, in the Convention's Preamble which specifically “reaffirmed” a “profound belief in those fundamental freedoms which are the foundation of justice and peace in the world.” The Preamble referred to “like-minded” governments that shared “a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law.” Not wanting the Convention to be mere words, the members established a system of judicial protection, which was a first in international law. The European Court of Human Rights (hereafter, Court) soon “earned a world-wide reputation for fairness, balance and intellectual rigour” (Harris et al., 1995: vii). This chapter challenges the implicit making of an equation between human rights law and justice by examining a specific area where the record of the Court is anything but strong, that of racial discrimination. In this area, those who have arguably been victims of human rights violations have not met justice at Strasbourg.
- Keywords
- Socio-Legal Studies, Law, Comparative Law, HRC
Downloads
-
(...).pdf
- full text (Published version)
- |
- UGent only
- |
- |
- 52.14 KB
Citation
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication: http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-8658950
- MLA
- Dembour, Marie-Benedicte. “Postcolonial Denial : Why the European Court of Human Rights Finds It so Difficult to Acknowledge Racism.” Mirrors of Justice : Law and Power in the Post-Cold War Era, edited by Kamari Maxine Clarke and Mark Goodale, Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 45–66, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511657511.004.
- APA
- Dembour, M.-B. (2010). Postcolonial denial : why the European Court of Human Rights finds it so difficult to acknowledge racism. In K. M. Clarke & M. Goodale (Eds.), Mirrors of justice : law and power in the post-cold war era (pp. 45–66). https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511657511.004
- Chicago author-date
- Dembour, Marie-Benedicte. 2010. “Postcolonial Denial : Why the European Court of Human Rights Finds It so Difficult to Acknowledge Racism.” In Mirrors of Justice : Law and Power in the Post-Cold War Era, edited by Kamari Maxine Clarke and Mark Goodale, 45–66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511657511.004.
- Chicago author-date (all authors)
- Dembour, Marie-Benedicte. 2010. “Postcolonial Denial : Why the European Court of Human Rights Finds It so Difficult to Acknowledge Racism.” In Mirrors of Justice : Law and Power in the Post-Cold War Era, ed by. Kamari Maxine Clarke and Mark Goodale, 45–66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511657511.004.
- Vancouver
- 1.Dembour M-B. Postcolonial denial : why the European Court of Human Rights finds it so difficult to acknowledge racism. In: Clarke KM, Goodale M, editors. Mirrors of justice : law and power in the post-cold war era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010. p. 45–66.
- IEEE
- [1]M.-B. Dembour, “Postcolonial denial : why the European Court of Human Rights finds it so difficult to acknowledge racism,” in Mirrors of justice : law and power in the post-cold war era, K. M. Clarke and M. Goodale, Eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 45–66.
@incollection{8658950,
abstract = {{The European Convention on Human Rights (hereafter, Convention) was signed in 1950 by Western European governments committed to prevent the repetition of the horrors and atrocities of World War II – not to mention the erection of a bulwark against communist Eastern Europe. Admittedly, justice was not originally at the forefront, and has indeed very much remained in the background, of discussions about the Convention system. Nonetheless an implicit narrative has always suggested that the protection of human rights is conducive to the realization of justice. This is clear, for example, in the Convention's Preamble which specifically “reaffirmed” a “profound belief in those fundamental freedoms which are the foundation of justice and peace in the world.” The Preamble referred to “like-minded” governments that shared “a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law.” Not wanting the Convention to be mere words, the members established a system of judicial protection, which was a first in international law. The European Court of Human Rights (hereafter, Court) soon “earned a world-wide reputation for fairness, balance and intellectual rigour” (Harris et al., 1995: vii). This chapter challenges the implicit making of an equation between human rights law and justice by examining a specific area where the record of the Court is anything but strong, that of racial discrimination. In this area, those who have arguably been victims of human rights violations have not met justice at Strasbourg.}},
author = {{Dembour, Marie-Benedicte}},
booktitle = {{Mirrors of justice : law and power in the post-cold war era}},
editor = {{Clarke, Kamari Maxine and Goodale, Mark}},
isbn = {{9780511657511}},
keywords = {{Socio-Legal Studies,Law,Comparative Law,HRC}},
language = {{eng}},
pages = {{45--66}},
publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}},
title = {{Postcolonial denial : why the European Court of Human Rights finds it so difficult to acknowledge racism}},
url = {{http://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511657511.004}},
year = {{2010}},
}
- Altmetric
- View in Altmetric